Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords]

Paul Scully Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 28th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

Anyone who has seen this particular problem on the streets of London will accept that there is clear public demand for pedicabs and that there are organisations that want to have regulated, safe pedicabs on the streets of London. My hon. Friend is right to say that the industry wishes to be regulated so that the good actors can be supported, so that people can have trust in this industry, although it is small, and so that the rogue actors—I will come on to them in a bit more detail—are not only discouraged but prevented from operating in this way.

We have to be blunt about some of the particular examples, and this has a significant and real impact on the tourist industry in this country, on women’s health in particular—but also that of general members of the public—and on the potential commission of crime. Some of the worst examples include a tourist charged more than £450 for a seven-minute, 1.3 mile journey with their two children, another charged £500 for a 10-minute journey between Mayfair and Soho, and one hit with a £180 bill for a three-minute journey—fortunately on that occasion the driver was ordered to return the money by local police and Westminster City Council.

The truth is that the task and finish group has been seeking a space for a safe and responsible pedicab trade. The quote that is set out in the House of Commons guidance says that

“there has been much justified criticism in recent years of rogue pedicab operators taking advantage of tourists with excessive charges and absence of safety checks”,

and it goes on:

“It is not acceptable that Transport for London is unable to regulate pedicabs to ensure a safe service; the Government announced in 2016 that it would rectify this, and the legislation should be brought forward as soon as possible.”

That was said in 2018. Subsequently, in 2019, the Government made it crystal clear that they supported the Bill.

There have been various attempts to bring this matter forward and—let us be blunt—this is a thin Bill dealing with a niche issue, but it is something that genuinely does matter. Such issues are traditionally often handled by way of a private Member’s Bill, and various colleagues have tried to bring this matter forward by way of a private Member’s Bill, starting with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully).

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Guy Opperman]

As I have just named my hon. Friend, I will be delighted to give way.

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and he is, as ever, making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the Mayor, the councils, residents, businesses, Parliament—largely—and the pedicab industry itself agree with simply changing a 19th-century legislative anomaly in order for the only form of public transport in London that is not regulated to come under that banner? Does he agree that this could and should have been done years ago, and that it should be done easily now?

[Guy Opperman]

My hon. Friend will know that pedicabs are effectively stage carriages under the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869—with which we are all deeply familiar, I am quite sure. That means they are the only unregulated form of public transport operating on London’s roads. He is right to highlight that this has cross-party support across London, as well as support from a variety of Mayors and local authorities. It has the support of the business industry and those who want to be part of a regulated pedicab industry. Tourists visiting London who step into a pedicab should not, I believe, face the risk of an inappropriate fare, an unlicensed driver who has had no background checks, and a vehicle with potentially no safety standards—sadly, that is fairly regularly the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I am grateful to the Minister for having indicated in his remarks that he is open to discussion and persuasion on what I hope will be some useful amendments that can be tabled to improve the Bill when it reaches its Committee and Report stages. I see that it will be referred to a Committee of the whole House, rather than a Public Bill Committee; that is just as well, because if it were going to be dealt with in a Committee upstairs, I am sure that I would never be selected by the Committee of Selection—which is controlled by the Government—to participate in it.

This Bill is really an allegory for this Parliament. We have thousands of illegal immigrants on our streets who have jumped bail or got rid of their tags; rogue parking operators who the Government have been trying to deal with for years and years; e-bikes running amok and causing mammoth problems for pedestrians in London; and all sorts of other obstructions of the highway by protesters, making it very difficult for people visiting London—particularly at the weekend—to go about their lawful business. It is an allegory for this Parliament that it has chosen prime time on a Wednesday to discuss the burning issue of pedicabs. [Interruption.] I cannot hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) said from a sedentary position.

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend is making an interesting speech, but would he agree that we could and should have done this back in 2018, when my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) was the leader of Westminster Council and I introduced my private Member’s Bill? We could have got it done on a Friday afternoon.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

We could have got this done much sooner than that. We could have got it done in about 2005-06, when Transport for London brought forward a private Bill, including a provision to deal with this matter. However, in that Bill and in subsequent Bills, we have always encountered the difficulty that Transport for London has been unwilling—I do not think it was unable, but it was unwilling—to produce any draft regulations, so we were being asked to approve potential legislation that was blind as to what would be contained in it.

It is interesting, is it not, that all these years have gone by, and one might have expected by now that Transport for London would have a document with detailed draft regulations for pedicabs but it has not got anywhere near that? Indeed, when I was privileged to be invited to a meeting that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster organised, it was clear at the meeting that Transport for London was unable to produce any draft and was unable to say how long it would be before it would produce one. It was unwilling to produce a draft to inform debate on the private Member’s Bill that my hon. Friend was promoting.

