Guards on Merseyrail Trains

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dan Carden]

Negotiations are of course critical to resolving the dispute, and I absolutely welcome the new trains. They are long overdue and something the unions have campaigned for. They will be publicly owned by the people of the Liverpool city region and are forecast to be 30% cheaper for the taxpayer than using the failed model of rolling stock leasing companies. ROSCOs are like the loan sharks of the railway, and it is right that they are rejected in Liverpool. The Minister might like to say a few words about why his Department persists in using them across the rest of the rail network.

There is not, however, a binary choice between having our new trains and keeping a fully staffed service. The two are not mutually exclusive. The new carriageless trains, with their more open structure, allow a guard to pass more easily through the length of a train. In fact, Merseytravel originally said it wanted both, because when the new train contract was first announced, Liam Robinson, the chair of Merseytravel, said:

“In an ideal world we’d like to have a second member of staff on every train, but there aren’t the resources to do that.”

I am grateful to Liam for his assistance in the lead-up to this debate.

Local politicians rightly speak up about the pitiful investment in public infrastructure in the north. Tory cuts in revenue support grants to local councils of the city region mean that the local transport levy has been cut by £32 million in real terms, which represents a third of the annual local transport budget being lost. Faced with those cuts, we must defend and maintain the standards we have, protect jobs and passenger safety, and expose unjustifiable profiteering from the travelling public. I will return to the role of local representatives, the transport authority and government later in my remarks, but first let me set out why I believe the first step to resolving the dispute is to agree the principle that keeping the guard on the train is essential, so that we can move to a more constructive debate that looks at solutions.

There are four railway stations in my constituency. The loss of 1,000 police officers and £100 million from Merseyside police’s budget since 2010 has had a devastating impact on our communities and the ability of the police to protect the public. Data released by the British Transport police shows that the number of violent attacks on mainline and underground trains has increased by 12.5% in the past year, with a spike in hate crime. Reported sexual offences on trains have more than doubled in the past five years. Figures obtained under a freedom of information request submitted by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers showed that in the past five years there were more than 1,200 on-train crimes on Merseyrail. The figures also show that almost 900 crimes, or 72%, took place before 8 pm, which was the time at which Merseyrail indicated that it would seek to keep a second, non-safety-critical person on the train. That begs the question that if Merseyrail acknowledges the need for a second person on the train after 8 pm, why not before? Just as the public are more vulnerable to crime when police numbers are cut, when frontline rail staff are removed passenger safety is jeopardised.

A report produced for Merseytravel by Passenger Focus in April 2014, titled “Future Merseyrail rolling stock—what passengers want”, was clear. It emerged that the most important factor identified by passengers was personal security on the train. The report showed that passenger satisfaction with personal security while on the train was high, at 86%, and said:

“this aspect is a strength upon which it is important to maintain focus and development.”

It went on to state that:

“the importance of this measure to passengers suggests that if satisfaction with personal security were to decrease in future, this would likely have a severe negative effect on overall satisfaction with the service as a whole.”

Subsequent polling by Opinium found that 84% of women passengers said that they would feel less safe without a guard, and the figure for people over 55 was 85%. Perhaps the best demonstration of how our guards are valued on Merseyside was the fact that a recent petition gained almost 25,000 signatures. It was started by Merseyrail passenger, Ellie Ward, who was assisted by a guard while in a vulnerable position. The guard took extra steps to make her and other female passengers feel secure.

Too much of the debate so far has focused on issues such as who will operate the doors and whether DOO can safely dispatch a train. I am afraid that these arguments are disingenuous and completely miss the point. Neither the Government nor the train company-financed rail regulators have made any assessment of the additional risk to passengers once the train has left the platform, with or without a guard on board. How can any decision on extending DOO claim to take passenger safety seriously before such an assessment has been made?

Train guards’ safety-critical duties include protecting the train, safely securing the doors, and dealing with emergencies such as derailments, evacuations, fires, driver incapacity and failures of train safety systems. On Merseyrail, following a collision between a train and road vehicle at the Crescent Road level crossing in Southport in August 2016, the guard placed isolating equipment on the track, isolated the electric rail and evacuated passengers to safety, while the driver remained in his cab, leading the communications with signallers. Without a guard on the train, such emergencies would be dealt with by controllers up to 20 miles away speaking to passengers via intercom. It cannot conceivably be argued that that is as safe or safer. There are many more such stories, but as I am pushed for time, I will move on.

