RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

RMT

Parliamentary

Group

Report

2nd December 2006 – 27th February 2007 (Inclusive of the Christmas recess)

1 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Contents Executive Summary 3

Parliamentary Group 5

Rail 9

· Meeting with Tom Harris (Rail Minister)

· First Great Western rail franchise

· GNER rail franchise

· Central Trains

· East Coast franchise

· Closure of Southeastern ticket offices

· Environmental Case for Rail

· Anti-Social Behaviour on Northern Rail

· Sale of Rail land

· Grayrigg rail crash

London Underground 18

· Fire Safety Regulations

· East London Line

Maritime 21

· Tonnage Tax

· Thames Boatmaster licensing

· Race Relations Act

· Grounding of the Napoli

Buses 25

Other Campaigns 26

· Trade Union Freedom Bill

· Public Service Not Private Profit

· John 4 Leader Campaign

· BNP Trade Union Front

Annex 1 – EDMs 28

Annex 2 – Letters 36

Annex 3 – Hansard and Group Members 45 2 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Executive Summary

This report covers the activities of the Group from 2nd December 2006 to 27th February 2007, which has included the Christmas recess and one week half-term recess.

In this period, we have held two Group meetings on 12th December 2006 and 6th February 2007. The next meeting of the Group is scheduled for Tuesday 27th March 2007– and will be just prior to the Easter recess.

The Group also has a couple of the special meetings arranged in advance of the next Group meeting:

· Gillian Merron (Under-Secretary of State for Transport) on bus policy – to be confirmed date in March 2007 · RMT Maritime Seminar – 13th March 2007

In this period, the Group has been invited by the Department for Communities and Local Government to establish a working party on the fire precautions regulations at sub-surface rail stations. The first meeting was held on 7th February and the second meeting will take place on 14th March.

Briefings have also been supplied to enable Group MPs to intervene in the following adjournment debates:

· 10th January – Thames Boatmaster licensing · 24th January – First Great Western rail franchise

Written parliamentary questions have been tabled on the following issues:

· Central Trains rail franchise · East Coast Mainline rail franchise · East London Line · First Great Western rail franchise · Race Relations Act · Sale of former BR land · Seafarers’ rights

So far in the 2006-07 parliamentary session, the Group has tabled or supported 14 EDMs (see below for summary, and Annex 1 for full details of EDM text and a list of all signatory MPs)

No. Title Tabling MP sigs to date 133 Fire Precautions Regulations John McDonnell 45 134 Anti-Social Behaviour on Northern Rail Services Jim Cousins 46 286 Future of London Underground Passenger Services Jeremy Corbyn 37 371 GNER Jim Cousins 32 425 Seafarers on the Irish Sea John McDonnell 52 479 Race Relations Act and the Minimum Wage Gwyn Prosser 55 480 Prayer: Merchant Shipping John McDonnell 40 529 Anniversary of the London Underground PPP John McDonnell 30 532 Trade Union Freedom Bill Campaign John McDonnell 82 533 London Underground Cleaning Services John McDonnell 38 730 Rail Freight and the Environment Kelvin Hopkins 71 751 Ticket Office Opening Hours Gwyn Prosser 33

3 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

807 Grounding of the Napoli John McDonnell 40 847 British National Party Trade Union Front John McDonnell 100

4 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Parliamentary Group

David Taylor (Labour MP for North West Leicestershire) has requested to join the Parliamentary Group – following an approach from his local RMT branch.

The Group has met twice in this period: on 12th December 2006 and on 6th February 2007. The next full Group meeting is scheduled to take place on Tuesday 27th March 2007.

RMT Executive – 5th December 2006

John McDonnell presented the previous Group report, covering the period fro July to 1st December 2006, to the RMT Council of Executives on 5th December 2006.

This report will be presented by John to the RMT Council of Executives on Tuesday 6th March 2007.

Group Meeting with Rail Minister Tom Harris – 12th December 2006

The meeting was attended by the new Rail Minister Tom Harris MP, who replaced Derek Twigg in September 2006. The Group wrote to the Minister following his appointment and he was keen to come and speak to the Group.

Apologies: John Austin, Jeremy Corbyn, Rudi Vis

Group Meeting Tuesday 12th December 2006 4pm Room P, Portcullis House

From 4pm-4:30pm the Group will consider the Rail issues we wish to discuss with the Minister. Following the meeting with the Minister we will continue with the remainder of the agenda.

