Draft Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Passenger Railway Services) Regulations 2023

Debate between Lord Spellar and Huw Merriman

Monday 27th November 2023 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Passenger Railway Services) Regulations 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. The regulations will be made under powers conferred by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as amended by the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. The purpose of the regulations is to set minimum service levels that can apply to specified services during passenger rail strikes. These minimum service levels are designed to balance the public’s need to make important journeys and the impact of rail strikes on the economy on the one hand, with the ability of rail workers to take strike action on the other. It is my hope that strike action can be avoided, but the regulations will mean that when strikes take place, the rail industry can provide an improved and more consistent service, in a way that is proportionate and fair for all parties.

Let me give some background to the regulations. Strike action in the rail sector has occurred frequently in recent years, and has a significant impact on people’s ability to travel. Since 2019, there has not been a single day when there has not been either a strike on our railways, or mandates for strikes outstanding. The result has been many periods of disruptive strike action, in some cases resulting in the suspension of all rail services on affected routes. Between June 2022 and November 2023, there have been 42 days of widespread disruption caused by strikes. That can have considerable consequences for the passengers and communities affected. People often struggle, or are unable, to travel to work. Others have difficulty accessing vital services, such as education and healthcare. Businesses and the wider economy suffer. Enabling a minimum service to operate during rail strikes is a means of protecting against disproportionate impacts of strike action.

The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, passed on 20 July this year, establishes a clear framework for implementing minimum service levels. The Act amends the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to give the relevant Secretary of State the power to make regulations setting minimum service levels for specified services in six key sectors, including transport. In addition, the strikes Act sets out the framework through which minimum service levels can be deployed. It gives employers the ability to issue a work notice to a trade union if a strike is called on a service specified in the regulations. The work notice must set out the staff whose are reasonably necessary if the minimum service level set out in the regulations is to be met, and the work that those staff must undertake. The trade union must take reasonable steps to ensure that the trade union members identified in a work notice comply with its requirements.

The regulations for passenger rail specify three categories of service that minimum service levels apply to, and the associated minimum service levels. Category A is train operation services. Category B is infrastructures services, and category C is light rail services.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The Minister says that the trade union should ensure that its members comply with the work notice. What mechanism should it use to ensure that?

[Huw Merriman]

I will come back later in the debate to the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the action that we would require trade unions to take—or rather, not take—to ensure that the standard is met.

Let me explain categories A to C. Category A covers train operation services provided by passenger train operators under agreements with the UK Government, including services provided as operator of last resort, and by devolved Governments, and local transport authorities and executives. It therefore excludes services provided by open-access and freight operators; heritage and tourist services; and international train services that start or finish outside Great Britain. The minimum service level for train operation services is the provision of those services necessary to deliver the equivalent of 40% of the operator’s timetabled services, as shown in the most recently published National Rail timetable, during the strike.

[Huw Merriman]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her point. The 40% of train operation services is 40% of services across the train operator’s timetable as a whole. It applies for as long as that timetable runs. I will go on to talk about category B, because that is hours-specific guidance.

Category B covers services listed in the regulations that are provided by infrastructure managers. During strikes by railway infrastructure workers, the minimum service level is the provision of services between the hours of 06:00 and 22:00 on the priority routes that are listed in the regulations, and on certain enabling infrastructure within a 5-mile radius of the priority routes, including connections to depots, sidings, and rail freight terminals.

Category C covers train operation and infrastructure services provided on the 11 light rail systems specified in the regulations. The minimum service level is the provision of services necessary to deliver, during the strike, the equivalent of 40% of timetabled services as shown in the most recently published timetable issued by the operator of the light rail service.

We have designed the minimum service levels to address appropriately the type of strike action that we typically see, and to ensure that the levels are operationally viable for employers. The minimum service levels are intended to achieve a suitable and proportionate balance between delivering benefits to passengers and the wider economy, and workers’ ability to strike. Our work has been informed by extensive consultation and engagement, including a public consultation between 20 February and 15 May of this year, and consultation with train and infrastructure operators, passenger representative groups, unions, and a wide range of other stakeholders.

