Thameslink

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey, in this crucial debate. We have seen the passion presented by all hon. Members on the challenges that their constituents face not just day by day, but week by week, month by month and year by year. The sheer dissatisfaction, frustration and misery that commuters have had to put up with for such a long time shows that resolution is crucial. The passenger must be listened to. We have obviously heard about the disruption brought not only to the commute, but to family life. I give all credit to parents who try to arrange childcare under the best of circumstances, but when they face an unreliable train service as well, the pressures are immense. All hon. Members have articulated that well this afternoon.

When passengers turn into activists and take action against what should be a normal part of their routine and daily life—such as the Train Suffragettes and others I know as well—it really shows that the whole rail system is in meltdown and has to be addressed. As we have heard, it is not just about train operating companies, because this has been a sustained problem across the network for such a long time. However, Thameslink particularly stands out. It has the second-lowest level of passenger satisfaction, at 73%—only Southern, at 65%, is behind—and has issues with punctuality and reliability, as we have heard. Southeastern trains are also not delivering for passengers, which is now spreading to Northern as well. With regard to Thameslink, things have not improved for several years now. When a staggering 23% are satisfied with how the company has dealt with delays, it really shows that it is left wanting, as has the whole situation.

What we have really picked up on today are the consequences of that unreliability, the infrastructure problems, the desperate need for investment and the massive overcrowding issues. The overcapacity issue will not going away, as more housing developments will put further strain on the network. We have also heard about challenges with the choice of destination, the obvious need for improvements right across the network and the impact that late or cancelled trains have on commuters.

It is important that we listen to these real frustrations. We cannot allow the situation to continue in which the Government point fingers but do not lift one to sort out what is happening. We know that there is real chaos in the way the franchise was set up, as was rightly highlighted when the Gibb report was debated in the main Chamber on 4 July. We know that there needs to be effective governance over the whole structure, which has been lacking, to ensure that issues are addressed expediently and that proper dispute resolution mechanisms are put in also. At the forefront of everything, we need to make sure that passengers’ concerns are addressed and that their safety is safeguarded. We also heard about access needs, and the fact that some train journeys are simply impossible for passengers with disabilities.

Another point that was rightly raised was the financial cost to passengers. We have seen rail prices go up by 27% since 2010 on this rail network, which is the most expensive not only in the UK but in the whole of Europe, meaning that passengers are having to pick up the cost of this failed network. We are expecting further price increases in August, and we have heard the figure of 4%—perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on that. We need certainty on pricing; all passengers, whether on Thameslink or other networks, really want to know what is happening on pricing. The Opposition believe that price rises should be capped in line with the consumer prices index. We have heard different answers from different Ministers from the Department: we have heard that price rises will continue to be capped in line with the retail prices index; we have heard twice from the Minister that pricing is under review; and we have also heard that things will be kept as they are this year—but that does not say what will happen next year. Passengers need clarity on pricing.

We need to make sure that we move forward with smart ticketing, which we heard several contributions on. Where are we at with part-time smart ticketing, which will impact on many of those parents? It is an equality issue and we need to move forward on it. We also need to make sure that we see greater flexibility in smart ticketing, including the extension of the Oyster card. With the technology that is in place, how is delay repay being rolled out on the Oyster card? There are opportunities there. Of the amount of money that the network gains, only a minimal amount reaches the customer. The process of trying to reclaim after a delay is difficult.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Many of my passengers say that they do not want to have to claim; they simply want the service they have paid for. Delay repay is better, but on the other hand the service needs to improve, because otherwise they just get money back for a bad service. That is not what they want; they want the journey they were guaranteed.

[Rachael Maskell]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. However, we also need to ensure that, where there has been a delay, passengers are properly compensated, given that they have paid so much for the privilege of travelling on that network. Between 2010 and 2015, the train operating company generated £575 million from Network Rail for infrastructure delays, yet only £73 million went to passengers, so we have to question who benefits. Again, it comes back to governance over the system, which is poor. That comes up many times. It is a theme that is repeated in every aspect of how the franchise works. The franchise has failed passengers. We need to see delay repay extended so that the customer can be compensated automatically, as opposed to trying to seek out that compensation.

We also need to look at what has happened with the Thameslink programme. It was first put in place in 2006, so those years are moving forward. We need to see that the objectives now being met are not at the inconvenience of passengers—such as major track work, signalling and station remodelling, improvements to the lines approaching London Bridge and the overhead lines north of St Pancras. The programme was very ambitious, but without proper governance it has not been realised. On the issue of capacity, as 24 trains an hour move through the core of central London, the risks increase. We cannot even get the service moving right at the moment. We need to hear from the Minister what mitigation is being put in place to reduce risk and ensure that trains run on time and that passengers reach their destinations on time. About 14,500 additional passengers will use that network.

The Gibb report goes further on the issues that need to be addressed across the networks. It also addresses GTR’s responsibilities and Network Rail. The issues it identified include rail renewal, switching and sleeper renewal. The list goes on to talk about telecoms and cable signalling and dealing with things such as vegetation, earthworks and fencing—it is comprehensive. We need to ensure that the improvement programme is put in place and delivered by 2018. We do not want the stop-start approach to maintenance and development. We want to see the investment running into the CP6 funding round from 2019. What exactly is the Minister doing to make sure there is ongoing investment in the railway?