Agenda

1. Apologies

2. Pre-meeting

3. See attached briefing for Meeting with Rail Minister to discuss:

· Future Rail Policy · Rail Franchising and Network Rail · London Rail Services · Staff Assaults

4. London Underground

· Future of PPP · Fire Safety Regulations

5. Maritime

· Tonnage Tax · Race Relations Act, Minimum Wage · Thames Boatmasters 5 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

6. Road Transport

· Government Review of Bus industry

7. Other Political and Industrial issues

· Trade Union Freedom Bill · Public Services Not Private Profit

8. Any other Business

th Group Meeting – 6 February 2007

Gillian Merron MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for bus policy, had been invited to this Group meeting. She replied to the Group and agreed to meet, but due to diary commitments was unable to make this meeting. A separate meeting with Gillian Merron is now being arranged for March 2007.

Apologies: John Austin, Katy Clark, Jim Cousins, David Drew, Kate Hoey, Marsha Singh, Rudi Vis

Group Meeting Tuesday 6th February 2007 4pm Room P, Portcullis House

Agenda

1. Apologies

2. Railways

· Future National Rail Policy and Campaigning and Cuts In Rail Services · Railway Fire Safety Regulations – RMT Group Working Party

3. London Underground

· London Underground Cleaners · East London Line · PPP

4. Maritime

· Tonnage Tax · Race Relations Act, Minimum Wage - RMT Parliamentary Seminar · Stena Seatrader · Thames Boatmasters

5. Road Transport

· Government Review of Bus industry

6. Trade Union Freedom Bill / Temporary Agency Workers Bill

7. Other Political and Industrial issues

8. Diary Dates 6 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

9. Any other Business

The next meeting of the Group will be held on Tuesday 27th March 2007, just prior to the Easter recess.

Briefings circulated

Since the beginning of December 2006, briefings have been circulated on the following issues:

Rail · First Great Western rail franchise

Maritime · National Minimum Wage · Race Relations Act · Thames Boatmaster licensing · Tonnage Tax

Other · Bus policy · Trade Union Freedom Bill

Press releases

In addition, several press releases have been circulated to MPs – on the following issues:

· Bus policy · CalMac tendering process · Central Trains industrial action · Corporate Manslaughter Bill · Eddington Review · EU rail privatisation · Expulsion of Rodney Law · First Great Western rail franchise and timetabling · GNER redundancies · Grayrigg crash investigation · Late night running on London Underground and industrial action · Level crossings programme · London Underground cleaners · London Underground PPP · Merchant Brilliant cargo vessel · OCS Eurostar cleaners · Overcrowding on South West Trains rail franchise · Scottish signallers · Scotland Transport strategy · South Eastern Trains franchise and ticket office closures · Standards on UK-flagged ships · Thames Boatmasters and river safety · Track maintenance and vertical integration

7 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

· Track renewals and runaways · Trident spending and transport investment · West Midlands signallers’

8 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

RAIL

The Group wrote to Tom Harris on 13th November 2006 congratulating him on his appointment as the new Rail Minister (replacing Derek Twigg) and inviting him to the next Group meeting on 12th December 2006.

A short report of the meeting is copied below:

Rail Minister Tom Harris MP Meeting, 12th December 2006

The Group wrote to the new Rail Minister, Tom Harris MP on 13th November 2006 to invite him to continue the open and constructive dialogue that the Group has established with his predecessors Derek Twigg and Tony McNulty.

The Minister agreed to attend the next Group meeting, which was held on Tuesday 12th December. The main items on the agenda raised with the Minister were:

· Future Rail Policy · Rail Franchising and Network Rail · London Rail Services · Staff Assaults

John McDonnell opened the meeting and welcomed the Minister. Tom Harris replied that he was always available to meet, even at short notice, and has held meetings with various fellow MPs on various rail issues.

John asked about Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander’s recent speech on ‘Growing the Rail Network’, which mentioned that he was keen to consult with all stakeholders. John asked if this would include the RMT and the Group. The Minister replied that he would “take it back”, and that he was always happy to meet.

On the Eddington Review, the Minister said that a number of stakeholders could be forgiven for thinking that there was a lack of emphasis on spending on rail projects. However, the remit of the Review was to look at how the railways could improve the economy, and from that perspective Eddington did a good job. In July 2007, the High Level Output Specification will set out rail strategy for 2009-14.

Last summer, the Group held a successful ‘Sustainable Case for Rail’ seminar, with the previous Rail Minister Derek Twigg. John suggested to the new Rail Minister that there should be a seminar next year on long-term investment into the rail industry and that the Minister’s participation would be welcome. The Minister replied that he would like to participate, diary permitting.