Disabled passengers, people with visual or hearing impairments, and people who suffer from anxiety rely on the reassuring presence and practical assistance of staff on platforms and guards during their journey. Merseyrail’s current disabled people’s protection policy states that:

“our on-train staff are trained in the procedures to advise and help you”.

The vital role of the guards is also acknowledged in the Rail Delivery Group’s 2017 report “On Track for 2020? The Future of Accessible Rail Travel”. Moreover, it is worth fighting to keep good jobs for the future. Losing more than 200 secure skilled jobs from essential services is in no way progressive.

Despite several days of strike action, the public still overwhelmingly back the guards. Recent polling shows that 78% of regular passengers oppose the removal of guards from Merseyrail. The entire trade union movement and the north-west TUC support the guards, and the Labour party’s policy is clear: to oppose any extension of DOO. The Welsh Government have now guaranteed a guard on every train for future franchises, and Scotland has made similar long-term arrangements. The shadow Secretary of State wrote to train operators last week to tell them that a Labour Government would halt any plans to extend DOO. Merseytravel’s former chairman, Mark Dowd, remains fully opposed to removing the guards, saying that “common sense should prevail”.

It has never been clearer that we need a new structure for our railways. Labour would take back control by bringing our rail network into public ownership. By reinvesting the revenues that are currently disappearing into shareholders’ pockets, a Labour Government would ensure that we have affordable fares, state-of-the-art trains, safe staffing levels and an end to DOO. We would embrace technology while preserving good, skilled jobs.

This Government, on the other hand, do not have a plan for our rail network. They are writing job cuts into rail contracts, and they stand by as private rail companies mismanage services while making eye-watering profits. Almost a quarter of Merseyrail’s income from passengers is swallowed up in profit. Merseyrail’s owners, Serco and Dutch state-owned Abellio, can expect to pay out average dividends of £6.7 million each. It cannot be fair that profits can be extracted from the travelling public to fund Dutch public railways while our own rail network pays the price by losing guards. Is it too much to ask that they take a smaller slice of the profit so that passengers—who fund their profits, let us remember—might continue to have a safe and secure service?

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the state-owned operator puts guards on its trains in Holland, but proposes to run a service without them on its Mersey franchise?

[Dan Carden]

I find that incredible. It is not good enough for the people of Merseyside to go without guards when companies that profit from the revenue from those people’s tickets provide guards in other countries.

Instead of pushing DOO, the Government could make passenger safety and the provision of safety-critical guards non-negotiable, before profits, at the top of contracts for all rail franchises. Better still would be to scrap the legislation under which only the private sector can run passenger train services. If the Minister wants to argue that this is a devolved issue and he cannot interfere, he must explain why Merseytravel is prohibited from running its trains in the public sector.

Transport in the North

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on securing this debate, which is really important and timely, and thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.

The A19 is one of the principal economic drivers—no pun intended—in my constituency. It is vital for the export-focused manufacturing businesses in my region, particularly Caterpillar, NSK Bearings, and—until it closes just before Christmas—the Walkers potato crisp factory. Many businesses are dependent on a functioning A19, which too often is left at a standstill for hours on end following multiple road accidents, which are almost a daily occurrence. The lack of investment, maintenance and upgrading of this vital economic highway is clearly holding back businesses in my constituency. I have tabled numerous questions on this, and I urge Conservative MPs who want to work co-operatively to sign early-day motion 267. The Government have yet to deliver on a proper investment strategy for this vital road. We need a Government with some foresight who seek to future-proof our infrastructure and support the development of our regional economy. The billions that, as colleagues have mentioned, are being ploughed into Crossrail in London, which already has an embarrassment of riches in terms of excellent public transport links, will see the capital pull further away from the regions, particularly the northern regions.

