TfL (Funding and Station Staffing)

Debate between Stephen Pound and John McDonnell

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend is right that certain categories of passengers will be affected the most. To finish on the subject of tickets, however, the Survation survey found that there was little confidence about relying solely on the automatic ticket-vending machines: 52% said that they had been unable to buy tickets in the past, due to the machine being broken. Obtaining information on the correct price and travel advice are also important, as my hon. Friend says.

New forms of ticket retail have become increasingly available, but surveys have shown that passengers value the face-to-face contact with staff, even for simply navigating around the complex ticket pricing system. The Department for Transport’s own review of ticketing acknowledges Passenger Focus research that found that

“passengers are more confident with ticket offices than any other sales channel of obtaining the best value ticket for their journey”.

In response to announcements in recent years about main line railway ticket office closures and reduced opening hours, Passenger Focus stated that

“passengers really value the presence of staff at stations. Any reduction in ticket-office opening hours and the subsequent withdrawal of booking staff often reduces the overall facilities available at stations… We fear that this could lead to passengers feeling less safe at stations and paying more for their tickets than they should.”

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) in praising him for bringing the subject before the House. I also associate myself with my former colleague in London Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma)—he and I were bus conductors together. I speak from a position of some knowledge in this matter.

None of the tube stations in my constituency are fully accessible. It may not be the duty of station staff to assist people up and down stairs, but it is something that they do, and they do it willingly. How in heaven’s name are people struggling with buggies, on walking sticks or with walking aids going to manage without that good will if the people, however willing, simply are not there?

[John McDonnell]

That is the running theme through all the comments we have had.

The Campaign for Better Transport stated:

“Plans to close ticket offices and cut staff in stations will mean passengers are left to fend for themselves when buying a ticket and will result in people paying over the odds for their journey.”

If there are 17% fewer staff to help passengers, then what? As my hon. Friends have said, staff help with incidents, accidents, advice on what route to take, directions to local venues or addresses, disability access needs, lost property and yes, lost children and everything else, as well as service updates and many more issues that passengers cannot deal with on their own or via a machine. The remaining station staff, to be frank, will be less available to help with travel and other inquiries, because they will be busy helping people to use the ticket machines who would have previously have sought help at the ticket office.

Passengers also need some types of help that a station supervisor has to deal with, in particular the more complex issues for a more senior level of staff. Now there is a station supervisor in every station, but under London Underground’s plans, they will be removed from many stations and responsible for a number of stations instead, so that they might have to travel from another station to help passengers. Staff will be expected to work on several stations over a wider area, so they will be less familiar with the area the station is in and they will often be working in isolation.

There will be an impact on efficiency—all the expert evidence that we have collected says exactly that. Station staff play an important role in keeping the trains moving, such as helping the trains to depart promptly, reporting faults and providing information and advice during service disruption. Station staff work with other London Underground staff, such as drivers and service controllers, to keep the tube running. If there are fewer staff in stations, the train service will suffer. The London Underground plans to remove station supervisors from many stations will slow down service recovery during and after disruption.

Station supervisors also play a critical safety role. London Underground plans that such essential staff will be in charge of several stations at the same time, so they will be unable to deal in person with the many safety incidents and issues. It intends to plug some of the gaps in staff coverage with a casualised work force of agency staff, as well as having office staff who occasionally work on stations, away from their normal duties and with minimal training. In many people’s view, that will compromise safety. I agree.

Department for Communities and Local Government

Debate between Stephen Pound and John McDonnell

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I want to speak about the protection of the green belt in Hillingdon. I have lived in my constituency and represented it in various guises for nearly 40 years. From the earliest days I shared a dream that we would surround our largely industrial and urban area, which is encircled with factory sites, offices, major motorways and airports to north and south, with country parks and open spaces. Decades on, we have succeeded, with new country parks to the south, west and east and the regeneration of our traditional parks and green-belt open spaces. That has been a tremendous community achievement. I have set up friends groups for each park and worked with organisations such as the London wildlife trust, A Rocha and Hillingdon natural history society to improve and open up our open spaces.