We must thank Chris Gibb for his report, but we must also note the responsibility to move forward on many of the problems experienced across the Thameslink network. We also need to address the issues raised by the Transport Select Committee, which has identified how poorly the franchise has been established. The relationships do not work between the train operator, Network Rail and the passenger. That must be put right. Changing an operator does not change the environment, which is so important. It is right that the Committee highlighted the problems with the initial structuring of the franchise, the inadequate planning that was put in place, weaknesses in the franchising handover period, infrastructure and rolling stock failures, mismanagement, and poor industrial relations.

I want to talk about industrial relations, because it is so important that these issues are addressed. We have people working on the rail network who are seriously concerned about passenger safety and access. We have heard about the overcrowding, which increases risk, and the real challenges on the network. More commuters will be using the line and it is vital that public safety comes first. The unions have been clear that this is not a dispute about money; their concern is about public safety.

I have spoken to train drivers in the last couple of days, and they say it is vital that they have a second pair of eyes. If they miss something, the other person can help pick it up. They say it is vital that there is someone there to deal with incidents, whatever they may be, because it is unpredictable. It could be a driver falling ill, a fatality on the rails, a terrorist attack, derailment or a crash, women’s safety at night or antisocial behaviour disturbing other customers. Of course, guards play a much wider role in maximising revenue collection and providing passengers with a wider service. We have heard today how important that service is, particularly with the line of communication, which a number of hon. Members have mentioned. They can let passengers know information, be the first port of call and be the passengers’ champion when needed.

I urge the Minister to address those vital issues. We must get the rostering right to ensure that the trains run on time and address the issues in this dispute. This is not rocket science; the dispute is simple to resolve. I know, as a negotiator, that the Minister just needs to sit down and make sure the guards are in place and can continue with their role. It is incumbent on him to sort this out. I know it is not beyond his wit, and I trust he will do so.

In conclusion, we have heard about the painful experiences of commuters. We must remember that the whole rail network is there as a service—a public service—to help passengers continue with their employment opportunities and their daily lives. It is absolutely right that focus is now brought on the way the franchises and relationships are not operating and that that is worked through, to bring the service back to customers. That is why the Labour party believes that public services now need to be a public accountability, in public ownership. For far too long, decisions have been made away from the passenger. We want to see the passenger at the heart of those decisions, putting safety and service needs at the forefront and building the structures around the passenger.

I have heard all the frustrations, and Labour will take those on board and work with passengers to make sure that we can provide the service needed in the future. We will keep the pressure on the Government, as the passengers’ voice throughout this process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The east coast main line between London and the north is in urgent need of infrastructure investment to end the disruption caused by failures of the antique overhead power lines. How much does the Minister expect Virgin Trains East Coast to contribute to that?

[Mr Hayes]

The east coast main line is the line I use regularly, and I am extremely familiar with the quality of that service. The hon. Lady will know that the new express trains we will be using on that main line by the end of 2018 will offer greater capacity, reduced journey times and more reliable services.

[Rachael Maskell]

So not only does the Minister not answer my question but he does not know the amount the operator has to contribute, yet he is about to dig into the back pockets of taxpayers to bail out the Stagecoach-Virgin consortium when, just two years ago, the Government took East Coast out of public ownership after returning £1 billion—£1 billion!—to the Treasury. How much will the Virgin Trains East Coast contract retrofit cost the taxpayer? Does he not draw the same conclusion as the Labour party that, as we pay for private and make savings from public rail, only a publicly owned rail franchise can operate in the public interest?

[Mr Hayes]

My goodness, Mr Speaker. This is like a journey to a past that never happened. I remember one of British Rail’s last, and perhaps most poignant, slogans: “We’re getting there”. Well, getting there is a pretty fundamental requirement of any journey. Could there be a less ambitious objective than merely getting there? That is what nationalised railways were like—we all remember them. They were a disaster. The cost of renationalising the railways in the way the hon. Lady recommends would be at least £19 billion, which is £19 billion that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and others want to spend on all these other schemes.

Chris Gibb Report: Improvements to Southern Railway

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome you to the Chair, and thank you for chairing the debate. May I also put on record my proud relationship with working people through the trade unions, and declare my interest in that regard?

Today’s debate started abysmally. The Secretary of State for Transport failed to mention safety or access for disabled people once. His prejudices against working people came to the fore, clearly not from a party for working people. Thankfully, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) brought us back to the Gibb report, and we heard a total of 19 contributions.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) for highlighting the consequences of brittle rostering and the problems caused by level crossings. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Mr Shuker) spoke of the bullying that drivers experienced in attempts to make them come to work on their days off. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) called for humility, and a focus on the breadth of the issues in the Gibb report. He also identified the Government’s failure of leadership. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) talked of rail chaos, but stressed that it was not due to industrial action. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), who made the 18th contribution, focused on the issue of disability access.

The scene was set for the perfect storm. Today we have heard about the consequences for constituents, the industry and staff. Ageing infrastructure is failing because of a lack of resources and critical management to address vital maintenance. Heavy demand and over-capacity manifest themselves in overcrowding. New working practices—new timetables, new commencement of routes, new trains and technological advances—have been recommended, but there has been no strategic co-ordination to date. Above all, we have failed and fragmented franchises. Collaboration and strategic oversight were the last considerations, and the very worst outcomes from a profit-driven privatisation process have been apparent. Putting profit before passengers has resulted in their paying heavily: financially, for their tickets; in terms of the worst effects of overcrowding; and—Mr Gibb mentions this at every turn—in terms of having to deal with the complete unpredictability of the service. It has been utterly chaotic. The buck stops with the Government and the Secretary of State, whom even the courts have now told to exercise his force majeure to find a resolution.