I welcome the Government’s decision to invest in the new railway station at Horden, which will create much needed links with towns all across the region. However, that needs to be linked with a new fleet of trains and improvements at Seaham station—and of course we need to keep the guard on the train. If we genuinely want to rebalance the economy, an airport congestion charge would help to lower airfares in under-utilised regional airports like our own at Newcastle and Durham Tees Valley while charging a premium to use the most congested and polluting airports like Heathrow. The Metro system is a fantastic service serving the people of Newcastle and Sunderland, but we need it to connect our entire region. I will never stop calling for the Metro to be extended into my constituency. However, this seems like a fanciful dream when we consider that the Government are still haggling over the replacement of the Metro trains, which are 47 years old, and rolling stock that is simply not fit for purpose. The Government need to replace their rhetoric with action.

The north-east is a fantastic region, neglected by Governments who have been unwilling to invest and support a better future. My constituency offers many hidden gems. We have a vibrant and active arts community, with the East Durham Artists Network. There are iconic public artworks such as the Tommy and Marra statues. We have an award-winning heritage coastline, with the England coastal path running through my constituency. There is the local nature reserve in Easington and our ancient woodland of Castle Eden Dene. These are hidden gems, and they will remain so until we have the infrastructure that will connect our past and our heritage to our future.

The north-east and east Durham have the skills, the history and the heritage to succeed in business, manufacturing, and tourism. What we lack is a Government who are committed to delivering real investment for our region. I commend Durham County Council and all the local authorities in the region for working around some of the most difficult budget cuts imposed by central Government, which have disproportionately affected my region and my constituency. The longer we allow the lack of investment to continue, the greater the economic divide between London and the south-east and the rest of the country will become. The Government need to future-proof our infrastructure, invest in our economy and reap the benefits of a more prosperous north-east.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

I can indeed update the House. The Government are committed to ensuring that disabled people have the same access to transport services and opportunities to travel as everybody else in society. We plan to commence sections 165 and 167 of the Equality Act by the end of this year. I was pleased to see that raised in the Lord review, as I have been working on it for some time. Drivers will be required to provide assistance to wheelchair users, and to refrain from charging extra.

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

T7. Will the Minister take the trouble to come to the north- east and take the train from Nunthorpe, Middlesbrough, to Newcastle? Using an ancient Pacer train, it takes almost 90 minutes. The journey might be quicker by bicycle. If we had had a new train every time it was announced that the old ones would be replaced, we would have a whole fleet of them. If the Minister came and got a wiggle on, that might speeds things up a bit.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I think I need a bit of mentoring in the dialect being used this morning. I accept that the last Labour Government did nothing to improve the system in their 13 years. I am glad to say that new trains will be operating on that line by 2020 as a result of a decision that I took, which was to override the advice, and to instruct the permanent secretary that the Pacers would be phased out, and that we would have new trains on the line. I am very proud of that decision.

Cabin Air Safety/Aerotoxic Syndrome

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mrs Gillan.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the debate and all Members who supported the application for one. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) for the professional and comprehensive way he put forward the case, and to the contributions of both Government and Opposition Members, in particular that of the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), who I suspect has not got the credit he deserves for raising the issue. The proposals and suggestions have been extraordinarily helpful, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively.

I must declare my interest as chair of the Unite group in Parliament. I am a proud member of Unite and I feel, as my colleagues do, that this is an important part of the work we do for our members and their families. I also pay tribute to Matt Bass’s parents, Charlie and Fiona, who might be listening to the debate today. I had the great privilege of meeting them and some Unite members who are air crew. At a meeting in Parliament, they relayed to us their personal experiences and concerns.

I thank my trade union, Unite, for its excellent and detailed briefing on such an important issue, and a number of Members have emphasised some specific aspects. It is important to recognise the valuable work of Unite in investigating concerns and protecting passengers and cabin crew from toxic fume events. I am concerned that airlines, regulators and, with due respect to the Minister, Governments do not seem to be terribly active in considering contaminated cabin air.

It would be remiss of me not to remind people—the general public who are listening to the debate or reading it in Hansard—that Unite has established a fume event register and a helpline, which are available through the website. Given the lack of any official reporting, I hope that when air crew and members of the public who are frequent flyers feel that there has been such an incident, they will use the Unite register to report it. We need the evidence and an objective assessment. We need public and cabin crew affected by fume events to come forward and identify them.