On Network Rail (NR), the Group emphasised the improvements since NR took control of track maintenance, but noted that this exposed the inefficiencies in track renewals. The Group also asked whether NR should have an expanded role in managing problematic franchises, such as GNER.

The Minister noted the Transport Select Committee report into rail franchising, and said that the Government would respond in the New Year – however he did not foresee any major changes. He added that “as long as they continue to produce higher capacity, performance and better safety then if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”. On GNER, he said that it continued to meet all of its commitments and until that changes 9 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP there is no problem. There is a debate to be had on franchise length, the Minister said, but there is less of a case for making them longer because Network Rail is now responsible for infrastructure improvements. A 20 year franchise proved possible with Chiltern, but not with Southern because they could not be sure of the revenue forecast. The Minister added that there was no consensus within the rail industry for 15-20 year franchises, and that the current franchise terms were 7-10 years. If they were any longer it would also raise the question of accountability.

Bob Crow challenged the Minister again on the case for an expanded role for Network Rail in track renewals and franchising, as maintenance was now safer and more efficient. The Minister responded that he was “agnostic” on the question of public vs. private (which begs the question why all rail franchises are in private hands), but “if it was shown to me that a public company could be more efficient then I am open to that, but not ideological”. Bob added that South Eastern Trains had improved while being run by the public sector, and was then refranchised. The Minister pointed out that on the Chiltern franchise renewals were completed 10% under budget and on time, and their processes were more efficient. He did say that he would “think about [NR being given track renewals]”, but that by not being an operator, NR had “no conflicts on spending priorities”.

Kelvin said that Lord Bradshaw (former General Manager of BR Western Region) had told him that the cost of track renewals was five times what it was under British Rail. The Minister apologised that he had not seen figures on renewal costs, but thought that it was partially due improved technological and safety requirements, but that he would look into it.

On GNER, the Minister said that staff “should be secure, but I can’t dictate to a private company on terms and conditions”. When John asked what is the Government view on GNER, the Minister replied “I can’t say”. In response to concerns about the franchise failing, the Minister said the Department had detailed contingency plans, and that all the unions and stakeholders would be consulted.

Tony Donaghey asked how the extensive cuts in the new rail timetable was compatible with the Government’s environmental policy. The Minister replied that he did not accept there were major cuts in services, and that the UK had one of the fastest growing rail networks in western Europe. He said on the new cross-country service he had received hundreds of letters and been lobbied by rail user groups about cuts in services, but that the service has been “not cut, but reshaped to meet demand”. He continued that it was not him who writes the timetable or sets specifics.

Bob stated that in some franchise areas, 20% of services had been knocked out, especially in the early morning which would affect key workers getting to and from work. John added that in the First Great Western (FGW) franchise area it was also a major concern, with Rhodri Morgan expressing his concern. John asked the Minister what powers he had to intervene.

The Minister replied that he was aware that FGW was causing concern, but that he did not have much power to intervene. The key element is the minimum specifications which are written at the beginning of the franchise. He said if a franchise was failing to meet those then there are processes, and they could ultimately lose the franchise. John encouraged the Minister to give FGW some words of advice, especially with the Welsh elections pending.

The Minister replied that it was right that he could bring pressure to bear. He had received lots of complaints from colleagues in the south-west and Wales and there

10 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

had since been a positive announcement. However, he could not “dictate from the centre, and most TOCs are not that bad in terms of reacting to passenger complaints”.

On the East London Line extension, John reminded the Minister that he had promised to write to him on whether the funding to the Mayor was conditional on the franchising of the service. The Group also asked about the recent report into Metronet. The Minister replied that it was Gillian Merron’s responsibility, that he had a positive relationship with Ken, but that the London Underground PPP was “the bane of our lives at the DfT”.

John stated that the union was anxious about the increase in staff assaults. The Minister said that he held regular meetings with British Transport Police (BTP) and that he would put it on the agenda. Thomas Barry (DfT civil servant) said that there was the Rail Security Forum, but at present there was no union representation on it. The Minister said that DNA testing kits and an increased footfall had helped improve security at stations – there are also now more accredited stations with better CCTV, lighting, and more staff. He asked Thomas Barry why there were no unions on the Rail Security Forum. The civil servant replied that it had been established by NR and London Underground. The Minister said he was “happy to” have union representation on the forum.

At the end of the meeting, the Minister agreed to attend RMT Parliamentary Group meetings on a regular cycle, and to participate in a seminar in the Spring.

