Easter Adjournment

Debate between Ian Mearns and Natascha Engel

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Mearns]

It is indeed, and I will come on to that in a moment.

The NCS in my constituency is already oversubscribed for the summer placements on this year’s programme, and the young people who have been involved are a credit to my constituency.

The Gateshead millennium bridge is a magnificent feat of engineering, and it truly is an iconic landmark. On the Newcastle side of the bridge is a glass structure upon which the words “Gateshead millennium bridge” are emblazoned. On the Newcastle side of the river is a little piece of Gateshead in a foreign land that will be for ever Gateshead. A bridge that has, by its very nature, managed to secure a foothold for Gateshead on the Newcastle side of the river is an impressive achievement. Some Members will appreciate the importance of that to those of us from the Gateshead side.

I also continue to chair the governing body of one of my local primary schools, Kelvin Grove. The school, in the heart of Bensham, Gateshead, was rated good by Ofsted only a couple of months ago. Gateshead has an array of cultures within its population, and a significant proportion of students have English as a second language. At the last count, a total of 27 different languages were spoken by pupils at that school, and I am sure Members will agree that, although the mix of languages poses difficulties and complexities for the learning environment, there is no doubt that such diversity also has a significant positive effect on the education of all our young people in that neighbourhood. It is a great place to live in many respects.

There are further funding cuts to education, persistent problems in the NHS across the country, which we heard about over the winter, and the localisation of business rates. That localisation will have a negative impact on regions such as the north-east of England, where the 12 local authorities will lose some £300 million whereas Westminster, if we believe the figures published last year, will on its own gain more than £400 million, so we can see how it will have a different impact in different parts of the country. With all that happening, my constituents have little hope of benefiting from some of the measures of prosperity that we are told other parts of the country are currently enjoying or will enjoy. The Prime Minister pledges to have a country that “works for everyone” but, sadly, our definition of “everyone” varies somewhat, because the impacts of what is going on are very different in different places.

I have highlighted and will continue to highlight some of these injustices in this House and to anyone else who can understand what I am saying, but now I wish to take the opportunity to highlight some of the great things happening in Gateshead, despite some elements of Government policy that are having a detrimental impact on us. With colleagues from the Select Committee on Education, I had the pleasure of visiting Gateshead College in my constituency a couple of weeks ago. Despite significant cuts to funding for further education, Judith Doyle, the principal, and her team have ensured that Gateshead College remains one of the best further education colleges in the country, and only last year it was rated as “outstanding” by Ofsted. It is imperative in communities like Gateshead that we have institutions that have the ability to train our future workforce, in an environment that gives our young people the best opportunity to succeed going forward into their working life. Gateshead College, with its rich and diverse offer, is a fine example of this, and I am proud to have it in my constituency and to represent it.

Turning back to local government for a moment, significant cuts to the revenue support grant have forced local authorities to come up with ever more creative ways to plug the holes in their budgets and help grow the local economy. I was delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman)—visit Gateshead earlier this month to open the new £18 million Gateshead district energy centre, which uses cutting-edge technology to recycle heat from the energy generation cycle, using it to heat homes and businesses and water throughout the centre of Gateshead. It is hoped that the scheme will provide local homes and businesses with affordable energy, as well as making Gateshead an attractive place for new businesses to invest, taking advantage of the lower energy costs. I hope that all hon. Members will join me in congratulating Gateshead Council on taking the bold step to self-fund the entire project, for the benefit of local residents, businesses and employers.

In Gateshead, my constituents are very fortunate, as we have a fantastic hospital trust, operating out of the Queen Elizabeth hospital, which provides excellent service and care for all of its patients. I wish to place on record my thanks to not only the staff at the Queen Elizabeth hospital, but all staff in the NHS across Gateshead and the north-east for their unreserved commitment and dedication to ensuring that every person of every background is afforded the care that they very much deserve. Colleagues will be aware that I, too, have had to use the services of the NHS in my constituency, and on a personal note I would like to place on the record my thanks to my GP, Dr Ruth Bonnington, and my physiotherapist, Shane Ryan, for greatly accelerating my recovery from the slipped disc I suffered some weeks ago. Without their care and attention, I would not be here to make this contribution today.