Once in force, the regulations will apply to any future strikes, even if the mandates for those strikes predate the primary legislation, which received Royal Assent on 20 July this year. That will allow employers in the rail industry to use these regulations as soon as they come into force, should they choose to do so. The Government have identified passenger rail as a priority for minimum service levels. These regulations deliver on that commitment, and deliver on the 2019 manifesto.

[John Spellar]

Will the Minister give way? He said he would.

[Huw Merriman]

I am not giving way. I said I would come back before the end of the debate on the points the right hon. Gentleman made.

The regulations mean that train operators will be able to provide the equivalent of 40% of their timetable during strikes, whereas on some recent strike days, a number of companies have been unable to run any effective service at all. During full-day infrastructure strikes, priority routes can be open for 16 hours, instead of the 11 hours provided for under the industry’s current contingency arrangements, with some additions to the routes normally provided. Importantly, this will enable industry to encompass both the morning and evening peaks, so passengers will have more certainty around getting to work and returning home in the evening. These regulations are a positive step towards addressing the impact of rail strikes in a proportionate way. I commend them to the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Spellar and Huw Merriman

Thursday 2nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Keynes said, “When the facts change, I change my mind.” It is quite clear that patterns of business travel have changed dramatically post covid, yet when I asked the Minister this week about the balance between first class and standard class travel in the north and the midlands, not only did he not know, but he did not even seem to be interested. Will the Minister now, with these changing business patterns, re-examine the case for HS2, or is he just frightened of the answer?

[Huw Merriman]

I am not frightened of the answer at all. I am an advocate for HS2 because, as I have mentioned, it will level up the country, interconnect our great cities, reduce the time for a train to Manchester by 54 minutes to one hour and 11 minutes, and deliver not just jobs for this country, but jobs we can export to other high-speed rail lines across the world.

Smart Motorways

Debate between Lord Spellar and Huw Merriman

Thursday 13th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Third Report of the Transport Committee, Rollout and safety of smart motorways, HC26, and the Government response, HC 1020.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. It is the Government response that I am particularly pleased to be discussing; Select Committees scrutinise and then put forward our recommendations, and in this particular instance, it is a great pleasure that the Government have accepted all the key recommendations—and gone further. I am grateful to the Minister, who is taking my thanks on behalf of the Department.

I also want to mention the previous incarnations of the Transport Committee and the work that they have done. I thank our former chair, Dame Louise Ellman, who chaired the Committee in 2016. I was a member of that Committee when a number of recommendations were made. For reasons that I will mention later, I believe that if those recommendations had been carried forward then we might not be where we are now. I also thank my predecessor, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who continued to shine a light on some of the failings of smart motorways. It has been a collective endeavour—a mission over the last six years—but I am pleased that progress is being made. It is also important to ensure that the Committee continues to focus on those assurances, and ensure that they are scrutinised and, ultimately, delivered. We will do so.

It would be remiss of me not to explain more about smart motorways and what their design and technology is there to do. It is there to control the flow and behaviour of traffic. There are three types and often people are baffled by the differences; I hope that I can explain them.

First, there are all lane running motorways, which tend to get the most focus because they do not have a hard shoulder at all. They rely on a series of emergency areas for motorists who become stranded. In 2019, there were 141 miles of all lane running motorway network. The fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles, which is measured from 2015 to 2019 for the purposes of this speech, was 0.12%.

Secondly, there are controlled motorways. These have a permanent hard shoulder at all times, but still have the smart technology. In 2019, they also accounted for 141 miles, with a lower fatality rate of 0.07%.

Thirdly, there is a dynamic hard shoulder motorway concept, which is where the hard shoulder is switched to a lane at busy times during the day. There are just 63 miles of this design, with a fatality rate of 0.09%. In comparison, there are 1,564 miles of conventional motorway, without the smart technology, which have a fatality rate of 0.16%.