It has all been matched by a safety-critical industry. Staff rightly fear that they will find themselves before an inquest following an incident involving a passenger, for whatever reason—perhaps because the technology has missed what a second, human, eye would see. It is all happening in a high-risk setting in which there is the potential for an accident, a landslide or terrorism, and the possibility of a driver or passenger falling ill, antisocial behaviour, or some other incident. Those with disabilities are pushed to the back of the queue when it comes to ensuring that people’s needs are met throughout their journey. As we have heard, only 3% of trains do not have a second safety-critical member of staff. We have to wonder why the Government cannot resolve this dispute, and give priority to the dignity of a disabled person who could be left on a platform.

All this is happening in a charged industrial environment in which the Government’s agents, and the Government themselves, have declared that rather than resolving the dispute, which would be easy to do, they are deliberately trying to fuel it—

[Jeremy Quin]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

I do not have time.

They are deliberately trying to fuel the dispute owing to their ideological aversion to trade unions—wanting to “break them”, in the words of Mr. Wilkinson, the Department for Transport official—as opposed to listening and addressing the real concerns that have been raised and are apparent for all others to see.

The stakes are high, and the Gibb report, although conflicted, recognises that. It is a serious attempt to analyse the multiple problems with the network, focusing on 10 different areas of failure, and then bring those findings together.

Cutting through the layers of self-interest—and no part of the network comes out particularly well—Gibb’s recommendations have sought to put passengers at the centre and he has pragmatically analysed the steps that need to be taken to build one Southern rail service which collaborates across operators, infrastructure bodies, the regulator and contracted services such as maintenance companies, with a reform programme that not only challenges behaviours, but sets a template for the industry to refocus.

The immense task set requires all parties to take a step back and listen to what Gibb is actually saying between the lines of text. This is an immense challenge. There has to be transition. Problem solving and working together is the only way through this and a new approach must be adopted by all. There has to be space for everyone to raise their concerns and, instead of being met by a wall of denial, a bit more flexibility would provide a win for everyone. When people talk about staff shortages, that must be addressed; and when people talk about safety challenges, they must be heard.

I want to return to the fact that we live in critical times and throw this challenge down to the Government. Technology is advancing at a pace, and this is something that we can be immensely proud of. Over the next decade, engineering and digitalisation across the rail industry will take us to new places that even today are unimaginable. But the rail industry is ultimately about people and, as we progress from generation to generation, the reassurances we seek do not change. In a safety-critical environment, passengers want safety guaranteed.

Incidents do occur, and I will never forget working in intensive care as the Potters Bar tragedy happened, and the carnage that I faced as a clinician trying to save lives and put bodies back together. Life is too important.

We lose 40 people on the Southern rail network each year through suicide. That is traumatic for our drivers and of course tragic for those involved. Passengers, or even drivers, take ill. Threatening and antisocial behaviour still occurs. Women can still feel unsafe travelling alone at night, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) reminded us—and I note that there is no woman’s voice in the Secretary of State’s team; perhaps that would have been helpful to understand those safety-critical issues.

Terrorism is now a reality that hovers in all of our minds. Overcrowded stations and overcrowded trains do create risks. A disabled person may need assistance, not just with boarding and alighting, but throughout their journey. Who will be the passenger champion on each train? Who will keep them safe? Who will have the vital training in order to carry out those vital tasks? Who will provide the second set of eyes to support safe departure and keep the public safe? Those are the real questions the workers are asking and the Government are refusing to hear, and these are the issues that must be addressed for the sake of the public.

The Government would never dream of taking away cabin crew on a short flight, and yet, on journeys which may take a lot longer, removing the one person who keeps us safe, can answer our questions and concerns, and can help meet our needs, is doing the reverse of establishing what Gibb is calling for: a passenger-centred service.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) said, none of us want to stand at this Dispatch Box and lament, “if only”, and recite that “lessons must be learned.” That is why Labour would build a united, integrated, safe, accessible and functioning service for the passengers, and we would also champion the rights of passengers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones]

There were a few points there. I shall relay to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) his socialist tendencies, which will be a surprise to him. The answer on suspensions is 18, and I cannot answer for the DCLG on when it will respond to the consultation.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. What assessment he has made of recent trends in the level of investment in maintenance across the rail network.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Maynard)]

Network Rail is responsible for delivering a safe, reliable and efficient railway, and is regulated by the Office of Rail and Road. Over the longer term the company has reduced the cost of the railway significantly, and asset reliability has improved. The trend in spending on maintenance at present is broadly stable, but it is vital that the company continues to drive efficiency to ensure a good service to passengers while reducing the burden on passengers and taxpayers.

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but the overhead line equipment on the east coast main line route is in urgent need of renewal, having been installed in the 1970s and ’80s. We already know that there is six-times higher spend in the south than in the north on rail and transport infrastructure, but we also seem to have an east-west divide in rail: the east coast route has received £3 billion less than that of the west. Will the Government bring forward their funding to upgrade the east coast main line infrastructure, since the passenger performance measure is now at 25.1% because of overhead line failure? In layman’s terms, my constituents’ journeys are being delayed and seriously diverted.