So is it surprising that there is a lot of suspicion around this issue? People think that the ulterior motive of Transport for London is to regulate pedicabs out of existence. Obviously, we can say that that is not the intention, and all the rest of it, but if the consequence of this legislation is that pedicabs will be extinct in a few years’ time, we as legislators should be asking whether we really want that situation to arise. I certainly do not want that situation to arise, and I am concerned that there has been a lot of misrepresentation about the extent of the support for the Bill. In principle, there is support for the Bill, because all the regular pedicab operators would love to have a light regulatory regime to get rid of the rogues on the streets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am afraid I do not agree with everything that the hon. Lady is saying, but I agree about the desirability of having emissions-free forms of transport in London, and one such emissions-free form of transport is the pedicab. I do not understand why the hon. Lady seems to be relying on Transport for London legislating with a heavy hand to exclude that sort of activity.

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I hope the House will forgive me for having to leave the Chamber for a few minutes. Does he agree that what this law is trying to do is ensure not only that pedicabs become regulated, like every other form of public transport, but that they are treated in London as they are in every other part of the country? They are stage carriages in London, but everywhere else they are hansom cabs, which means they can be regulated everywhere apart from London. The Regulated Pedicabs Coalition brings together the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, which he mentioned earlier in an intervention, as well as casinos, hospitality businesses and residents groups in Westminster that want this Bill to happen so that we have pedicabs on the street, but regulated ones.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I hope that my hon. Friend will make his own speech in due course, because I know he believes passionately about this issue. May I just refer him and other Members to the briefing from Cycling UK? My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster referred in her opening remarks to Roger Geffen, the policy director for Cycling UK. The briefing he has produced has a section entitled “Beyond the Bill: the need for a ‘national’ regulatory framework for pedicabs”. It states:

“As things currently stand, pedicabs can operate in London under legislation dating from 1869, which permits the operation of Stage Carriages… Conversely, in the rest of Great Britain (i.e. outside London), pedicabs have to operate under the same legal framework as taxis. This makes it almost impossible in practice for pedicabs to operate on a ply-for-hire basis outside London, because the insurance and other requirements for taxis are so onerous, and are entirely disproportionate for addressing the potential risks. Even where local authorities have been keen to support local would-be pedicab operators”,

those pedicab operators have not been able to start up, because of the weight of regulation. I made that point in an intervention on the Minister.

Roger Geffen then states that it is “potentially valuable” that the Secretary of State will now be able to issue guidance to TfL, but that it would be great if that guidance

“could in future be extended to other non-London licensing authorities, at such time as a new regulatory framework is put in place for licensing taxis and minicabs.”

He, as a cyclist, is concerned that this great method of transport—a pedal-driven rickshaw—is not being used outside London for the purpose of enabling people to apply for hire and travel from one place to another. That is why I think the assertion that the Bill aims not to regulate pedicabs out of existence but merely to bring in a regulatory regime that outlaws the most extreme examples of bad behaviour is naive.

It is incumbent on Transport to London to produce a draft regulation. As we have heard, it has been at this for 20-plus years, and even as we speak it cannot produce drafts of the regulations it has in mind to introduce. I put out this challenge to Transport for London, which I hope will be carried to it by my hon. Friend the Minister. I do not know when the business managers will decide we will have the Bill’s Committee and Report stages, but before we get to Committee it should bring forward a draft of the regulations that it has in mind. If it does that, we will be able to see whether our fears and suspicions, which are shared by Cycling UK, are well founded or wide of the mark. That is a perfectly reasonable way to proceed.

It is commonplace in the House to see draft regulations before we finalise legislation, but there does not seem to be any appetite for that on the part of Transport for London. We have not even had an indication of the timescale in which Transport for London wishes to introduce the regulations. How much longer will the good pedicab operators of London have to wait before the lightweight regulation, for which they have been campaigning for so many years, is introduced?

One of my suggestions is therefore that the Government should recognise that, in the rest of the country, where a different regulatory regime relates to pedicabs, they do not exist because they are regulated out of existence. If the Government wish to promote emission-free forms of transport such as pedicabs, why do they not get on and introduce a guidance system for transport authorities and local authorities outside the London area so that they can take the burden of regulation off potential entrepreneurs who wish to be able to provide pedicab services in cities such as Oxford, Salisbury and York, as we have heard? If such a commitment from the Government were to come out of the Bill, it would be a really worthwhile exercise.

I do not think that the Government are right to be sitting on the fence in relation to e-bikes and e-scooters. Why are we concentrating on the small number of pedicabs rather than the very much larger number of e-bikes and e-scooters, which are causing mayhem for many residents living in London, not to mention elsewhere in the country?

Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone

Paul Scully Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone.

I am pleased to have secured this debate on one of the biggest issues affecting my constituency right now. It affects not just Dartford, but areas right across London and the neighbouring counties. It is, of course, Sadiq Khan’s extension of the ultra low emission zone. The decision by the Labour Mayor of London to extend that scheme to cover the whole of London will be catastrophic for my constituency, which neighbours London. The border is not neat; it straddles roads such as Maiden Lane and sits at the end of roads such as The Coppice, Bowmans Road and Stonehill Woods Park. Although their residents are in Kent, they have to enter London just to get out of their road—just to live. They have no choice but to enter London.