Finally, I wish to pay tribute to the outstanding work that the voluntary sector does on a daily basis to help my constituents who often have nowhere else to turn. Whether it be in dealing with benefit sanctions, homelessness or illness, organisations such as the Gateshead citizens advice bureau, Barnardo’s, the Trussell Trust, the Gateshead food bank, and many more organisations and individuals across Gateshead, put their lives on hold to ensure that those most vulnerable in our communities receive the help and support they most desperately need. They are the real unsung heroes in our communities, and I would like to thank them for everything they do.

The north-east has a proud track record of donating to charity, despite the relatively low incomes people live on there. Our record on donating to things such as red nose day or Children in Need shows that we often exceed the national body’s expectations. Despite low incomes and indeed poverty, we have very successful food bank collections. The points are often overflowing with food, which has often been donated by families who are struggling themselves. Sadly, despite the generosity of my constituents and others across the north-east, organisations providing often vital support to those most in need continue to find themselves short of resources. So as much as my constituents already give, I ask them from the Floor of the House of Commons to carry on and give more—it is needed.

As I open the debate, I look forward to the speeches of hon. Members from both sides of the House. Before I finish, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you, the staff of the House and all hon. Members a very happy Easter?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Thank you. As in the previous debate, if Members stay within an eight-minute limit, everyone will be able to get in and there will be plenty of time for wind-ups. That is not an imposed limit, just guidance for Members.

Bus Services Bill [Lords]

Debate between Ian Mearns and Natascha Engel

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Mearns]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 14, in clause 4, page 14, line 13, at end insert—

“(2A) A franchising scheme may not be made unless the franchising authority can demonstrate that the benefits for passengers could not be provided by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership scheme or an enhanced partnership scheme.”

This amendment would ensure that a Local Transport Authority cannot make a franchise scheme if the passenger benefits can be provided by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership scheme or an enhanced partnership scheme.

Amendment 16, page 15, leave out line 36 and insert—

“(3) A franchising authority or authorities shall consider an assessment and shall not proceed with the proposed scheme unless it is satisfied that—”

This amendment and amendments 17 to 23 would tighten the criteria against which an authority must consider a franchise proposal.

Amendment 17, page 15, line 37, leave out “whether”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.

Amendment 18, page 15, line 43, leave out “whether”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.

Amendment 19, page 16, line 1, at beginning insert “they know”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.

Amendment 20, page 16, line 3, leave out “whether”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.

Amendment 21, page 16, line 5, leave out “whether”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.

Amendment 22, page 16, line 7, leave out “the extent to which”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.

Amendment 23, page 16, line 7, leave out “are likely to” and insert “will”.

This amendment is related to amendment 16.

Amendment 15, page 16, line 9, at end insert—

“(g) the specific passenger benefits that would result from a franchise scheme, with an explanation of why those benefits could not be delivered by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership scheme or an enhanced partnership scheme.”

This amendment would require a franchise assessment to specify the benefits of the proposed scheme for passengers and to explain why these benefits cannot be delivered by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership scheme, or an enhanced partnership scheme.

Amendment 24, page 16, line 9, at end insert—

“(g) whether the proposed scheme would be more efficient, effective and economic than any other option, taking into account any compensation payable to bus operators whose businesses would be wholly or partially expropriated by the scheme.”

This amendment would ensure that the value for money test of a franchise scheme must factor in the cost of compensation to bus operators who lose part or all of their business as a result of a franchise.

Government amendments 2 to 4.

Amendment 25, page 17, line 7, at end insert—

“(3A) A person may not act as an auditor under this section if the person or company for whom the person is employed has been an auditor for the franchising authority at any time in the previous five years or has had any other commercial relationship with the franchising authority at any time in the previous five years.”

This amendment would ensure that any auditor appointed by the franchising authority had no commercial interest or association with the franchising authority which might create, or might be perceived to create, a conflict of interest.

Government amendment 5.

Amendment 6, page 19, line 37, at end insert—

“(4A) An award of any new franchise or contract shall not be made on the basis of labour costs estimated by the potential franchisee or contractor assuming labour costs for new employees at less than the labour cost of workers who are covered by TUPE protections in accordance with section 123X transferring to the new franchisee or contractor.”