One of our greatest achievements is the creation of the award-winning Lake Farm country park. That land next to Hayes town centre was owned by EMI, which in the early 1990s sought to dig gravel from it and turn it into a rubbish tip. I set up a friends group, mobilised the local community and persuaded the council on a cross-party basis not only to reject the planning application but to buy the land to create a country park.

Ironically, it is the council that is now planning to build on our country park. It proposes to build a three- form entry primary school on the park, putting at risk the natural habitats of the skylarks and other abundant birdlife and wildlife on the site as well as taking away a considerable portion of the park from public enjoyment. That has caused uproar in our community.

The council argues that although the development is contrary to local and national policies, and those of the Mayor of London, on protecting the green belt, there are exceptional circumstances because of the need for additional school places and because there is no other site for the new school in the area. The planning process by which Hillingdon council reached that decision has plumbed the depths of disgraceful, mendacious and, at times, farcical local government incompetence.

[Stephen Pound]

I urge my hon. Friend to resist this even more strongly that he is already inclined to. Were he to enter London along the broad, majestic A40, he would see the three mounds of Northarla fields, which were achieved by Ealing council and the Northolt and Greenford countryside park, influenced by, in admiration of and in tribute to the work of his borough of Hillingdon.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Stephen Pound and John McDonnell

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

To be fair—

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Don’t: there is no need. It is not necessary.

[John McDonnell]

This is a serious debate and, to be fair—my hon. Friend was here at the time—there were Conservative and Lib Dem Members who sought to push things further. What I thought was important about that debate was that we reached a consensus. We reached a fairly high plateau of agreement. It was recognised that some wanted to go even further, but no one wanted to go backwards, which is what this legislation does. This is a backward step.

Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between Stephen Pound and John McDonnell

Monday 17th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

This debate, on a Bill that most people agree with, has been fascinating. The last five speeches, by my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) and my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), are worth reading. They were superb. I do not usually follow the parliamentary convention of saying, “It is a pleasure to follow”, but it was a pleasure listening to their speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington demonstrated a commitment to, and deep knowledge of, his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East set out the implications for Scotland and the overall economic situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow was passionate about the problems and returned, as ever, to Wonga. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich displayed his ministerial experience, while my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe demonstrated his passion.

A succession of MPs have stood up and urged the inclusion of particular projects in the Bill. May I be a contrarian and suggest one that should not be included in the Bill—the expansion of Heathrow airport? I am worried because although the Bill is meant to account for ready-made projects—those on the drawing board and ready to be implemented over the next 12 months—there is no sunset clause. Furthermore, it can be renewed and additional sums can be bestowed simply by statutory instrument. Now, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but my constituents might start to believe in conspiracies: we had 12 months of intensive lobbying by the aviation industry; after that, the Chancellor expressed scepticism about existing Conservative party policy, which was against a third runway at Heathrow; then the Prime Minister announced a review of that policy by someone who was director of the CBI, which had lobbied for a third runway; and now we have a Bill that would go on the shelf as almost suitable for funding the expansion of Heathrow. It is no wonder, then, that my constituents are anxious about the attitude of the Government to that measure.

The measures in the Bill would perfectly suit Ferrovial, the Spanish company established by a fascist in the 1930s who made his profits as a result of contracts awarded to him by Franco. It would ideally suite Ferrovial to come forward and seek funding for the infrastructure expansion at Heathrow. I am sure it would be willing to pay for the tarmac, but not for all the infrastructure that goes with it, particularly the road and rail network needed to support a third runway. I fear that Ferrovial will come forward seeking Government guarantees to fund and back up the expansion. I say that because its construction company globally is in serious difficulties, or certainly is in doubt.