Currently, the border with London is fairly frictionless. Thousands of times a day, people drive across that border, often without even knowing it. That is good for London, and good for Kent and other counties bordering London, but now Sadiq Khan is building a financial wall between London and the rest of the country. A small business, particularly in outer London, that relies on customers travelling to it will be crucified by this form of taxation. The line that has been used by those desperately trying to defend the Mayor is that the scheme will not affect many people, but one in seven cars is already affected. Given that the Mayor ignored his own consultation on this scheme and did not include the expansion in his manifesto, as sure as night follows day, he will increase the number of vehicles that will have to pay—all to sort out the financial mess he has got his administration into.

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

The Mayor’s own consultation shows that 28,000 vehicles will be affected in the London Borough of Sutton alone. As my hon. Friend rightly says, it is small business people—those who can least afford to replace their car—who will be affected.

[Gareth Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. I think I am right in saying that almost two thirds of the respondents to that consultation, and an even higher proportion of those who responded from outer London and the home counties, opposed the expansion. That consultation, frankly, was a sham; the Mayor’s decision does not reflect what people have told him.

As I say, this is all about trying to sort out Sadiq Khan’s financial mess. Well, Dartfordians should not have to pick up the bill for his financial incompetence. Everyone will be impacted by the expansion of ULEZ, whether directly as a motorist or business, or indirectly by the damaging impact that scheme will have on the local economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman mentioned that, because the expectation is that the expansion of the ULEZ will reduce PM_2.5 in outer London by 16%. He should know, but I am sure he does not, that studies at Harvard University and a Max Planck Institute found that covid deaths increased by between 8% and 12% when there was a marginal increase in air pollution from PM_2.5—an increase much less significant than the fall that I mentioned. That is particularly relevant to poorer, more polluted areas and more diverse communities. We are talking here about life and death.

We know from studies done that there will be a massive reduction in PM_2.5 and Nox as a result of the expansion. Indeed, there will be a major contribution towards mitigating climate change. The scheme already reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 12,300 tonnes; an expanded one will reduce it by 27,000 tonnes. We will be saving lives and saving the planet. The truth is that if we do not act, we will end up with 550,000 more people unnecessarily getting pollution-related diseases in the next 30 years, at an estimated cost of £10.4 billion. We should move forward on this. People who are neutral, such as the chief medical officer Chris Whitty, who has just released a report on air pollution, very much commend what Sadiq Khan is doing to save lives, as does the United Nations.

As a result of the ULEZ, there are 21,000 fewer vehicles in inner London and 67,000 fewer non-compliant ones—the latter figure is three times the former—so there are fewer vehicles overall. The scheme affects only 15% of vehicles—the most polluting—and £110 million has been set aside for scrappage schemes to enable conversion. The other thing to bear in mind is that the Government a year ago passed the Environment Act 2021. I wanted them to use COP26 to enforce World Health Organisation air quality standards, but instead, a year on, the Government are saying, “Why do we not try to get PM_2.5 at 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2040?”, as opposed to 2030, which was the previous deadline. The limit prescribed by the World Health Organisation is 5 micrograms, which Europe will achieve by 2030. We could achieve that here—this is a condition of doing so—with ultra low emission zones. Instead, the Conservative position is, “No, we will not bother with that. We will play politics with this, and continue to have 3,600 children every year in London going into hospital with asthma”, as my daughter did. That is unnecessary—and despicable, because it is avoidable.

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman talks about playing politics, but it is the Mayor who has gone against his consultation. He says that Londoners are in favour of the ULEZ because they talk about air quality. Every Londoner would be concerned about air quality, but this is about the consultation that he refused to accept. The hon. Gentleman talked about trams in Croydon. It would be far better to pay for the tram extension in Sutton; that would be cheaper than what the Mayor is doing, and it would improve air quality by ensuring that people made fewer car journeys—and he would be taking residents with him.

[Geraint Davies]

I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman supports trams. I very much agree that we should move forward with trams across London and elsewhere. As an aside, the tram system cost us £200 million at the time. It was a public-private scheme with £100 million of private money and £100 million of public. We could get 1,000 of those schemes and integrated transport across Britain for the cost of HS2, but that is controversial and off the point.

We should certainly take people with us; the YouGov poll shows that people support the extension of the ULEZ by a ratio of 2:1. It is very easy to go round knocking on people’s doors and saying, “Do you agree with Sadiq Khan’s attempt to tax you more in this despicable way?”, but if we do a neutral, objective study through YouGov, we find that people support it by 2:1.

P&O Ferries and Employment Rights

Paul Scully Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) for bringing this debate to the House; it is absolutely right and important that she has done so. We have heard many powerful and passionate speeches and I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed. The strength of feeling in this place is absolutely clear: P&O Ferries has conducted itself appallingly.

