(6 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesThe shadow Minister makes a valid point about the need to ensure value for money for taxpayers and to ensure productivity as part of GBR’s processes. We differ on the mechanism by which those efficiencies are achieved. GBR will be incentivised to improve performance via its performance duty and, in extremis, GBR and the Government will work with unions as partners to achieve necessary changes. We have discussed at length, when considering the Bill, the myriad forms of accountability and enforcement of consumer standards and the need to drive competition where it drives performance in some areas of the railways. However, our approach to union relations has been different from that of the previous Government: it has been to get around the table to address matters and avoid the need for industrial action. That in itself is a driver of productivity on the railway, which is in stark contrast to more of a scorched earth approach from the last Government, which resulted in strike after strike, often costing the taxpayer in the process.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Is it not the case that in recent years public sector pay has fallen hugely behind private sector pay, so there is an awful lot of catching up to do?
My hon. Friend is right to have the aspiration that public sector workers, who keep the wheels of our economy turning by facilitating connectivity and allowing the private sector to thrive, deserve to be fairly remunerated for doing so. Having a public sector body run in the public interest provides efficiencies in itself, with publicly owned English rail operators receiving 33% of Government funding and yet generating £4.5 billion or 38% of the income. If we remove the £850 million of unnecessary strike costs that would have been incurred, that shows that efficiencies and productivity are being built into the system by having a fairer, more decent and practicable relationship with trade unions.
On a more specific point, drone-based and digital inspection of railway infrastructure was also mentioned. Such inspection is already carried out by Network Rail and there are no plans to change that under GBR. Consequently, I urge the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham not to move new clause 32 and to withdraw new clause 31.
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 55. It is imperative that GBR delivers for its passengers and employees alike. GBR workers will be key stakeholders in its success, so it is important that they, and the trade unions that represent them, are treated with respect, listened to and involved in the key decisions that affect them. The model for how that will work in GBR is still being considered and developed, together with GBR’s corporate governance and employee engagement structures, and it would be inappropriate to commit GBR to reporting on its structure or employee engagement arrangements when decisions on such matters are still to be taken. I therefore urge the hon. Member not to move his new clause.
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesFor the reasons I have just outlined. I have already confirmed that there are absolutely no plans to change the existing range of discount schemes, which include the veterans railcard and the armed forces railcard.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the veterans scheme is incredibly important, that we all agree with it being there, and that there are absolutely no plans to remove it.
Yes, I am very eager to agree with my hon. Friend.
This is a serious point. In my constituency, I see the difficulty that veterans have in attending Selby Abbey to mark the enormous contribution that people in our armed services have made across many conflicts. I would have thought that this is personal to every single member of this Committee, which is why I am pleased to agree with my hon. Friend.
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberAs a near neighbour of the hon. Member, I know the line that he describes. The Harrogate line interventions have not been funded in this spending review period, but that does not preclude doubling the single line between Knaresborough and York as part of a future local or national infrastructure pipeline. Platform extensions and electrification have previously been developed to a strategic outline business case level of maturity. Based on current and future demand forecasts, the work did not consider dualling the line, but I am happy to continue engaging with the hon. Member on this very important question.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberI agree with the hon. Lady on her ambition to decarbonise maritime. That is why, in my first week as maritime Minister, I announced funding of £448 million to decarbonise UK maritime. She is right to note that electrification and grid capacity are enormous issues. Department for Transport officials continue to work across the ports sector to ensure that we can improve the grid connection process, and DESNZ is working on reform of that process to free up 500 GW of capacity for crucial sectors such as ports.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The port of Falmouth has benefited from Government money for plug-in power, but it has been held back by the grid. The port is also trying to redevelop and expand, so that it can service the floating offshore wind sector, and bring in freight on the freight line that we lost 15 years ago. Will the Minister support the port of Falmouth in those aims, and will he visit?
My hon. Friend is a champion for the port of Falmouth. I applaud the work that it is doing to achieve decarbonisation. It is incumbent on me to work with Ofgem and my departmental colleagues in DESNZ to ensure that we speed up the improvement of port capacity and connection to the national grid. I would be very happy to visit that port in the future to explore its fantastic work.