I give notice that despite the cross-party support for the Bill, which I also support, I will be moving amendments to ensure that the expansion of Heathrow is not part and parcel of it. I expect coalition support for that on the basis of the existing coalition policy, sworn in this Chamber by the Prime Minister, that the Government will not bring forward the expansion of Heathrow during the lifetime of this Parliament.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I am not entirely sure if Ealing North and Hillingdon constitute a coalition but, if it does, may I say that that coalition is solid and that we are as one on this?

[John McDonnell]

Interestingly, the coalition against the expansion of Heathrow has been cross-party up until now. If I remember rightly, the Government’s deputy Chief Whip committed to lying down in front of the bulldozers if it ever came about, and he was not moved in the reshuffle, so I take that as another commitment to opposition to the policy. I hope that the Government will support an amendment to prevent the Bill from being used to give guarantees on the funding of the expansion of Heathrow, certainly during the lifetime of this Parliament. We can then debate the matter with the subsequent Government.

Like everybody else, I am desperate for infrastructure investment in my constituency, which is suffering from a housing crisis on a scale not seen since the second world war. Housing should be included. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) argued for the funding of prison cells, but was not willing to argue that housing be funded. Housing my constituents is just as important as housing prisoners, given the housing crisis.

My schools also need to be renovated, because Hillingdon council pulled out of Building Schools for the Future at the last minute and pupils in my constituency are now being educated in crumbling schools. The buildings that are being built for new classes are portakabins, which are substandard for the long-term future.

On alternative energy, I want the green new deal to be implemented in my constituency as rapidly as possible. It has ground to a halt as a result of the Government’s measures on solar panels and on the funding of alternative energy in general.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) said, there has been an element of déjà vu to this debate. I remember Alan Milburn arguing in favour of private finance initiatives in 1997. We were told then that PFI was the solution to our infrastructure and investment problems and that it would transfer the risk from the public sector to the private sector. With the greatest of respect to a number of my hon. Friends, that did not happen. What we saw instead was profiteering at vast expense to the taxpayer and profligate expenditure that produced very little for the amount that we invested.

The bizarre thing about the plan under discussion, which will introduce another scheme to keep expenditure off the books and within the parameters set by the European Union with regard to public expenditure, is that it will transfer the risk back from the private sector to the public sector, so now the public sector will take all the risk for schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) raised a number of detailed points that need to be answered and I have an additional question. If we look at the briefing paper for the Bill, we will see that it will also be able to fund revenue expenditure. Therefore, in addition to the capital expenditure, I take it that if some of these capital schemes go wrong, we will fund the revenue consequences as a result. There needs to be a detailed analysis—my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow mentioned the Public Accounts Committee—and it needs to take place now, before the next debate on this Bill. We are almost entering into another PFI-type situation whereby a grab of short-term resources will result in long-term costs.

That is all because no Government will grasp the real nettle, which is that there is no lack of resources in this country; the problem is that they are in the wrong hands and are not being used productively. The crisis in the economy was not caused by over-expenditure by the previous Government. The only time borrowing went up dramatically was when they had to bail out the banks and bring in large-scale quantitative easing. In fact, the level of public expenditure in relation to GDP just about met the John Major levels. The problem was that we never balanced that expenditure with an appropriate taxation regime. What we need to do now is introduce a fiscal package that includes a wealth tax, a financial transaction tax, land valuation taxation and measures to tackle tax evasion and avoidance, so that we can fund public expenditure and not have to create devices that in the long term will cost us more and produce so much less.

I regret that we may well be here in five years’ time—I do not look forward to it—as a result of this Bill, counting the cost as we did with PFI. Members need to consider the Bill’s detail as we move to the next stage, because it is the detail that will cost taxpayers dear and result in profligate spending and some abortive spending on some of the projects that have been mentioned tonight and that we all hold dear on behalf of our constituencies.