We are working to establish the facts of the case, but there can be no excuse for the way that workers have been treated. We have seen that P&O Ferries felt close enough to the UK to receive furlough payments, but not close enough to respect UK employment law. In Britain, we expect companies to treat their employees fairly. That is not just the right thing to do; that is the law.

P&O Ferries has dismissed 800 loyal and hard-working staff without any consultation or notice. Those workers have given many years of loyal service to the company, including playing a critical role during the covid pandemic and dedicating their time, skills and experience to P&O. They should feel proud of their contribution to society, but instead of being rewarded for their efforts, they have received a massive slap in the face from their employer at a particularly difficult time. My thoughts are with those people who have lost their jobs—people who have bills to pay and families to support. It will be a very worrying time for them and their loved ones.

Businesses have experienced a challenging time during the pandemic and many may continue to face financial pressures. To stay afloat, businesses sometimes need to make staffing changes and unfortunately redundancies are sometimes necessary, but UK workers benefit from robust protections in such circumstances. I will briefly explain how those protections should work.

Collective redundancy occurs when 20 or more employees may be made redundant at one establishment within a 90-day period. Employers have a statutory duty to consult employees’ representatives about proposed redundancies. The consultation should be of good time and good length depending on the number of redundancies proposed, must be completed before any dismissal notices can take effect, and must be entered into in good faith, which means that it should be undertaken with a view to reaching agreement with those representatives. The consultation should include a consideration of ways to avoid dismissals, reduce the number to be made redundant and mitigate the effect of the dismissals.

Those rules are not a suggestion; they are the law and must be followed. If the work has a sufficient connection to the UK, the workers will have the benefit of UK employment rights, irrespective of the terms of the contract. P&O Ferries has clearly been well aware of those requirements and its responsibility under the law, which is what makes the situation particularly scandalous.

We are taking the matter incredibly seriously. As we have heard, on Thursday, the Maritime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), spoke with P&O and made the Government’s anger and disappointment absolutely clear. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport wrote to the chief exec of P&O last week to make it clear that the Government will review all current contracts with P&O and its owner DP World and will instruct the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to inspect all vessels before they return to service to ensure their safety.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Paul Scully]

I will not give way, but that reflects the contribution of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who talked about the agency workers not knowing the vessels. I have no doubt that that will be picked up by the MCA on its inspection.

[Andy McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I have not got time, because I want to ensure that I answer the questions before the Opposition Whips inevitably cut me off early.

With my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, I wrote to the CEO of P&O Ferries on Friday to demand answers and explanations of its decisions and actions. Once we have established the exact facts of the case, we can determine whether employment laws have been broken here in the UK and take necessary further action if needed. P&O Ferries has until 5 pm tomorrow to respond to our questions and I absolutely expect it to meet that deadline. We have also asked the Insolvency Service to look at whether P&O Ferries breached the requirement to notify the Secretary of State in advance of making those redundancies. If we believe that it is in breach, we will not hesitate to take further action.

On fire and rehire, briefly, the P&O Ferries situation, unlike other examples that have been cited in this place over the last year or so, does not appear to be simply fire and rehire. It is worse; it seems to be just “fire”, without the required consultation, the required notice or any definite prospect of further employment—that is, no “rehire”. It appears that hard-working British workers were given no choice and no notice and were instead immediately dismissed. There are reports that they may be replaced by cheaper labour from overseas. As I have said, I have written to P&O to demand that it explains itself. We will determine what further action may be required based on a detailed assessment of the facts of the case.

P&O already has statutory obligations under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Employment Rights Act 1996—both of which were creations of a Conservative Government. It is highly likely that it has breached both under UK jurisdiction. Under sections 193 and 194 of the 1992 Act, any employer proposing to make 100 or more employees redundant has a duty to notify the Secretary of State no less than 40 days before any dismissal will take effect. It has not done that and we demand to know why. The point is that whatever P&O has done appears to be in breach of existing laws within US-UK jurisdiction—it is not because we have not passed new ones.

[Karl Turner]

I thank the Minister for giving way; I will be as quick as I can. It is no good quoting domestic legislation. The reality is this: P&O Ferries has done what it has done because it knows that the sanction is worth it. He needs to address the issue and tell it to reinstate the workers immediately.

[Paul Scully]

The sanction for P&O Ferries under that legislation is a criminal sanction and an unlimited fine, so I would be wary of it believing that the sanction is worth it.

[Andy McDonald]

rose—

[Paul Scully]

I am not going to give way.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. A lot of questions have been asked during the debate. Do Members not want to hear the answers from the Minister?

[Paul Scully]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try to answer many of the questions that have been asked.