This amendment would ensure that any new franchise or contract will not be awarded on the basis of estimated labour costs being lower for new employees than the labour cost of workers covered by TUPE protections.

Amendment 26, page 20, line 24, after “(or further postponed)” insert “or cancelled”.

Amendment 27, page 20, line 24, at end insert—

‘(1A) If an authority or authorities decide to cancel a proposed franchising scheme under subsection (1) they may not initiate a revised or alternative franchising scheme until the end of the period of five years beginning with the date on which the decision to postpone the original scheme was taken.”

This amendment would provide greater certainty for bus operators and passengers by specifying that, if a franchising authority fails to make a case for a franchise scheme or decides not to progress its proposals, it should not be permitted to bring forward fresh proposals for five years.

Amendment 7, page 30, line 2, leave out “at the same time,”.

Amendment 8, page 30, line 14, leave out “at the same time”.

Amendment 9, page 32, line 27, at end insert—

“123Y Employees not covered by TUPE protections

Employees of local bus service providers who are not covered by TUPE protections may not be employed on terms and conditions less favourable than those provided by TUPE.”

This amendment would ensure that employees working under local service contracts not covered by TUPE protections may not be employed on terms and conditions less favourable than those provided by TUPE.

Amendment 10, page 32, line 27, at end insert—

“123Z Effect on employees of introduction of local service contract

(1) Where, either before or after the introduction of a local service contract following an assessment under section 123B, any employee of an operator in the area to which the scheme relates is dismissed, that employee is to be treated for the purposes of Part 10 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as unfairly dismissed if the sole or principal reason for the dismissal is the introduction of the relevant local service contract.

(2) Paragraph (1) applies whether or not the employee in question was part of an organised grouping of employees principally connected with the provision of local services, under section 123X(4).

(3) Where section 123X(4) applies, a new operator may not engage employees or workers on terms and conditions less favourable than those of the employees whose employment transferred from the former operator.”

This amendment would make dismissal of an employee for the sole or principal reason of the introduction of a franchising scheme automatically unfair dismissal.

Amendment 28, in clause 9, page 41, line 17, at end insert—

“(6A) The requirements that may be specified under subsections (4)(b), (4)(e) and (4)(h) in relation to fares and the prices of multi-operator tickets may only be specified if all operators party to the enhanced partnership scheme are in agreement with those requirements.”

This amendment would specify that fares structures could only be specified as part of an enhanced partnership scheme if the operators involved agree.

Amendment 11, page 57, line 3, leave out “at the same time,”.

Amendment 12, page 57, line 14, leave out “at the same time,”.

Amendment 13, page 59, line 42, at end insert—

“138T Effect on employees of introduction of enhanced partnership scheme or plan

(1) Where, either before or after the coming into force of an awarded contract in an area to which the relevant enhanced partnership scheme relates, any employee of an operator in the area to which the contract relates is dismissed, that employee is to be treated for the purposes of Part 10 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as unfairly dismissed if the sole or principal reason for the dismissal is the introduction of the awarded contract.

(2) Paragraph (1) applies whether or not the employee in question was part of an organised grouping of employees principally connected with the provision of local services, under section 138S(4).

(3) Where section 138S applies, a new operator may not engage employees or workers on terms and conditions less favourable than those of the employees whose employment transferred from the former operator.”

This amendment would make dismissal of an employee for the sole or principal reason of the award of a contract under an enhanced partnership scheme automatically unfair dismissal.

[Ian Mearns]

I declare an interest inasmuch as I am chair of the RMT parliamentary group and vice-chair of the Unite parliamentary group, both of which unions have members in the bus industry.

The transport sector is a safety-critical environment. This is not a loose use of language. The sector involves carriages travelling at speed, individuals working long hours on repetitive tasks on repetitive routes, and people maintaining equipment at all hours of night and day. Hard lessons have been learned following a series of fatal road and rail crashes in the 1980s and 1990s. However, continuing financial pressures, declining support from Government through the bus service operators grant, and commercially oriented initiatives towards potentially reducing staff could threaten safe working practices.