This has been an interesting debate, but I worry that when everyone agrees that we need to speed up and expedite the Bill, we will not give it sufficient consideration. That is what happened to the PFI legislation and we lived to regret it. I hope that we do not live to regret this Bill.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Stephen Pound and John McDonnell

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on his succinct account of the Bill. He and I go back a long way with these Bills. When I was a Greater London council member, I was responsible for the promotion of GLC Bills and London local authorities Bills. He may recall that one year we introduced a policy of what we described as positive victimisation, whereby not a penny would be spent in the constituency of any London Member who did not vote for the money Bill. Unfortunately, that somewhat contravened parliamentary privilege, and I was called to the Bar of the House to account for my behaviour. Then, in a civil servant role as chief executive of the Association of London Government, I was responsible for promoting successive Bills on behalf of London local authorities.

[Stephen Pound]

That is quite a confession.

[John McDonnell]

It is. I have delayed the House on these Bills on even more occasions than the hon. Member for Harrow East. I congratulate him on valiantly supporting this attempt by the London boroughs to promote legislation.

I want to deal with clause 17 and pedicabs—or rickshaws, as they are more commonly known. The hon. Member for Harrow East informed us that the promoters of the Bill are seeking amendments in Committee to remove the clause. I have received correspondence from Mr Alastair Lewis of Sharpe Pritchard on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, saying:

“I am the parliamentary agent for the promoters of the above Bill, which is down for a second reading debate next Tuesday 6 March 2012.

I am writing to let you know that the promoters propose to seek amendments at committee stage which would have the effect of removing clause 17 (Pedicabs) from the Bill. This decision follows further discussions between the promoters and representatives of the pedicab industry in which it has been agreed that the pedicab industry will take steps towards self-regulation. The promoters have been working with the pedicab industry to achieve self-regulation and consequently propose to withdraw the provisions contained in the Bill.”

Having read that into the record, I hope that there will now be no attempt not to move the amendments.

I convene the RMT parliamentary group. The RMT, which represents taxi drivers in London, has expressed genuine concerns about the role of pedicabs, as have taxi drivers themselves and people more widely within the community. London taxi drivers consider that there is unfair competition from pedicabs. London taxi drivers go through extensive training, they do the London knowledge, and they are vetted.

[John McDonnell]

There is unfair competition because pedicabs do not have to comply with the legislation that applies to taxis. Fitness for taxi drivers is not about physical fitness, although I am sure they are a strong body of men and women who could compare with any pedicab driver. It is about not having criminal convictions, for example, so that people who step in a London taxi can feel safe and secure. There is no vetting of pedicab, or rickshaw, drivers in that sense. There is a strict safety regime for black cabs in London, but no such regime for pedicabs. The hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) is right. The more pedicabs are allowed to continue to ply their trade on the streets of London, the more Londoners are at risk. That is why the RMT objected to the proposals in the Bill, which do not provide details of any licensing scheme that would address those issues.

The last time this matter was raised in legislation, the Opposed Bill Committee cited the Department for Transport’s concerns about pedicabs, such as the lack of any safety regime, the impossibility of identifying the owners of the pedicabs, issues over insurance and the fitness of the characters who are operating the pedicabs. The provision was thrown out by the Opposed Bill Committee on the basis that it failed to comply with any of the Department for Transport’s recommendations about the form of the licensing regime that should be introduced.

We are now left with a situation in which clause 17 has been withdrawn and there is to be a discussion with the pedicab industry. I have no idea who that will involve. We have heard about Bugbugs, but we have no idea how representative that company is of the trade. Quite honestly, it could be a group of gangmasters who hire people on cheap work rates, requiring no form of qualifications and no vetting. After the discussion with the industry, a voluntary scheme will be introduced that will be regulated on a voluntary basis.

[Stephen Pound]

My hon. Friend has mentioned the view of the RMT, which I respect profoundly. The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association also has a firm view about this matter. One of its objections is that these death-trap rickshaws tout for business. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has considered that. They slow down outside theatres and other places of entertainment, touting for business and negotiating prices. That is not illegal according to the Metropolitan police. We cannot simply leave the situation in limbo, because in an hour, throughout the west end, this will happen tonight. Does he agree that action needs to be taken urgently?