[Paul Maynard]

I predicted that the hon. Lady would raise the issue of overhead line equipment. I have already met the route managing director Rob McIntosh to discuss that specific issue. He said to me that he is looking carefully at how to best improve reliability of the overhead lines, particularly during periods of high winds and heavy storms, which often cause a problem. They are looking at sites with significant gradient and reviewing vegetation management near overhead lines, track geometry and the reliability of system tension during periods of high winds.

Cabin Air Safety/Aerotoxic Syndrome

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. May I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) on opening this debate so well? All the contributions have been incredibly positive in addressing this important issue. I, too, was at the meeting. It was humbling to hear from Mr Bass in January, when he presented us with a moving account of what happened to his son Matt, who died so tragically at the age of just 34. He deserves answers; he deserves action.

I, too, declare an interest as a member of Unite and a former national official of the union, but I also had a dual career. I was a clinician and worked in the interface between respiratory and neurological medicine, so I very much understand the clinical presentations that have been described by many cabin crew staff.

Matt had spent 10 years as a flight attendant. He was a young man. Following a shift, he had gone out to socialise with his friends, like so many others. He was fatigued, so he went to rest on the sofa. He never woke up. In fact, the organophosphates that he was exposed to during his career had caused him to feel unwell for some time. He was not to know why; he was not to know that they could kill him. The job he loved could have been slowly poisoning his system. We know this is true for the 61 cases that Unite is currently pursuing. As the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) said, this could well be a global issue; therefore, the number of cases is unknown.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Does the hon. Lady agree that, in addition to needing greater evidence-gathering, we should perhaps develop routine blood testing to measure the effects on cabin crew?

[Rachael Maskell]

It is important that proper screening is introduced—obviously the methods of screening need to be determined—thereby ensuring that cabin crew staff have proper occupational health support. The availability of those health services is vital.

We have also heard how long these symptoms have been recognised in the aviation industry. Indeed, my research showed that it was realised in 1954 that using air in this way with jet engines can result in gases escaping and coming into planes’ air systems, so we can establish that this has been recognised as a long-term issue, whatever date that was first known. We have also heard today about the report from the senior coroner, who has clearly established, as a matter of fact, that organophosphates are present in aircraft cabins and therefore can have a detrimental impact on the health of those who occupy that space.

It is important to understand who this issue could affect. We have talked about the cabin crew staff, but pilots and frequent fliers could also be exposed to the cumulative risk from such gases. Also, we are talking not just about the civilian airline industry, but about what is happening with military aircraft, where people are already putting their lives on the line. Could there be a risk for our service personnel as well? It would be interesting to know what work is being done to protect members of the RAF.

Before moving on, I want to thank the Unite the union health and safety reps, who are at the forefront of taking forward these issues, many in their own time, but all serving their fellow colleagues day in, day out, asking very difficult questions of their employers. It is to be regretted that they have been unable to find an industrial solution to this problem or get a direct response from the airline industry. That is why it is so important that they brought to the attention of parliamentarians the plight of people working in the industry. It is absolutely right that we support them in that. Indeed, the way in which this serious issue of concern was raised and presented to parliamentarians shows—if I may say so in this debate—a really responsible use of the political levy, which is what unions continually do. We should note that the current attack on the trade union political levy is totally inappropriate, because without it we might not be having these kinds of debate in this House.

I will now return to the matter under consideration. What is really shocking about this debate is that we are talking about a safety-critical industry—one that works to ensure the greater safety of those who work in and use it. In such a safety-critical industry, where lives could be put at risk, we therefore need to ensure that measures are taken as a matter of urgency. I know there has been a long, drawn-out debate, but this is a matter of urgency, because it may only take a pilot to be poisoned during a journey for there to be fatalities. We already understand that lives have been lost, but how many more need to be taken before action is taken? Therefore, I urge that we move forward in addressing this issue.

We know that there are poisonous gases that we experience in all sorts of places in our environment. The complete, holistic impact that that has on our lives is not yet understand, but what has been brought to the fore is the fact that these fume events are occurring frequently. I, too, had the statistic of one in 100 instances, which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), but the research suggested there could be even more. None of us know, because we do not have the detection systems to give us that information. What we do know is that the impact is very serious indeed.

The toxicity of organophosphates inhibits enzymes. That inhibits the neurotransmitters in our nervous system and at the neuromuscular junctions from operating fully, and that is the reason for some of the symptoms we see, such as drowsiness, along with some of the neurological impact and the impact on the autonomic nervous system. Our red blood cells, too, are affected, so exposure, as we would expect, will affect people in different ways, whether because of their genetic make-up, or even their body mass index or other factors. The important thing to do is to carry out research so that we have a good understanding of why people experience the different symptoms.

The symptoms can range from nausea and other gastroenterological conditions, through respiratory problems to the fatigue-type syndromes—the sickness syndromes—that are typically experienced. Often, people would not relate that to their work environment, and might think that they just feel under the weather, but continual exposure to such risk can build up toxicity over a period of time, thereby causing neurological injury.

We know—we have heard about this in quite a lot of detail—how those gases come into aircraft cabins, but what stood out for me was that it is often because of the failure of the seals on aircraft. Therefore, it is important that we ensure that the maintenance programmes of these aircraft are brought into check, because we have also heard how developments in the 787 Dreamliner aircraft have shown that that does not have to be the case with new designs.