The Group wrote to the Minister on 19th December 2006 following the meeting to thank him for attending and reiterating many of the points made in the meeting with regard to: meeting with the Transport Secretary; consultation with unions on rail policy; track renewals; GNER franchise; FGW franchise; the Rail Security Forum; the franchising of the East London Line; and confirming his acceptance to speak at an RMT Group-hosted spring seminar on rail.

The Minister replied on 30th January 2007 stating that he had spoken to the Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander, and that he was keen to meet with the RMT, and that the rail unions would be consulted on the future of the railways. He also confirmed his willingness to attend a Spring seminar on future rail investment.

First Great Western rail franchise

The Group raised the issue of the FGW rail franchise with the Minister on 12th December, and it has since become public that the Minister has warned FGW that they could lose the franchise if services do not improve.

In his letter of 30th January 2007, the Minister stated that:

“as long as it is compliant with the franchise agreement, the detail of the timetable is a matter for FGW to determine, in consultation with users and stakeholders . . . I understand that FGW has made a number of recent changes in response to feedback from passengers and others”

In the New Year, the Group wrote to the Rail Minister to request a specific meeting to discuss the franchise. The letter was signed by John McDonnell (Group Convenor), David Drew MP (Stroud), Linda Gilroy MP (Plymouth Sutton) and Kerry McCarthy MP (Bristol East). The Minister replied on 21st February 2007 stating that, “I would be pleased to meet you” – and it is hoped that this meeting will take place in early March. A copy of the letter

11 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

sent by the Group and south west MPs is copied to Annex 2.

The Group also wrote to FGW Chief Executive Alison Forster on 9th January 2007 to request a meeting (full text in Annex 2). A prompt reply was received on 12th January 2007 stating that “ Julian Crow is our Regional Manager for the South West and John Pockett is our Regional Manager for Wales and they will be happy to meet”. However, FGW has since not managed to find a convenient date.

On 24th January 2007, an adjournment debate was secured on the FGW franchise by Ed Vaizey (Tory MP for Wantage). Briefings were distributed to Labour MPs and a number intervened on the debate, including Kerry McCarthy, who said, “There is real anger among commuters in the Bristol area about what has happened to their rail services since the December timetable was introduced”. David Drew also spoke in the debate, saying:

I thank my hon. Friend and apologise for my lateness. I would have liked to speak in the debate, but the train was an hour late thanks to First Great Western, which is absolutely typical.

I have a question on the issue that my hon. Friend raises, and I disclose my interest with the RMT. There are contractual difficulties with First Great Western that need to be sorted out, but the issue that seems to be of greatest dispute with the Government is that of how many sets the company is able to run. It would be useful to know whose figures are correct, because there are significant differences between what used to run on those lines and what now runs.

The full text of the debate is copied to Annex 3 of the report.

EDM 201 has been tabled by Sian James (Labour MP for Swansea East) following FGW’s decision to terminate Paddington services at Cardiff rather than Swansea. The EDM “calls on the Government to urge First Great Western urgently to reconsider this decision and to ensure that capacity and service frequency from Cardiff to Swansea and west Wales destinations are maintained and improved”.

Kerry McCarthy has also tabled EDM 311 ‘First Great Western Train Service Reductions in Bristol and West of England’, condemning the new timetable which means “an overall reduction of 1,839 seats, equating to a 20 per cent. cut in train seat availability, and a reduction in the number of trains from 69 to 57, equating to an 18 per cent. cut in trains”

John McDonnell also visited Bristol on 11th December 2006 at the invitation of the RMT region, and heard from protesters and trade unionists about the effect of the new timetable on the FGW franchise. John was invited to Bristol to unveil a banner to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Trade Disputes Act, which restored trade union rights following the 1901 Taff Vale judgement.

MPs have also tabled a number of written questions on the new timetable and train leasing arrangements on the franchise:

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will initiate an investigation into the operation of the new Great Western franchise, with particular reference to (a) reliability, (b) punctuality and (c) the new timetable; and if he will investigate the current performance of (i) First Great Western and (ii) Network Rail.

Tom Harris: I hold meetings regularly with First Great Western and Network Rail to assess performance. Joint action plans are in place between Network Rail and FGW to address performance issues. These are monitored monthly. Network Rail is

12 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP regulated by the Office of Rail Regulation (‘ORR’). ORR has been investigating performance on the western routes.

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints he has received in relation to First Great Western’s new timetable.