[John McDonnell]

That is exactly the point. Clause 17 is being removed from the Bill because it is not satisfactory. It does not address the issues that were pointed out to the promoters by the Department for Transport and the Opposed Bill Committee of this House. We are now faced with a free-for-all out there on the streets of London, where there are vehicles that comply with none of the legislation that licenses and authorises every other vehicle on our roads. I find that unsatisfactory. It leaves Londoners at risk.

No commitments have been given on how the voluntary arrangements will be devised or who will be consulted. Will all the petitioners against the licensing clause in the Bill be consulted? Will they be engaged in drafting the voluntary registration and regulation scheme? Will there be a wider consultation with the general public? How will the consultation take place and over what period? How long will self-regulation be allowed to operate before the Government decide whether to move to a full licensing regime? None of that has been made clear by the promoters of the Bill.

Like other hon. Members, I find this situation unacceptable. We have been discussing this matter since 2003. Nine years on, we still have no licensing regime and no concept of how the self-regulation regime will be developed and consulted on, how it will be tested, what criteria it will be tested against and when the House will address the issue again.

Royal Fleet Auxiliary

Debate between Stephen Pound and John McDonnell

Monday 6th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. My reason for seeking the debate was to get some clarity from the Government about what their intentions are, because at the moment we rely on e-mails circulated within the service itself appearing in Lloyd’s List.

The information that has been put into the public domain has left the RFA in an extremely worrying climate of uncertainty, which is not good for the service, certainly not good for the RFA personnel and their families, and not good, I believe, for the defence of the country.

It is worth reminding ourselves of the long and proud history of the RFA, which the hon. Gentleman has just touched upon. It celebrated its centenary in 2005, having started life in 1905 to give the Royal Navy capability and support at sea, food, fuel, ammunition and supplies. Its motto is “Ready for Anything”. It has always been crewed by civilians, who act as reservists, and has played a major role in every engagement of the past century. RFA officers and ratings delivered distinguished and professional support in every naval theatre of operations in the second world war, from the Arctic to the Pacific. Since then, the RFA has served to support the Royal Navy and Army in Korea, Suez, Cyprus, Kuwait, Borneo, Belize, Aden and even the Icelandic cod wars.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend reads out that roll of very considerable honour, so I am sure he needs no reminding that the RFA vessel Sir Galahad suffered fatalities in the Falklands. Those who crewed that ship died for our country at that time.

[John McDonnell]

I can only say that it reflects the professionalism, commitment, courage and determination of the officers who served on the Sir Galahad that they held to their task throughout the period of being blitzed.

More recently, the RFA played a crucial role in the Gulf war and was cited by the Select Committee on Defence for its vital contribution through the effective delivery of logistics and support. Its crews are civilian and follow the merchant navy training qualification pathways, but over the years it has developed specialist training in helicopters, firefighting, the use of defence systems, specialist navigations, naval communication systems and command systems. It now provides amphibious support and strategic sealift facilities, and provides casualty reception and forward repair functions.

Interestingly, an element of the RFA’s work that has not been sufficiently highlighted in the past is its role following natural disasters. It has provided aid and support, playing a key role in a number of African countries, in Sri Lanka and in the Caribbean. It is now working heavily alongside the US coastguard to tackle drug smuggling operations, and some may have read in the past month that RFA Fort Victoria, in a patrol between Somalia and the coast of the Seychelles, intercepted Somali pirates. That is an incredible record of professionalism, service, courage and determination, and the service is a world leader in its field.

There are 2,300 seafarers in the RFA, and they are employed under RFA conditions of service, which reflect their need to serve in war zones and face war hazards at times. The cost is £100 million. It is cost effective and highly efficient, but stretched to meet existing demands.