If we are not successful in convincing the Government to take action and to investigate the matter fully, we will need evidence because the only other option for people is to seek legal redress. As my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) mentioned, Unite is taking up the case of 61 of our members in relation to this issue. Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) suggested that there was not a causal link between symptoms and exposure, but I am old enough to remember the arguments made against any causal link between smoking and lung cancer, or exposure to asbestos and the development of mesothelioma and asbestosis. I fully understand the reluctance of the industry to have an investigation, because of the potential costs involved, but it is beholden on us and the Minister in particular to look into such a link with all seriousness.

[Jeremy Quin]

I think I might have misheard the hon. Gentleman, but, if not, I would not want the record to suggest that I think there is no causal link—I am concerned that there might be. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) referred to asbestosis and we have also heard about organophosphates. I think there may be a causal link, and I am keen that the precautionary principle applies until we get really hard evidence that there is not. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am genuinely concerned.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention; I did not mean to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman’s position. It is important that we look at evidence. Considerable pressure is building to have a proper investigation and to make an objective assessment as to whether there is a causative link between the symptoms, which are wide and various—I do not propose to go into them again because other Members have already done that—and exposure to toxic air fumes that have come from engines through bleed air systems.

Other Members have referred to the new generation Boeing 787 Dreamliner, which uses bleed-free systems. Those systems are not an industry standard, nor does Boeing’s decision seem to mark the beginning of a transition to a safer system. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, because, apart from anything else, Unite has a substantial number of members involved in the aviation industry—not just flight and aircraft maintenance crew but those working in the manufacture of aircraft components and engines. I do not seek to damage confidence in the industry, but it is important that we ensure that this safety-critical industry enjoys complete confidence and we have those necessary assurances and investigations.

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[Grahame M. Morris]

I will give way to my friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens).

[Chris Stephens]

Is there not also confusion about which body is responsible for occupational health and safety? It seems to be split between the Civil Aviation Authority and the Health and Safety Executive, and that is confusing in terms of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002—the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with them—which the CAA has denied responsibility for.

[Grahame M. Morris]

That is a good point. I hope that the Minister will reflect on it and perhaps refer to it in his response.

I am afraid that we do not have a lot of information on the frequency of these events in the United Kingdom. The much-criticised UK Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment estimated that smoke and fume events are reported by pilots in one in every 100 flights—I think that was previously mentioned—but those are conservative estimates. If there is under-reporting, as many seem to believe anecdotally, that might be another reason why many fume events are not being investigated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) mentioned, it is important to monitor in real time rather than bring portable equipment on to aircraft when they have landed.

I understand that UK fleet figures are not available—if the Minister does have such figures, I am happy to take an intervention from him to put them on the record—but what was initially thought to be quite a rare event anecdotally seems to be happening far too often. Figures available from the United States are quite alarming, although they have many more aircraft and flights. Clearly exposure to contaminated bleed air can have a serious impact on health, particularly for cabin crew, who are at greater risk of exposure and of cumulative effects.

We have already heard about the coroner’s letter following the sad death of pilot Richard Westgate and the regulation 28 report, so I do not intend to go into that. However, it seems to be an omission that there is nothing on the public record. We have heard quotes from the Civil Aviation Authority response to that letter, but we have not seen the full response. The CAA said that

“there is no positive evidence of a link between exposure to contaminants in cabin air and possible acute and long-term health effects”.

Although it did conclude that

“such a link cannot be excluded.”

I am not sure what good that is. It seems to me that this issue is crying out for some further research and evidence so that we can either establish a link or rule it out.

I am prepared to concede that there is a knowledge gap, but the industry and regulators are relying on a system of denial rather than fitting the detection systems required to collect evidence on the true number and concentration of fume events. I do not believe that the industry—or the Government for that matter—would deny the existence of fume events. Again, the Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe they also accept that fume events are detrimental to health. While they may disagree on the extent of such impacts, I ask the Minister to support calls for an independent inquiry into the risks and hazards associated with contaminated air.