The data shows that between 2015 and 2019, all three forms of smart motorways had lower fatality rates than conventional motorways. However, many are concerned because the data from 2019 alone shows that the reverse is true: smart motorways tend to be less safe.

The Transport Committee launched its latest inquiry in February 2021 and reported in November, with the Government responding this week. I will summarise what the Government have agreed to do.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Surely, to put it in context, it is best to start with why one would want to do this scheme in the first place. It is about traffic management and, in particular, reducing congestion in very crowded parts of our motorway network, especially at peak hours when people are going to work and with lorry traffic moving through. It is an enormously important part of our economy, particularly around the midlands motorway box where, I think the hon. Member would agree, the M42—the original smart motorway—works extremely well.

[Huw Merriman]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman and take his point on board, although it is a bit difficult to go back to the start and do as he has suggested. However, it is a familiar topic about smart motorways that will come up later. He is absolutely right. If the design guide had followed the prototype—I intend to refer to the M42 and where things then moved—we might have found ourselves in a very different place.

The right hon. Gentleman touched on the reason for this scheme, which, again, is to create the extra capacity that is needed to get people off the more dangerous A and B roads and on to the motorway network. Unfortunately, because of what has happened, there is a danger that the opposite is true, and if he will allow it I will expand on that.

There are seven key points in the recommendations that were accepted. First, there will be a pause of the roll-out of all lane running motorways yet to commence construction until five years of data is available for the smart motorway network built before 2020.

Secondly, the Government will pause the conversion of dynamic hard shoulder motorways to all lane running motorways and revisit the case for controlled motorways. Is it all about all lane running smart motorways or are other smart motorways better?

Thirdly, emergency refuge areas will be retrofitted to existing all lane running motorways to make them no further than 1 mile apart, for which the Government have announced £390 million of funding.

[Huw Merriman]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the expertise he brings to this debate. He makes some fascinating points. I am interested in whether the advice was followed by Highways England, as it then was. This was a new concept. Our recommendations included giving Ministers and the Department a little more independent advice from the Office of Rail and Road—the roads regulator. Had that been the case, there might have been checks and balances in the system, so the advice that he received might have been better for him. He rightly makes the point that if the build-out had been followed as he approved, we might not be where we are.

The fourth point was the granting of powers to the Office of Rail and Road to evaluate the Government’s smart motorways project plan. Starting this year, the regulator will report on progress annually, and carry out an evaluation of stopped vehicle detection technology and other safety measures.

The fifth point, which comes with a consultation requirement, is to introduce an emergency corridor manoeuvre into the highway code to help emergency services and traffic patrol officers to access incidents.

Sixthly, the Government will investigate the granting of new road safety powers to the roads regulator before changes to design or operational standards are implemented on our motorways and key roads. Again, Ministers would then have that independent four-eyes approach when their advice comes through.

Finally—this is important—we need to revisit the entire business case and rationale for smart motorway conversion. It is interesting that the expectation was that for every £1 spent on smart motorways, £3 would be delivered back, because we would be creating more capacity. There have not actually been that many studies of whether that has been achieved, because a longer assessment period is needed, which is now consistent with the safety assessment. However, one project on the M25 was delivering almost £3 back, although it is fair to say that the experts’ view is that it dissipates after a year, as more people use the motorway network.

The headline is a pause on new smart motorways, but the aspect that I am really determined to ensure that the Committee follows is all the retrofitting work that is needed to make the existing smart motorway network safer. That means vital work has to start on reducing the width between emergency refuge sites. We have seen that if a car is travelling at 60 mph and the distance interval is 2.5 km, it takes 75 seconds for that car to get to the emergency refuge areas. Some 40% of all breakdowns occur in a live lane, and that has to be impacted by the fact that the emergency refuge area is too far for the cars to get to, so it is essential that this is delivered.