On fire and rehire, we heard an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), who asked what action we will take. She knows that we have had many conversations. I look forward to coming back to update the House after recess with further measures that we may be able to take, reflecting our conversations, on tackling and strengthening our guidance and our rules about fire and rehire. That will indeed have an effect on tribunal findings against anybody who is doing the wrong thing in that regard.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) about her standing up for her local workers and her local constituents. It is a shame that that was misrepresented in contributions from the Opposition. When she was talking about militant activism, she was clearly not talking about the people from the union who invited her or the workers who have lost their jobs. She was talking about the people who have been bussed in and have come in from outside to agitate. That is absolutely not appropriate and it is not appropriate for hon. Members to accept bullying when it suits them politically.

I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who spoke about her port. I was at the Thames estuary with several representatives to look at Tilbury and the benefits that can come from the Thames freeport. She is absolutely right to make sure that she dissociates DP World from the rest of the great work that is going on in that area.

I want to accentuate what we heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport when he emphasised that P&O Ferries is not the same as P&O Cruises. I think P&O Cruises should be able to continue to do the great work it is doing without being tarred with the same brush as P&O Ferries, which has acted disgracefully.

From the contributions today, P&O should be in no doubt about the collective condemnation of its behaviour. It has lost the trust of the public and given business a bad name. It is not too late for it to undo some of this damage, and I implore it to get round the table with workers and unions to discuss this issue and find a way through. ACAS stands ready to help, and I know it has reached out both to the company and to the unions involved.

On the national minimum wage, which has been raised, individuals can contact ACAS if they feel they have not been paid the national minimum wage, but HMRC has an intelligence-led approach to enforcement, so please will everybody contact HMRC to make sure that it can look at any egregious abuses of the national minimum wage on the wider scale that has been outlined? In the meantime, the Government will act on any findings we discover from our conversations with the company.

This House should be left in no doubt but that this Government will always continue to stand behind workers, because it was a Conservative-led Government who banned exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts, a Conservative Government who introduced the national living wage, a Conservative Government who scrapped the Swedish derogation and a Conservative Government who extended the right to a day one statement of rights to all workers. I want to reassure P&O workers that this Government stand shoulder to shoulder with them, and we will hold P&O accountable for its actions.

Question put.

Draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2019

Paul Scully Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2019 General Committees

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I do not want to delay the Committee too long, but I want to put on record that I very much welcome the Crossrail project. It will be of real benefit to Londoners, but also much further afield. It will help businesses and residents in getting across town. Getting into town and out of town is not too bad in this day and age, but getting around London can be complicated.

I am concerned, however, about the fact that we have had to come to the point of using CIL money to repay debts. People who have built properties, such as offices, in other areas would have paid that money to be used for other infrastructure needed across London, not just the core funding of Crossrail. Delays to the project—we have had reports that it may continue until 2021—mean that additional costs are being put on the London taxpayer, whether directly or indirectly, because of the redirection of community infrastructure money that could otherwise be used elsewhere. It is a shame that we have had to come to this point.

The fact that the GLA is borrowing the money because TfL has already maxed out its budget and ability to borrow is symptomatic of a wider concern for Londoners, when road maintenance and tube extensions have been cancelled. I am, however, glad that the Government are doing what they can to step in and allow the important Crossrail project to continue.

Rail Timetabling

Paul Scully Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I have already asked the industry to look at whether it can restore some of the East Midlands Trains services to ease the pressure on Bedford in the interim period, while this disruption is happening. It seems a logical thing to do, given that the train paths are not being occupied by Thameslink at the moment.

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

This was supposed to be the light at the end of the tunnel, but that is actually a train coming fast the other way. Commuters do not want to play the blame game. They just want their trains to work now. The short-term view of sacking a franchisee overnight would really just mean the same people running the same lines with differently spray-painted trains. I want us to look back and find out how nobody, but nobody, thought to postpone the process, but we should also look to the future: will the Secretary of State tell us how many lifelines GTR needs before we realise that it should have no place on the UK’s rail network?

[Chris Grayling]

I am very clear that once we know the full culpability for this situation, the appropriate action will be taken if it needs to be taken.

Taxi Trade

Paul Scully Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) on securing this debate and on an excellent report. As a vice-chair of the all-party group on taxis, I would love to take lots of credit for the report, but he has worked really hard on it, and we need to take on board many of the things in it.

In Sutton, as in many London constituencies, there is a range of black cab drivers, Uber drivers and other private hire drivers, and some have approached me over the last couple of years to speak about the trade. Black cabs are having an incredibly difficult time, and especially yellow badge drivers, who are restricted to ply for trade in outer London, not least because there are few pick-up points. Business is really drying up for them, and they are finding it very difficult. We need to find ways, as the hon. Gentleman outlined, of modernising the trade, while giving the premium product that a black cab is and allowing them to survive and thrive in and around London.

I know that, until recently, Heathrow was a significant issue for cab drivers because a lot of Uber drivers were taking up parking spaces around the airport. That added to the congestion around Heathrow, which as we all know is pretty horrendous at the best of times.