We need monitoring and detection systems for cabin air to be introduced so that we can ascertain the true extent of the problem. We also need a better system to diagnose, treat and compensate workers whose health and wellbeing has been compromised and damaged by fume events. Finally, all future aircraft should be designed to be bleed-free. If there is a shred of doubt about there being cumulative, long-term adverse effects on health, surely that is a sensible way to proceed when drawing up design specifications. In the meantime, it is possible to mitigate any effects, perhaps by looking at maintenance schedules, because aircraft that are not maintained to such a high standard are more likely to be subject to fume events as seals go—that is the nature of a mechanical design. Things could therefore be done; indeed, engine oils and hydraulic fluids could be reformulated to minimise potential adverse effects on health.

Ultimately, we need airlines to step up to the plate and accept their responsibilities and duty of care to employees and passengers. If not them, regulators need to demand changes, and detection systems should be fitted to seek further evidence on fume events. If not the airlines or the regulators, the Minister and the Government must take charge. Until such time, I do not believe any of us—the travelling public or indeed air crew—can say with confidence that air travel is completely risk-free and that fume events are not a risk to public health.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)]

I do not think that any other Members are seeking to catch my eye, so we will move to the wind-ups.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

The Minister is making a good point. In fact, the issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). Does he accept that the problem is the regular, continuous exposure to various levels, whereas sheep dipping, even though it was done without proper protection initially—he can correct me if I am wrong—would presumably be for a limited period? It would not be every day in someone’s working life on the farm.

[Mr Goodwill]

I will go on to describe the levels that those in aircraft cabins are likely to be exposed to under normal operations when a fume event has not taken place. However, as I was saying, neither of my two friends who are suffering from career-finishing symptoms—they are not able to work—had been involved in either the aviation industry or in agriculture. I suspect that if they had been involved in agriculture, I would have been asking questions about whether their exposure to sheep dip or to other agrochemicals may have been to blame. Similarly, if they had been in the aviation industry, I would perhaps be asking the same questions.

The Government take the health and air safety of passengers and crew extremely seriously. The United Kingdom is recognised throughout the global aviation community for its high standard and excellent record of safety in commercial aviation. I must make it clear that the Government must always act on evidence and we have over the years worked hard to collect evidence, as did the previous Government when the problem first came to public awareness. There has been much public debate about the issue as so many people are aware of the problem.

There are currently two inquests into deaths where the relatives of the deceased are trying to establish whether contamination by cabin air could have been the cause of death. Both inquests are still open, and in both cases the CAA rather than my Department has been named as an interested party. Both of the deceased were employed by the same airline, and so far the evidence that has been gathered does not support the view that the deaths were connected to contamination of cabin air.

In the case of Richard Westgate, the Dorset coroner’s January pre-inquest review has been adjourned to 30 March 2016 to allow time for medical experts’ reports to be submitted, but he did release a prevention of future deaths report in 2014, which some have taken as a signal that the death might be attributed to contamination of cabin air. However, there was no evidence to suggest that this was the case, and we await the full inquest verdict with a great deal of interest.

In the case of Matt Bass, who has been mentioned during this debate and whose case is before the Berkshire coroner, the January pre-inquest review has been adjourned until 15 June 2016 to allow time to locate medical samples and to instruct the experts. I offer my deepest sympathies to the families and friends of the deceased, but, as the two inquests have not been concluded, it would not be appropriate for the Government to comment in further detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Certainly the CAA is involved in this. I meet regularly with the unions involved, particularly BALPA, so it is not something that we are trying to shuffle away, but we need to wait for the result of the inquest before we report on these particular cases. I will go on to present various pieces of evidence and show where we are on this important matter. I will talk about what work has already been done and what work we believe needs to be done.

The safety of cabin air is an issue that has been a matter of public debate over several years—in fact, over a decade now. This continues to be the case, and I, together with my noble Friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, have received a considerable amount of correspondence and responded to several parliamentary questions on cabin air quality. As background, some crew and passengers have expressed concerns that they have suffered long-term health impairment, which they contend is due to exposure to organophosphates present in small amounts as additives in aviation engine oils and hydraulic fluids.