I will touch on the stopped vehicle detection technology, which the Government are committed to ensuring is rolled out on the existing network by 2022. The Government are right to say that it was originally planned for 2023, so it will happen a year earlier. The Committee’s frustration is that we were given assurances by Highways England, the predecessor to National Highways, in 2016 that “going forward” the stopped vehicle detection technology would be put in place in the delivery of all new smart motorways. That has not occurred. When we heard from National Highways, as it now is, in our current inquiry, we were told that “going forward” actually meant “after two years”, whereas, to me, going forward means “immediately”.

Of course, the challenge now—it will be a funding challenge as well as an operational challenge—is that once those motorways are open and running, it is a lot harder and more expensive to retrofit the technology in place, which we have been told will be one of the blockers. In my view, that is precisely the reason they should have been put in to start with. I know the Government are now committed to ensuring that whenever they finish the existing smart motorways—which, rightly, cannot be stopped because they are almost there—they cannot open until the technology is in place.

[John Spellar]

Maybe a future programme for the hon. Gentleman’s Committee is why such bad advice is being given to Ministers inside the Department. Given that the M42 already had a system that worked and delivered much more predictable journey times, reduced fuel use, reduced pollution and, incidentally, reduced accident rates—that is all in the data from the M42 experiment—why did they cut corners after that? In the same way, they saved about £10 million on the paper licence, but it is costing about £100 million a year. Is there not clearly a systemic failure in advice and capability inside the Department for Transport?

[Huw Merriman]

I would be interested in hearing from former Ministers and the current Minister, but from my study of the matter over the last six years, I think the answer is that the culture has been about creating the capacity. That makes perfect sense, because if we create the capacity on the motorway network, we take traffic off the more dangerous roads. However, the difficulty is that we have then not focused on ensuring that the new roads are as safe as they can be. If we had the refuge areas at shorter distances and had the stopped vehicle detection technology, that could be done.

It was quite interesting that when we spoke to then chief executive of Highways England and asked why some of the motorways were open, notwithstanding the measures that had been put in place, he maintained that drivers wanted to try the road once the tarmac had been delivered. He stated: “We get a lot of negative feedback from the public, who say, ‘We know this is a smart motorway and you’re opening it. Why can’t we use that lane now?’”. I think it is that that has driven the feeling of, “Let’s get on and move it,” and then the safety measures and the design side seem to get cut.

I think there was a mentality in the agency that it designed this, so it became very defensive about it and tried to stretch it as much as it could. I would say that the safety bit got somewhat left behind and was not given the prominence that it should have been given. We know that the agency has a zero-harm policy: it aims to reduce harm, in terms of deaths, to zero by 2040. That is a lofty target, but it is also one that should be focused on every bit as much as creating the capacity.

I will end with this summary, because it is important that everybody else has the opportunity to speak and that we hear from former Ministers, with their ministerial expertise—there are two here to provide that. It is welcome that the Government have agreed to these recommendations. I applaud them for doing that, but it is essential that we now crack on with the safety measures that should have been there in the first place. They have not been there, but we now need to focus on getting them delivered as soon as we can.

It is vital that we use the Office of Rail and Road more, as it is the regulator and is able to challenge some of the assumptions. I welcome the acceptance of that recommendation, but the Office of Rail and Road is going to have to change as well. Of 350 employees inside that organisation, only 19 are dedicated to roads. It used to be the Office of Rail Regulation, but has been extended to cover roads; in reality, it is about rail. We do not want to get to a situation in which the culture is such—as perhaps it is with rail—that safety becomes the only issue, and we cannot ever get on and deliver innovations, because that might not be 100% safe; nothing is. We need to ensure that we still have a road-building programme in place.

Ultimately, it is really important that the Government look to whether they will continue with smart motorway build-out by assessing the data over this paused period. I very much hope that if the safety measures are brought in, that will strengthen the case for smart motorways, because the final point that I want to send to the public is that smart motorways are safe. The motorway network in this country is one of the safest in the world. People should be encouraged to use the motorway network. But we can make those smart motorways even safer, and I very much hope that this report and the Government’s response to it will help to that end.