The hon. Gentleman was right to say that people want to become environmentally friendly with their vehicles, but there is a huge onus and cost on black cab drivers when they have to renew their cars. The boundaries are always being pushed, environmentally. To invest maybe £35,000 or £50,000 in a new vehicle is really hard for black cab drivers when they are seeing their trade reduced at the same time. That is partly because of the environmental issues, and it is partly because over the years there have been too few suppliers—only two or three—of black cabs. That has helped to push the price up, to the cost of the drivers.

We have talked about the modernisation of the trade. It is good to see the change in drivers’ attitudes; they are keen to look at card payments and to have greater access for wheelchair users. I remember, probably about 15 years ago, joining my best friend in trying to get a cab. At the time, black cab drivers had to pay about £1,500 to get ramps to make the cabs accessible. The driver stopped, took one look at us and said, “I don’t want to get my hands dirty,” and got back in his car and drove off. That was ridiculous, so I complained to Transport for London, and the driver rightly got hauled over the coals. I know that all the cab drivers I see would be rightly horrified by that. They stick together and keep together as a trade really well, so any stain on the trade from one rogue driver does them all no good whatsoever. It is great that they stick together and stick up for black cabs.

Black cabs are a premium product, so they will always cost more than, for example, Uber cars. A few people want to drive Uber off the ground, but the majority of the black cab trade take the view outlined by the hon. Member for Ilford North: they accept competition; they just want fair competition. That is absolutely right. Uber is disruptive by nature, so it will always come in and cause difficulties for a long-established, regulated trade such as black cabs. However, it has to be fair. The pricing has to be fair to drivers and to competition.

Uber does supply something that we have not talked about yet, which is flexibility for drivers. We were talking about the modernisation of the economy last week as a Government, with the release of the Taylor report. A lot of Uber drivers like the flexibility. They like being able to have a few hours here and a few hours there, possibly as a second income to supplement a lower-paid job. It is important that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater when looking at Uber and how to tackle this, to ensure a relatively level playing field for all concerned. The average Uber driver gets about £15 an hour, and we need to look at that in the bigger scheme of things when talking about competition between the two and how drivers are affected.

I totally agree that we must tackle cross-border hiring. I would be interested to know exactly how it would work. The hon. Gentleman talked about cars starting and stopping in a particular regulated area. I live on the outskirts of London. If I lived quarter of a mile further south, I would be in Surrey. I wonder how it would work in those border areas, when we are trying to get out of central London, but the principle is absolutely right. I have the same figures as him, and it cannot be right that we have 69 people coming from Cardiff and 83 people coming from Leeds to drive cabs around London. I do not think it would be too difficult to tackle cross-border hiring between Leeds and London, but maybe Carshalton and central London is a bit different. I would be interested to see how that might work.

I agree that the plying for hire definition needs to be modernised. I would not want it to exclude the competition being established in London, but the grey area needs to be removed, so that everybody knows exactly where they stand. It is all part of the modernisation. I agree as well that the Mayor should have the power to cap the number of private hire licences. I asked the Department for Transport on 27 April what representations it has had from the Mayor of London on changing the law, so that he can cap that number. The answer came back that the Department has had zero formal representations. I am interested to know what has happened since April and what the Mayor of London has done to push that forward. I would certainly support him on that.

I agree that we need to incentivise the take-up of electric cars. I know that companies such as BluePoint are establishing charging points around London. It would be good to look at how that might work in taxi ranks, so that black cabs could have better access to charging points, rather than them just being for the new generation of private electrical cars.

Finally, it is absolutely right that an English test is being introduced for private hire drivers, but we need to ensure it is measured, practical and does what it needs to, to ensure that drivers can speak to passengers and understand signs. The idea of writing essays about a variety of things seems a little distracting. I would rather see a really practical English test, so that they can do their job.

We need to get the balance right between black cabs and the competition, including Uber. There is a lot to commend in the report, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford North once again on his work.

Chris Gibb Report: Improvements to Southern Railway

Paul Scully Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

That is not accurate and I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why. If it were not for the stitch-up with Serco and Abellio taking £17 million out of the deal and £5 million that we could use to have a guard on every train, we would not have the problem. So, yet again, he just serves this up to his mates. He does his deals with these people, extracting the value from our railway system. [Interruption.] Absolutely not. It is important to point out that the Gibb report makes no assessment of the merits and de-merits of driver-only operation. However, despite a lack of assessment, Chris Gibb makes it clear that he supports DOO and thinks that any industrial action is wrong.

I would like the Secretary of State to reflect on the following passage from appendix 1 of the Gibb report. It says:

“We have undertaken this project for CLGR Limited, a consultancy company owned and operated by my family and I, and CLGR Limited has been contracted to Govia Thameslink Railway, as facilitated by the DfT. Discussions have been held under the terms of a confidentiality agreement between CLGR Limited and GTR.”

There we have it—Chris Gibb is contracted to Govia, the very company he is supposed to be reporting on. It is more than just “he who pays the piper”. Surely even this Secretary of State can see this latest blatant conflict of interest. Where is the independence in this report? It is just another stitch-up.