As ever, we have to be careful to have regard to whether there is evidence to support the link between the illnesses and cabin air. That is why the concerns have been investigated at length over a number of years. In 2006 the previous Government arranged for the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment—an independent advisory committee of toxicology experts—to review evidence from the British Airline Pilots Association. At the time, the Committee on Toxicity considered that it was not possible to conclude whether cabin air exposures in general, or following incidents such as fume events, cause ill health in commercial aircraft crews. It recommended further work to ascertain whether substances in the cabin environment could potentially be harmful to health.

A second inquiry was held by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, which looked into this issue as part of a wider inquiry in 2007, and published its findings in a report called “Air Travel and Health”. In that report, the findings of the Committee on Toxicity were supported. Following the recommendation in 2007 by the Committee on Toxicity, the Government commissioned a series of scientific studies as part of a research programme on cabin air. The principal research study, which was carried out by Cranfield University, was published in 2011. It found that, with respect to the conditions of flight experienced during the cabin air sampling, there was no evidence of pollutants occurring at levels exceeding health and safety standards and guidelines. Levels observed in the flights that formed part of the study—I stress that they did not include an instance of an oil seal failing—were comparable to those typically experienced in domestic settings. No higher levels of exposure were found than, for example, we would experience in this Chamber.

In addition to the principal study, three further research studies were commissioned and published by the Government. Those four published studies were formally submitted to the Committee on Toxicity for consideration in 2012. The Committee considered the research reports, as well as other research published in the scientific literature since 2007, and subsequently published a position paper on cabin air in December 2013.

I have recently written to several Members of Parliament regarding the findings of the Committee’s position paper. In that letter, which was also placed in the Libraries of both Houses, I summarised the advice the Committee gave and its conclusions. In short, the paper recognises that contamination of cabin air by components or combustion products of engine oils does occur, and that episodes of acute illness have occurred shortly after such episodes. However, it found that levels of chemicals in bleed air would need to occur in far higher concentrations than those found during the studies to cause serious toxicity, and that the symptoms that have been reported following fume events have been wide-ranging, and less specific than those that typically occur from chemical toxicity.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to the Minister, who is being characteristically generous in giving way. Is there not a basic flaw in that suggestion, if we do not count incidents? Could it be that in some older aircraft that may not be maintained to such a rigorous standard, air fume events are more frequent? Is that not a possibility, if we do not do a proper investigation, in situ, in real time?

[Mr Goodwill]

That is a very reasonable point to make. The findings have been made by professional toxicologists, whose job it is to analyse the effects of toxic compounds in a variety of locations, including the workplace. I shall come on to talk about the number of so-called fume events, and I have some evidence from the CAA to put it in context.

London Black Cabs

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and will be coming to that point.

Before I move on to the steps we need to take on regulation, we should acknowledge that black cabs are already adapting and changing fast. From 2018, all new black cabs will be zero-emission capable, helped by £8,000 grants from the Mayor. The cost to drivers will be no greater than that of buying conventional cars, but the cost of managing the cars will be much lower because they will be independent of fuel and will be able to fuel their cars electrically. That change has been very much welcomed by the drivers I have spoken to. Incidentally, the first motor cabs, which arrived in 1897, were electric, so we are seeing a neat ecological full circle—we are experiencing the circle of life right here in London with our black cabs. Many drivers are also using new booking apps, some of which are very innovative. For example, some help passengers to share journeys; others enable serious discounts over longer distances.

I do not believe that on their own those changes will be enough, however. We need to find a way to maintain the two-tier system distinguishing between cabs and taxis that has worked well in London for over 50 years.

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

I apologise for arriving late and congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I was listening carefully to what he said about improvements to air quality. Does he acknowledge that the huge influx of minicab drivers and Uber drivers has had a really negative effect not just on air quality but on congestion in central London?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and will be making a similar point shortly. We need to look at that issue.

The bottom line is that we need to find a way of maintaining the two-tier system. I know that some within the black cab trade are calling for a mandatory five-minute period between booking and pick up to try to maintain the divide. I understand why that would work, and there is a strong case for it, but I worry that it would alienate—even infuriate—customers, who would not understand why it was happening. I understand that a similar mechanism has been brought in in New York, and there has been a considerable customer backlash there, which has been felt by the Mayor, who introduced the scheme, and whose popularity has been collapsing as a consequence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

Consumers may think it is great to get cheap meat, until they realise it is horse meat; they may think it is great to get a cheap builder, until the house falls down; they may think private hire vehicles are cheap but, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, they want to feel safe. We need to make sure that drivers speak basic English, have basic geographical knowledge and are properly insured. Choice is important, but the job of parliamentarians, and of those who aspire to be the Mayor of London, is to make sure that there is proper regulation of those who run public transport—and I consider black cabs and private hire vehicles a form of public transport.