I want to conclude by listing some of the things that I believe could be done to improve the aircraft environment for staff and public. First, as we have heard, there is monitoring. Monitoring devices would not be an expensive way of getting information and also ensuring that staff are kept safe as they go about their daily duties of keeping us safe in aircraft. I make a plea that we should put proper monitoring devices on aircraft, but also ensure that there are proper alerts when fume events happen, so that cabin crew can take the appropriate action to safeguard themselves and, obviously, the people they are there to serve.

We have also heard about reporting, which is so important. We know that it is absolutely at the centre of health and safety legislation, so that we can understand the prevalence of an issue. I would therefore ask that reporting be put at the forefront. We have also heard about the independent inquiry—which is so important as well—and the need for research into the impact of toxicity on individuals. I would also like to ask about the opportunities for greater engineering development. We know that filtration systems can be developed to filter out such air, so I would urge the Minister to make resources available for research into this area, to develop filtration systems that can provide the protections we need on existing aircraft, but also to look at the design of future aircraft.

I have already mentioned the need for good health checks and making sure that occupational health support is made available for staff, but we also need to ensure that the public are aware of the risks as they take their flights, so that they are conscious, if they detect any symptoms themselves, of what support they need, should such an occurrence arise. Finally, we know that the oxygen supply in cabins comes mixed with cabin air, which could well be toxic. Is it possible to look into how to get cleaner air into that oxygen supply, so that, should there be a serious escape of fumes, we know that we have a safe source of air to inhale during the flight?

Matt Bass was one of so many people in the airline industry who put our lives ahead of their own, day to day, serving us. Tragically, he lost his life. I do not want there to be another like Matt Bass, so I urge positive action today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Research is ongoing, not least through the European Aviation Safety Agency, but the levels of OP concentration in situations where no fume event has occurred—which have been measured widely—have been found to be no greater than they are in this Chamber or any domestic location. They are very small background levels, as one would expect. Particularly given the sensitivity of some of the testing that can now be carried out, it is not difficult to find OPs almost anywhere.

As a toxic mechanism for the reported illnesses was found to be unlikely, a nocebo effect was considered a plausible alternative explanation for the symptoms. A nocebo effect can be defined as a detrimental effect on health produced by psychological or psychosomatic factors—for example where a subject develops symptoms as a reaction to a situation that he or she perceives as dangerous or hazardous. However, neither option could be proved beyond doubt given the available data; but we know that the nocebo effect happens in other circumstances. I hesitate to give this example from my own experience, but when I was a child my mother would serve us a cooked breakfast and after we had finished she would say, “I hope those sausages were all right. They were well past their sell-by date,” and one felt a feeling in one’s stomach. It is not the same thing, but it shows how psychological effects can pass into physical effects. That is one of the theories put forward by the scientists looking at the matter. The nocebo is an established psychological and medical situation.

[Rachael Maskell]

The Minister is being generous with his time this afternoon. What I want to know is what is behind the research. What about the cumulative impact of constant exposure to instances of gases being released into the cabin?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am going to come on to the frequency of fume events. I think none of the toxicologists or other scientists involved in the projects consider that there is a risk in the normal background level of chemicals in an aircraft cabin. As I have said, those are similar to the levels found in any other setting in the UK. The fume events are what we need to look at, and I will be discussing a little more evidence that I have been given about the frequency of those events.

As a toxic mechanism could not be categorically ruled out as the cause of the symptoms, the Committee concluded that more research would be beneficial. It stated, however, that it would be necessary to balance the likelihood that the further research will usefully inform further management of the problem against the costs of undertaking the research. There are various aspects of the issue to take into consideration, including the results of the research that has been undertaken and the unpredictability and rarity of the fume events. I said I would have some information on that. The Civil Aviation Authority operates a mandatory occurrence-reporting scheme and, contrary to what we may have heard during the debate, the CAA is determined that every type of occurrence should be reported. Indeed, if airlines do not report instances, questions are asked about whether their culture is a good one.

When I was a member of the Select Committee on Transport we visited the CAA and were given a list of the sorts of reports that came forward, which included things that people might not see as relevant, such as both pilots eating the same sandwich. That would be an issue if there were a food poisoning incident. Even what might seem trivial and unimportant incidents must be reported, and there is a culture of reporting in the airline industry, not least in the case of fume events, which people are well aware of.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am advised that if a fume event occurs it is apparent to everyone on the aircraft. The smell of the oil is absolutely apparent to people. As I mentioned, there is a culture of reporting in the CAA and the aviation industry—which, incidentally, we would like to spread to the health service, where near misses and potential accidents are often not reported. Its reporting culture ensures that the aviation industry is one of the safest in the world.

[Rachael Maskell]

That is the crux of the debate. The reality is that it may be possible to detect a serious fuel event; but what about a minor one, where there is slight leakage into the cabin?

[Dawn Butler]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

A lot of air quality monitoring has been carried out on aircraft. The problem is that fume events are relatively rare and therefore there has not been the ability to pick one up during one of those monitoring situations.

Under the CAA’s mandatory reporting scheme, the trigger for a report is an event that is considered by the crew to be a

“safety-related event which endangers or which, if not corrected or addressed, could endanger an aircraft, its occupants or any other person.”

None of the flights where fumes and smells were reported in post-flight questionnaires met those criteria; they are the ones that we actually tested. However, I have some data from the CAA on the number of those reports where smells have been reported in the cabin. We heard from the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde that he had been given the figure of about one in 2,000 flights. We heard from the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) that it is about one in 100. The evidence that I have is that in the last decade we have seen annually between 282 and 471 reports of smells or fumes in the cabin. The last year that we have report numbers for is 2014, when there were 426.