What is it with the DFT? Its senior civil servant, who previously told the world he wanted unions out of his industry, has his own consultancy company—First Class Partnerships, I believe—to advise the parent company of Govia, the very company that was then handed the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern concession on a £1.2 billion-a-year gold plate. This Government would refuse to recognise a conflict of interest if it got up and bit them on the gluteus maximus.

Labour, like the staff who understand and operate our rail network, the passenger groups who have been protesting and have been motivated to take legal action, and disability charities, simply do not agree with the assumption that destaffing and deskilling our railways is a positive step. Despite being first introduced more than 30 years ago, DOO is only in use on a third of the national rail network. It was originally introduced on three or four-car trains at a time of declining passenger numbers. Passenger numbers having increased hugely in recent years, it is now proposed to introduce DOO on trains with as many as 12 cars. In the past 15 years, passenger numbers on Southern have increased by 64%, from 116 million to 191 million a year. That enormous rise in numbers means that at the platform-train interface there are inevitably increased risks to passenger safety, as anyone who travels on Southern services can see.

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the same union has agreed to 12-car-train driver-controlled operation on Thameslink, with the same company, and on the same lines?

[Andy McDonald]

It is somewhat curious, is it not, that people are being criticised for adhering to a previously achieved agreement, whereas, looking at the situation as it is now, they quite rightly want to look at it properly.

Labour believes that passengers are more at risk if they no longer have the guarantee of a safety-critical member of staff on the train to prevent something from going wrong or assist when something does go wrong. The view of Her Majesty’s chief inspector of railways, Ian Prosser, has been laid out in the Office of Rail and Road’s report, “GTR-Southern Railways—Driver Only Operation”, published earlier this year. Mr Prosser is clear that there are obvious caveats to safe operation of DOO, namely legal levels of lighting—that would be a good start—suitable equipment, suitable procedures and the competence of the relevant staff. None has been adequately satisfied, even by his assessment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on taking your place.

When I was first elected two years ago, I was campaigning to bring a number of extra train services to Sutton, including by extending the London Overground, but I was rightly told by many passengers—mainly Thameslink passengers, at that time—that they just wanted the trains that were already there to run on time. If we fast forward to today, the complaints about Thameslink in my postbag and my inbox have been clearly overtaken by complaints about Southern. One thing that I knew I was going to hate about being elected as an MP was the return to commuting, which I had not done for a little while. I have been furiously tweeting about the complaints I have received and about my own experience. I even missed a “meet the manager” event at London Victoria station, because I could not get there on one of its trains.

It is predominantly the Brighton main line that causes a lot of the problems in terms of infrastructure and poor linkages. A lot of the problems start when Sutton services link at Selhurst. That is where we need investment. All the trains that go through Sutton at the moment are driver-only operated, and they all work reasonably well until they get to that point.

In the short time I have to speak, I would like to make four points on how we need to sort this out. No one component, institution or organisation in this dispute has come out of it particularly well. The Department has to my mind built up a very unwieldy agreement that takes up 22% or 23% of the entire rail network within its structure. I would like that to be addressed when the franchise is up for renewal.

I would like the Mayor of London to have a greater say in the management of the suburban lines. Now, that is not the Kent line or the Sussex line.

[Henry Smith]

I am glad my hon. Friend is clarifying the fact that he does not include in that the Sussex, Surrey or Kent lines, because of course we do not have a chance to vote for the Mayor of London.

[Paul Scully]

I totally agree and I was very specific about that. The Mayor of London did himself no favours by overstepping that mark.

We need, with the congestion on the lines and the poor quality of the rail, to invest in the lines. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) talked about the time it takes to get to Mitcham Eastfields. That is great in theory, but sometimes the trains go so slowly. Today, I was going to London Bridge and I might as well have been on a milk float, frankly, with the speed we were going—and then I might have even got a seat, which would have been a bonus.

Southern has been very abrasive in its approach to union matters, especially at the beginning. There are clearly too few carriages so we often have breakdowns, and there are too few drivers, hence the staff shortages, but we must come back to the unions. That is for no other reason than that they are the pressing issue. Chris Gibb said:

“The fact that nobody is being made redundant or losing pay against their wishes, that there will be more GTR trains operating with two people on board, and that safe Driver Only Operation is already extensive in GTR, the UK and Europe, just serves to make this dispute more difficult to comprehend, especially for passengers.”

Let us work backwards and get the unions around the table. Let us sort out this dispute and get a terrible service back to being just an incredibly poor service. From there, we can then make it to the next stage and get it to be a good service. As we have heard, the punctuality figures are starting to come up at the end of the dispute as drivers and new carriages are starting to come on stream. Let us get the £300 million investment in and, when the franchise comes up for renewal, let us look at it in the round and break it up so that it will be more manageable.