The key answers that we need are not platitudes; we need to know what Government and those who run TfL can do. I have several questions for the Minister.

[Grahame M. Morris]

My right hon. Friend is making important points. We accept that there is a need to balance the interests of consumers with the Rolls-Royce service that we enjoy through the black cab industry, but does he agree on the fundamental need for a legal definition of private hire, to distinguish between that and hackney carriages? There may well be a role for Parliament in that, and it is another example of deregulation being a good thing. We can still innovate—and black cab drivers are indeed doing that in zones 1 and 2, through the introduction of the new app—without the need for the five-minute gap that was tried in New York. There is a balance to be struck, and I wonder if my right hon. Friend agrees.

[Sadiq Khan]

My hon. Friend is right. I made that point earlier in an intervention. We have had innovation in technology, but what my hon. Friend has described requires innovation in regulation. I do not mean a race to the bottom; I think that a levelling up rather than levelling down is required.

Does the Minister agree with criticisms of TfL that it failed to carry out proper licensing and enforcement functions in relation to the hire market? Does he agree with the hon. Member for Richmond Park and me that the Government should introduce legislation containing a clear definition to protect the distinction between taxis and private hire vehicles? Is he aware of the concerns raised by the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association that TfL may wrongly have licensed Uber in 2012, not fully understanding its methods of operation, and that it now has concerns about revocation, for fear of paying compensation? If the Minister thinks new legislation is required, will he consider whether it should include limits on the number of private hire vehicles in London, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Richmond Park and I have given, to do with congestion, pollution and illegal parking? Does he agree that any legislation should, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) mentioned, require any licensed operators to have a UK tax liability? Also—and this is probably the most important issue for black cab drivers—would the new legislation define plying for hire?

What reforms is the Department for Transport considering to secure a fairer system for London’s cabbies and a better service for passengers—an important consideration at the core of this issue? Would that include a clear distinction between the working practices for black cabs and private hire vehicles? Finally, we understand the temptation for Ministers to meet celebrities and for the Mayor of London to meet Joanna Lumley; but roughly how many times have the Minister, other Transport Ministers or the Mayor had meetings with the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association or black cab drivers’ representatives such as Unite, GMB and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers?

The hon. Member for Richmond Park deserves our thanks for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. He has raised important issues, as I hope I have, and it is important that the Minister and the current Mayor respond. If they do not, the next Mayor will.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing the debate and on the contributions that he and many other hon. Members, on both sides of the Chamber, have made. I mention in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). Like him, I suspect that this is the first of many debates that he will have with the hon. Member for Richmond Park. They were in agreement on the matter, and the consensus across the Chamber has been remarkable. I hope that the Minister bears that in mind when he replies to the debate.

Today’s debate concerns something fundamental for London, as many hon. Members have said, namely the future of black cabs in the capital. It is clear that existing regulation is insufficient to deal with the changes. That point has been made by the hon. Member for Kensington (Victoria Borwick) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Tooting and for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—he made an excellent speech—and it has been recognised north of the border by the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald). Although black cabs are regarded as having some of the highest safety and accessibility standards for taxis anywhere in the world, the phenomenon of ride-sharing schemes and taxi apps has made it clear that regulation has simply not kept pace with the changes. That gives us a choice about how we cope with those changes and regulatory challenges.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Although I acknowledge that the subject of the debate is black cabs in London, I attended, along with other hon. Members, a national lobby of Parliament expressing the concerns about the matter across the midlands and in a number of the great cities in the north. This is a problem that we will all face, even if we do not face it immediately. Is it not a good time, as a Parliament, to look at the legal definition of plying for hire and to resolve the matter not only in London, but across the whole United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing this debate on London’s famous and wonderful black cabs. This topic has been the subject of a previous debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), so I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park for continuing to highlight the contribution of London taxis to the economy and transport network of this great city and the issues that the industry faces.