However, it must be emphasised that up to now, reports of fumes have included all causes of smoke, odour or fumes, both internal and external, and not just incidents of bleed-air contamination. The CAA estimates that a maximum of 10% of those incidents reported are regarding bleed-air contamination—in other words, less than one a week—and therefore it has not been possible as yet to have testing equipment on an aircraft when one has happened. I hope that that puts into context the frequency with which these situations occur.

[Rachael Maskell]

I would like to press the Minister a little further on this issue, because it is very important. The fact that detection equipment is not available or not placed on aircraft means that we are moving to subjective measures of whether an incident has occurred. Is it not vital that we first do the correct monitoring in order to understand how big, small or frequent these incidents are, and then go on to take action? I do not think that the reports to which the Minister is referring are satisfying us that that empirical evidence is available.

[Mr Goodwill]

I could not agree with the hon. Lady more. I am laying out what research has been done and what information we have to date. That is why it is very important that EASA makes further progress. Indeed, we are keen to find out what research is happening around the world. Because of the international nature of the aviation industry, it is the Government’s view that an international approach to any future research investigations would be appropriate.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]: Revival

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I am rapidly taking up a number of causes across London. I know that Caledonian Road tube station is one of the great ways of leaving the Emirates stadium after football matches. Interestingly, substantial amounts of money were secured in order to dramatically improve the transport system around the stadium when it was being rebuilt. The reality is that there are concerns about whether that money was used properly. Clearly I realise that there is a need to renew the lift at Caledonian Road tube station, but I would much rather we ensured that there was a lift at Harrow-on-the-Hill station, because it does not have one, and at Stanmore station.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Bob Blackman]

I give way to another hon. Lady from London, who no doubt has an aspect of London transport to bring up.

[Rachael Maskell]

I must correct the hon. Gentleman: I represent York Central, but I am in London today, as we all are. He said in his opening remarks that TfL’s financial position would be improved as a consequence of the Bill. On what premise is that assumption based?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

It is as though the risk is being nationalised and the profit privatised. That is what is happening for the sake of George Osborne being able to balance the books in the CSR.

[Rachael Maskell]

A further risk is that profits for some of those property developers may be invested offshore and they may not pay tax here. The Treasury would lose even more money on that land.

[Emily Thornberry]

Many questions need to be asked about the status of the partners that TfL will be able to join in partnership. Will they be offshore? Will they pay taxes here? Will they be able to move the control of the partnerships from one party to another without the public—it is our land—being able to stop it? One hears many scary stories, such as money from Moldova being laundered through Scotland—all sorts of extraordinary things go on under these instruments—and my concern is that the limited partners are liable only for the value of any investment they make and do not need to be involved in the management of the partnership. They put their money in, that is the extent of their liability, and we do not know what sort of profits they will then be able to make and we do not know whether they will pay any tax in this country. Those questions need to be asked before we revive this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am glad to be able to make a contribution to this debate. I am not from the city of London—I am from the city of York, which is a railway city—but I have many concerns about the Bill, and many of my hon. Friends have touched on them this evening.

At the heart of the motion is the desire to revive the Bill, which started its journey five years ago. As we have heard, the housing situation in London has changed so much during that time that the Bill is no longer relevant. It left the House of Lords 20 months ago, so there have been plenty of opportunities to debate it. London’s housing situation has changed so considerably that the Bill must be called into question. We need a new Bill to address the real issues faced today, rather than a Bill that is clearly outdated. We are talking about a property market that largely did not exist five years ago.

[Catherine West]

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in just the past five years, Haringey, which includes Tottenham, has been considered a higher-value London area, with homes on sale for in excess of £500,000, and that first-time buyers are unable even to get on to the housing ladder? Indeed, on the Government’s flagship scheme to incentivise people to get a mortgage, one person has benefited—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am not having any more long interventions. There have been far too many.

[Rachael Maskell]

I have grasped the point of my hon. Friend’s intervention. House prices have escalated out of control since the Bill was originated. The reality is that we are dealing with a different situation and a different world from when the Bill was put together. I therefore believe that we should not proceed with the motion today, but call a halt and go back to the drawing board to address the real problems we have heard so much about.

I want to touch on some of the issues that have not been addressed today about the consequences of the Bill. The reality is that there will be so many unintended consequences. I asked questions earlier, which were not answered, about the financial modelling and the financial risks that may arise.

[Ian Mearns]

It is not just about consequences, but about responsibility. In the context of London, particularly when it has land assets to dispose of, Transport for London has a social responsibility to make sure that the land at its disposal can be used to help to rebalance the housing market and give Londoners a chance to live in London.

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that responsibility has to be at the core not just of this Bill, but of government. I have the same concerns as my hon. Friend. The Bill is full of risk, and we have heard about many of those risks today.

[Mr Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend rightly seeks to draw attention to the unintended consequences of the Bill. Does she accept that one of them may be to divert the focus of TfL’s attention to property development in zones 1 and 2? Might she be tempted to come out to Harrow on the Hill to understand that point even more acutely?

[Stephen Pound]

Via Ealing.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) for the invitation to Harrow on the Hill station. I am sure that I will join many hon. Friends in going round the tube stations of London to examine the works that are waiting to be completed.

My hon. Friend makes the point that Transport for London needs a sharper focus on its work in improving our railway network and stations, including by making sure that stations are accessible to disabled people. Why should a disabled person have to wait to access transport? Surely that should be a priority for the Government. The reality is that so many questions are not answered in relation to the Bill.