Bus drivers are aware of where corners are being cut. In theory, they may be empowered to use their employers’ whistleblowing policies to speak out. In practice, however, workers who do so are frequently subject to all sorts of pressure and have been known to be dismissed for whistleblowing. This invariably leads to serious safety failings being increasingly ignored and not adequately investigated, or the results of an investigation not being acted on by bus companies.

To counter the dysfunction, a confidential reporting service known as CIRAS was introduced. This system, initially only for rail, has been successful in enabling workers properly to ventilate their concerns, resulting in lessons being learned and an accumulation of failings being halted, with serious harm prevented. All the major rail companies, many of which also own bus companies, such as FirstGroup, Go-Ahead Group and Stagecoach, have signed up to CIRAS.

I should declare another interest inasmuch as I am a frequent user of my local bus services in Gateshead, as I do not own a car. A very good bus service is provided by Go-Ahead Group in my locality, but unfortunately not all my constituents can benefit from such great services. The bus company tries its best and provides excellent bus services during the peak hours, but as the evening goes on, unfortunately, their frequency dwindles.

Bus workers outside London should also be able to access CIRAS. That would be the effect of the new clause, which would reproduce CIRAS in franchises or quality partnerships. In response to a spate of deaths and serious injuries involving buses on London’s roads, Transport for London successfully extended the CIRAS scheme to London buses. London has one of the best resourced bus networks and some of the newest buses anywhere in the country. CIRAS itself supports the extension of the scheme to bus operators nationwide. In line with other aspects of the Bill—including matters unconnected to franchising and partnerships, such as audio and visual announcements—a nationally mandated approach is warranted and would be greatly desirable.

Atos Work Capability Assessments

Debate between Ian Mearns and Natascha Engel

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and thank him for bringing this debate to the Backbench Business Committee. We were delighted to schedule it, and the number of Members present from both sides of the House demonstrates the importance of this issue mainly from a constituency perspective. I, like all other Members, have received a huge amount of correspondence about awful, tragic cases of individuals who have been badly treated by Atos during their work capability assessments.

The fault lies not with Atos, but with its employer, which, in this case, is the Department for Work and Pensions. When we look at the other employers for which Atos works, such as Royal Mail and the NHS, we see numerous cases of people who have been signed off work—not just their current work, but for any work ever again, with a recommendation that they be retired from all kinds of work—going back to Atos, but this time when it is employed by the DWP, and being assessed as entirely fit for work. They get no points and are deemed fit for work. As my right hon. Friend said, the number of people who are not just not fit for work but who die after being assessed as fit for work, is a reflection not of Atos but of the DWP. That is where the questions need to be asked.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that in Gateshead, of the 1,400 cases taken to appeal by the citizens advice bureau, more than 1,200 were successful. I am worried about the CAB’s lack of capacity to deal with other cases that it could have taken but which have been unsuccessful because they were not advocated at tribunal.

[Natascha Engel]

I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point as I want to come to that.

The proportion of original Atos decisions that are overturned is shocking—it is about 30% or 40%. I would be grateful if the Minister replied to that point. Precisely how many people deemed fit for work by Atos have their decisions overturned on appeal and are signed off work? I have asked about that in the past. The number is very high, but I would like to have the precise figure.

The welfare rights organisations dealing with the people who are being deemed fit for work—for instance, the unemployed workers centre in Derbyshire and the CAB—are swamped at the same time as they are having their funding cut. Not only are they swamped with work, but volunteers are leaving in droves because they cannot cope with the amount of work and the stress of seeing all these cases.

How many people deemed fit for work who do not take their cases to appeal then find work? As has been said, the employment situation, especially the further north we go in the country, gets worse and worse. In my constituency, there are 15 people applying for every job. Is it really for the best to sign people as fit for work when there are no jobs to be had? I would like answers to those specific questions.

We all want people to go back to work if they can, but the welfare state is there to protect those who cannot. People who are not fit for work would love to work if they could, but they cannot. The jobs are not there, but they are being signed fit for work. How many of them are getting a job, and how many of them are just being signed over to destitution?