Southern Rail

Paul Scully Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s involvement over recent weeks; she has been a staunch advocate for the people of Uckfield, who indeed suffer from an inadequate railway line. The most important thing at this stage is for the unions to call off their industrial action and for both GTR and Network Rail to be allowed to focus on what really matters: ensuring that we have a reliable, timely and punctual railway network.

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

Residents in Sutton want to get rid of this horrendous performance, which has been exacerbated by the unions, so that they can get back to merely poor performance and so that the underlying issues of rail, rolling stock and more drivers can start to be tackled. I welcome the compensation, but what about the passengers who pay-as-you-go using the Oyster card? What can they expect in return?

[Paul Maynard]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that even in inner suburban London, people are equally reliant on Southern rail. They will also be eligible for season ticket reductions, should they have annual, quarterly or weekly tickets, as well as Delay Repay 15 compensation from 11 December. That, to me, underlines the importance of ensuring that the network functions well for everybody, wherever they live on the Southern network.

Airport Capacity

Paul Scully Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I know how strongly Members in London feel about this decision, but, having listened to Members today, I have a sense that the balance of view around the country is that we need this connectivity because it is in the interests of the whole United Kingdom. As a Government who believe in delivering an economy that works for everyone, we must operate in the interests of the whole United Kingdom, and that is what we are doing today.

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

I welcome the quick decision by the Secretary of State since taking up his position over the summer, but I regret the decision not to include Gatwick at least as one of the options. Will he agree to look again at the Gatwick option as the one that is deliverable in the short term and that is more open for competition, for the benefit of passengers long term?

[Chris Grayling]

I know that a number of people have said, “Can’t we do both?” I am clear that today we are looking at the Airports Commission report, which set a clear path and said that a new runway would be needed by 2030 and that potentially there would be a need for further capacity by 2050, but only if that could be achieved alongside carbon limits. Therefore, today is about taking the long overdue decision as to how we take that path to 2030, and that is where our focus is.

Airports Commission: Final Report

Paul Scully Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)]

Funnily enough, I think that there are some good things in the report by the Airports Commission led by Sir Howard Davies. There are two conclusions that I certainly agree with. First, Britain needs more aviation capacity, as has been said by many of my hon. Friends this afternoon. It is a disgrace, for instance, that Frankfurt airport already serves 100 more destinations than Heathrow. A wretched fact when we are trying to intensify trading co-operation with China is that there are nine cities in China that one cannot reach from the UK and only from airports in continental Europe, which is a serious disadvantage for our business people and for UK plc.

The second point I agree with—agreement that is not universally shared here—is that the only way to achieve that greater connectivity is to have a hub airport. We need the volume of transfer passengers to build the wealth of destinations. The bigger the hub, the more the spokes. Many people in favour of aviation expansion share that analysis.

The only problem with the conclusion that Sir Howard and his team have come to is that that solution does not lie at Heathrow. It cannot provide what my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) rightly called for, which is the long-term solution, because it is so geographically constrained. It is in the wrong place for expansion. The environmental impacts and disbenefits have been well rehearsed this afternoon.

I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) that it is not only existing Londoners who would be affected by the increase in noise, although they might not appreciate planes coming in at 4 o’clock in the morning, which is what would happen if the night flight ban were overturned, as Heathrow wants. According to the Airports Commission, at least 150,000 more Londoners would be affected by the expansion of the airport to a third runway. According to TfL, it would be 300,000 more. That is quite contrary to the Government’s expressed policy on aviation expansion.

The second problem is pollution, a point that many hon. Members have already made. The limit values on the Bath Road would be well exceeded, and there would be serious legal challenges that, in the end, would be insuperable. To build this great generator of noise and pollution in west London would cost far more than is currently estimated. TfL estimates the extra transport costs alone to be between £10 billion and £15 billion. That is on top of the £18.6 billion that the commission has estimated for the cost of the third runway itself.

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

It has been estimated that £5 billion of public money would be needed for surface transport costs for Heathrow, whereas my preferred option of Gatwick would cost nothing in that regard. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we expanded Gatwick, we could use that £5 billion elsewhere on much-needed surface transport improvements, such as a Tramlink extension to Sutton?

[Boris Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As he will have heard from the Chancellor’s long-term economic plan for London, the Tramlink extension to Sutton is absolutely part of our programme. My hon. Friend is right. Nobody has factored in the extra costs of the transport. The Government say that they will not pay. The airlines say that they will not pay. I am afraid that the programme is undeliverable.

The final point—this is the answer to the points made by my right hon. Friends the Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) and for Arundel and South Downs and others—is that even if a third runway were to be completed, and it could not be done until 2030 by the Airports Commission’s own admission, it would be full at the point of completion. It does not answer the exam question in the sense that it does not deliver the extra connectivity that we all want. It does not hook up British business with those extra destinations in China, let alone with Latin America or Africa—those destinations where we are currently losing out. In fact, according to the commission’s own figures, the number of long-haul destinations would increase by only seven by 2030, and the number of domestic routes, to answer the points made by some of our Scottish friends, would go down from seven to four.