One of the things we have heard a lot about is the price of housing and its consequences. We are not talking about the development of housing for people to live in, but about the building of assets on which people can make further money at the expense of others. As their assets build, inequality grows further and further in our city. Such inequality has an impact not only at the top end, but on others. If we look at one of the real consequences of inequality, we can see that there are serious skills shortages in the city. If we think about the impact on recruiting to the NHS because people cannot afford to live in central London—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) is gesturing on the Conservative Benches, but the reality is that the constituents of some Conservative Members will face lots of consequences from not having enough nurses in their hospital. In fact, the Government are concerned about agency workers in our hospitals. Are we surprised when trained staff cannot even work in our NHS because they cannot afford to live nearby? Those are some of the consequences of not developing land for its social value and to put something back into our services. In fact, rail workers working for Transport for London will not be able to afford—

[Catherine West]

Is my hon. Friend aware that key workers cannot gain access to such housing because the key worker category has shot up so high in relation to the market?

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend makes a reasoned point. The centre of London is becoming void of key workers, teachers, people who work in hospitals and people who work in our railway system, and we will suffer the consequences. In fact, the construction workers who will be asked to work on these sites will not be able to live in central London and access those services.

As I did at the start of the debate, I ask about the financial modelling behind the Bill. There are many risks, but my concern was roused by a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith). She talked about the new chair of Network Rail, who has come from Transport for London. Network Rail has a major footprint in my constituency, and once the principle is introduced, we could see these limited partnerships extended to many other areas. Sir Peter Hendy has transferred to Network Rail and he could bring the principle with him. I have a site in my constituency of 35 hectares of Network Rail brownfield land on which 1,100 houses could be built, but they would be high-value houses—

[Claire Perry]

How does the hon. Lady know that?

[Rachael Maskell]

How do I not know? The Opposition’s job is to scrutinise the Government and these provisions—

[Claire Perry]

rose—

[Rachael Maskell]

I am not going to give way. I heard the point the Minister made from a sedentary position. It is clear that the Bill carries a potential risk. We have heard about financial risk, housing risk and the skills risk. As a result, and given the changing world we live in, we have serious questions about what the limited partnerships would bring. Opposition Members are concerned that we are seeing the social remodelling of London. Housing that is inaccessible is being built in the heart of the city, in zones 1 and 2 and further afield, which means that people cannot afford to live where they work.

[Emily Thornberry]

My hon. Friend began with the important point that the property market has changed so much in recent years. Is she aware that overseas developers have been especially active in the land market, accounting for nearly three quarters of the £1.8 billion spent on land for development in central London in the second quarter of 2015?

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that fact. Those figures were not quite on the tip of my tongue, but it does show that the level of overseas investment in the city is pricing everybody else out, leaving the centre of the city void of community life. People are spotted around the city, but do not actually live in a community.

We are not looking at the infrastructure needed to support these developments—social areas, additional staff, schools and other facilities—because that is not part of the legislation either. One concern is this: we talk about limited partnerships being agreed, but what happens after that agreement? Plans and proposals can change. Ultimately, we could end up with a very different animal from what we started with.

[Andy Slaughter]

We know what happens, because TfL has given the game away: a 100% market housing development in zones 1 and 2. The only guard against that are councils—Labour councils, principally—insisting on affordable housing. The provisions in the Housing and Planning Bill will remove that guard. This is the dirty little deal between the Government and TfL to ensure there is no affordable housing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Talking about housing tangentially to the Bill, because it has an effect on property and the owning of land, is in order. Having a debate almost entirely about housing and the provision of social housing is not in order when discussing the Bill.

[Rachael Maskell]

I very much take on board my hon. Friend’s point. There are real questions left hovering over the Bill. My hon. Friend refers to the Housing and Planning Bill, which relates to the use of land. That is the issue that concerns Labour Members: what will the land be used for? We highlighted the use of land and what kind of housing will be built on it. Clearly, there is concern about infrastructure and other possibilities, even use for business and other modelling on land in the future. The Bill does not specify a certain type of housing. The limited partnerships model proposed does not list the scope of use of the property and the development in the future.

I would like to return to my initial point before I close, which is the ageing of the Bill. We have seen very clearly that the world has changed so much since it was first drafted. What is the Bill’s relevance to the modern economy? We have heard much about the structure and direction of our economy. The Bill will build more of an asset-based economy than one that is social-based.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are not discussing academic economic issues; we are discussing transport.

[Rachael Maskell]

The Bill is about more than transport and that is why it is a real concern. It is about an organisation in charge of running our transport expanding its business opportunities into other areas, largely property development on its land. We would like TfL to focus on addressing the needs of constituents’ stations, about which we have heard so much today, but the Bill goes far beyond that.

Twenty months after the Bill was last debated, it is now clearly out of time. It is time that this House agreed to pursue another route to use vital land in London.

[Stephen Pound]

On my hon. Friend’s tour of the metropolis, as she passes through Harrow would she care to join me in Northolt, where she will see that Dave Francis Autos is about to be closed down and turned into a car park by TfL in a way that is nothing to do with sustainable transport, local needs or the wishes of local people? Does she not agree that TfL should concentrate on transport? It should be talking about transporting Londoners, not developing land.

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend makes a perfect point.

[Stephen Pound]

I wouldn’t say that.