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, although the Government are responsible for creating the legislative framework within which local licensing authorities license taxis and private hire vehicles, responsibility for licensing in London rests with TfL. It is TfL’s responsibility to decide who is a suitable person to hold a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence, or a private hire operator’s licence, and for ensuring that all its licensees comply with the rules and regulations that govern the industry. I understand his desire to raise his concerns in the House but, as licensing is TfL’s responsibility, some of the points raised today are TfL’s responsibility, so I might not be able to address all those points.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the Minister acknowledge the contributions made by Members on both sides of the Chamber? We have highlighted problems that are likely to manifest in other parts of the country and, in fact, are already manifesting in the midlands and in some northern cities. Similar problems are likely to arise in Scotland. Do the Government not have a responsibility to legislate in anticipation of those problems to introduce appropriate redress?

[Andrew Jones]

I recognise the excellent contributions made by Members on both sides of the Chamber. Some of those points will apply across our country, but this debate is about the future of London’s black cabs. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I will address the Law Commission later in my speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

That smacks of a mayoral hustings debate rather than a Westminster Hall debate. The legislative framework is complicated and technology is changing. The Government took action by commissioning this complicated work from the Law Commission. That work is currently being digested and the Government will respond shortly. I cannot provide a date for the response, but the work is important and will provide security and clarity not only for TfL, but right across the country. That has been understood, and voices from across the House have made that clear this morning.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park may be aware that TfL recently completed its own consultation on the regulations that govern private hire vehicles in the capital. That came in response to developments in the industry that I have described, including advances in technology and changes in how people engage and use private hire services. The proposed revisions to the regulations will be known later this year, and some of TfL’s proposals may address concerns raised this morning.

I was asked several specific questions, which I will try to address now, although I have already answered some of them. On whether plying for hire has been defined, the Law Commission addressed creating such a statutory definition, but it came to the view, after careful consideration, that a statutory definition would not be a practical improvement on the current position. As for Ministers meeting celebrities, the Minister responsible for transport in London is in a Delegated Legislation Committee this morning, which is why I am covering this debate—

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the Minister take a brief intervention on his previous point?

[Andrew Jones]

I am slightly running out of time, but I will give way.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Regarding the Minister’s remark about the Law Commission and the statutory definition of plying for hire, given rapid technological advancements such as the Uber app and the complications that they are causing, does he recognise that the Law Commission advice is perhaps out of date? Is it not worth the Government considering the matter again?

[Andrew Jones]

There may be ways of addressing some of those issues, such as providing a definition of a lawful pre-booking, which will perhaps achieve the same objective. The Government’s response to the Law Commission is still a work in progress. We recognise its importance, and I am happy to commit to maintaining the Department’s energy in delivering it.

I cannot comment on Ministers meeting celebrities— I have not met any—so I cannot really add to that. Do I agree with the comments about TfL’s actions as a licensing authority? That is up to TfL and the scrutiny of Assembly Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park mentioned price surging, and I will certainly write to TfL to highlight that point and to ask it to investigate. The same applies to the points made about predatory pricing. The key thing will be to start collecting evidence—if, indeed, this practice is taking place—so that we can make insightful comments. I have already commented on capping numbers.

On the regulation of fares, TfL is the licensing authority and has the power to set fares for London taxis. That regulation is an important element of consumer protection in the hail-and-rank market. TfL has no power to set private hire fares, which are set by the licensed operators. When booking a private hire vehicle, customers can shop around in advance and obtain a quote or estimate for a journey, which is why the regulatory authority sets no price constraint.

In conclusion, the Government are fully aware of the changes and challenges affecting the taxi and private hire vehicle industry in London and elsewhere in the country. The challenges include not only new technology and increased competition, but the need to ensure that vehicles play their part in improving air quality. The London taxi trade has rightly recognised such challenges, and I have recently been advised of a new campaign launched by trade bodies to promote London’s taxis. I believe the reputation of the London taxi trade and its high-quality service mean that it is well placed to continue to compete in this changing market and have a strong and healthy future. That is what I want, and that is clearly the view of the House this morning.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of black cabs in London.

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.