[Rachael Maskell]

Well, I would—TfL needs that focus. The reality is that the Bill is about the Government’s austerity measures and the fact that TfL will have to plug the gaps. It is one thing to say to the public that it will ensure ticket prices are held for one, two, three or five years, but what happens after five years when the asset runs out? The sponsor, when pressed about financial security, could give the House no assurances. We therefore call on the Government not to proceed with this out-of-date Bill. It is time for a fresh Bill to address London’s social needs.

draft Merchant Shipping (Alcohol) (prescribed limits amendment) Regulations 2015

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 General Committees

[Mr Goodwill]

For the avoidance of doubt, the regulations will apply to UK ships anywhere in the world.

We are keen, as the hon. Member for Blackpool South said, to ensure that knowledge of these regulations is spread widely. Indeed, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has issued notice to mariners about all the amendments made at the Manila conference, not just the one before the Committee today.

It is right that we should monitor compliance with the changes to the regulations. In the event of an incident, one of the first courses of action would be to breathalyse the crew and the master of the ship if there is any suggestion that alcohol may have been involved. Companies themselves will of course notify their staff of the changes. Indeed, many companies already have an alcohol and drug monitoring policy, and in many cases have zero tolerance to alcohol.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the master of a ship have any additional responsibilities for ensuring that crew comply with these regulations?

[Mr Goodwill]

Obviously, the master of a ship is the primary person on board a vessel who will be able to pick up whether members of the crew have an alcohol problem. If it is company policy not to have alcohol on the ship, disciplinary action can be taken through a crew member’s terms of employment if alcohol is discovered.

[Rachael Maskell]

How will the master of a ship be able to fulfil those responsibilities?

[Mr Goodwill]

The master of a ship is charged with complying with all regulations that apply to vessels at sea. If it is a UK-flagged ship, he will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the regulations. If other members of the crew are concerned about the captain, they also have a responsibility to draw that to the attention of the ship’s owners or, possibly, the first mate or chief engineer.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South talked about the review period and asked whether we will consider taking unilateral action earlier should it be necessary. Of course, all matters are kept under review, but I consider it important that we act internationally wherever possible, to avoid confusion. The measure under consideration is about setting an international level.

I recently visited the marine accident investigation branch, which provides comprehensive reports. I read a number of those reports in preparation for this Committee, including on the incident in Belfast that I described. The marine accident investigation branch is keen to ensure that, if alcohol is involved in an accident, it will be in the report and lessons will be learned. I do not consider the amendment to be in the category of burdensome red tape. Indeed, we are merely changing the levels that already apply.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South talked about commencement. The section of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 that applies to limits for non-professional mariners has never been commenced. Public consultation on the matter in the 2000s highlighted specific problems with applying the section to leisure crafts where the duties of those on board are ill-defined. Much can be done by means other than national legislation. For example, the Royal Yachting Association, supported by my Department, has promoted among pleasure boaters the message that alcohol and water do not mix. At local level, harbour authorities can manage any problems identified by working with user groups and hire companies, for example to agree codes of conduct. If necessary, they may utilise any powers they have to make byelaws or general directions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the cessation of work on the electrification of the trans-Pennine route and the midland main line on the northern powerhouse initiative.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

8. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the cessation of work on the electrification of the trans-Pennine route and the midland main line on the northern powerhouse initiative.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

Rail services in the north, including trans-Pennine, will see a massive boost from the new franchises that come into effect in April 2016—including a 36% increase in peak capacity into Leeds and Manchester. We are developing plans for even better trans-Pennine links, including electrification, as part of the northern powerhouse.

[Rachael Maskell]

The challenge with capacity and the slow pace of the TransPennine—so-called—Express, and of the midland main line, have a real impact on York’s economy. Can the Secretary of State say when the modernisation and electrification work will now begin, and when it is due to be completed, so we can be confident that the work has not hit the buffers?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am very sorry that the hon. Lady cannot welcome the £2.7 billion of investment in Intercity Express, which will mean 65 trains, in five-carriage and nine-carriage formations, introduced and serving her area from 2018 and a 28% increase in morning peak-time seats into King’s Cross. The new Northern and TransPennine Express franchises will operate fast, high-quality, inter-urban commuter services with more capacity, and improved local services—all with a strong focus on serving their customers well: more achievements, as opposed to the terrible franchise that the Labour Government re-launched in 2004, based on nil growth for the northern area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McLoughlin]

We have allocated a substantial increase to local authorities for mending potholes—it is something like a 50% increase over what was provided in 1997. My hon. Friend is right that potholes are a substantial nuisance and menace, and that looking at new ways of repairing them is also very important. Those ways will mean that potholes are repaired and do not deteriorate so quickly.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

T6. Fifty-six cyclists have been killed on our roads this year. Following the meeting with the Prime Minister yesterday, will the Minister seek to expand the cycling cities initiative to more cities to help develop the safe cycling infrastructure?

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his fantastic victory. I met him and the council leaders in his constituency before the election and I know that they had some positive plans for transport. Given that the council has become Conservative controlled as a result of recent elections, I look forward to working with it to see those plans taken forward.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Would the Secretary of State and his Department support a strategic congestion commission for the city of York, where congestion is having a real impact on the environment, on businesses and on the lives of people living in our city?

[Mr McLoughlin]

It is important for local authorities to come forward with plans, but they also have to ensure that those plans are right and proper for the city. I will be interested to hear of any plans suggested and I will look at them.