Tom Harris: The ministerial team at the Department for Transport have received 81 letters since 1 April 2006 from parliamentary colleagues which make reference to First Great Western’s new timetable.

Sian James: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost is for First Great Western to hire an (a) Mark III first class carriage, (b) Mark III standard class carriage and (c) Mark III buffet bar carriage.

Tom Harris: Details of lease costs are a commercial matter between First Great Western and the rolling stock company.

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what role his Department played in the recent major reconfiguration of the timetable introduced by First Great Western.

Tom Harris: The detailed construction of the timetable is a matter for First Great Western working within the framework provided by the Department for Transport’s (DfT) minimum specification. Where desirable changes have been identified, the DfT has made changes to the specification if this has proved necessary to facilitate their implementation.

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will urgently investigate the reliability of the 125 fleet on the Great Western lines; and what discussions he has had with First Great Western on its refurbishment and replacement programme.

Tom Harris: I have held a number of meetings with First Great Western and Network Rail to discuss a range performance issues. Joint action plans are in place between Network Rail and FGW to address these issues and are monitored monthly. The first modified First Great Western High Speed Train (‘HST’) power cars have already entered service. My officials meet FGW regularly to review progress on the HST refurbishment and modification programme.

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve reliability and service provision on First Great Western railways.

Tom Harris: First Great Western has acknowledged that service provision has suffered because it underestimated passenger demand. It has already taken steps to restore capacity in some areas and expects the position to improve further in the coming weeks. Performance issues are the subject of action plans between the company and Network Rail which are monitored monthly.

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to discuss the re-doubling of the line between Kemble and Swindon with (a) Network Rail, (b) First Great Western and (c) Gloucestershire county council.

Tom Harris: I have no immediate plans to meet Network Rail, or other stakeholders, over plans to re-double the railway line between Swindon and Kemble. This is a matter for Network Rail to pursue. The company has recently confirmed a proposal to improve this line and is currently consulting with the railway industry on the matter.

13 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with First Great Western on the time tabling of services on the Cheltenham-Swindon-Paddington line.

Tom Harris: I have had no discussions with First Great Western on the timetabling of services on the Cheltenham-Swindon-Paddington line. Detailed timetabling of services is a matter is for the First Great Western.

Sian James: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations has he made to First Great Western about overcrowding on train services between Cardiff and West Wales.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales and I have made representations to First Great Western on their decision to curtail the 3:15 London Paddington to Swansea service. We will continue to press these concerns with them.My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will also be raising the monitoring of First Great Western more generally with Department of Transport ministerial colleagues.

GNER franchise

As noted in the previous report, the parent company of GNER, Sea Containers, filed for bankruptcy in the United States. Following the meeting with the Rail Minister on 12th December at which the state of this franchise was raised, GNER and the DfT have agreed a 15-month management contract for GNER to continue operating the franchise until a new franchisee is chosen.

A shortlist of bidders was announced in mid-February 2007, and RMT press releases have been circulated to MPs.

The Group tabled EDM 371 ‘GNER’, expressing concern and calling for the operation of the East Coast Mainline to be brought back into the public sector. The EDM has been signed by 32 MPs and the full text and signatory MPs can be viewed in Annex 1.

Central Trains

The RMT has been in dispute with Central Trains since December 2006 over the imposition of a centralised rostering system. The Group has sent regular updates to MPs, and the David Taylor MP has tabled the following written questions:

David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with Central Trains about the industrial dispute between that train operating company and the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union.

Tom Harris: My officials have been in contact with Central Trains' management regarding this dispute. This is a matter for the employer and employees, but I hope that it is resolved quickly to avoid further disruption to passengers.

David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether Central Trains is being indemnified for losses accrued as a result of industrial action taken in the last 12 months.

Tom Harris: Central Trains has not received any indemnification for losses accrued as a result of industrial action taken in the last 12 months. 14 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

East Coast rail franchise

Ian Gibson MP has tabled written questions on the East Coast franchise:

Ian Gibson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many companies bid for the East Coast franchise.

Tom Harris: Four bids were received for the current East Coast franchise.

Ian Gibson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much the One Railway has paid to the Exchequer since it obtained the East Coast franchise.

Tom Harris: Details of payments and premiums from all franchised train operators are set out in National Rail Trends, copies of which are in the Library of the House. Premium payments from London Eastern Railway (One) are stated as £45 million in 2004-05 and £55.6 million in 2005-06.

Closure of ticket offices on Southeastern franchise

At the end of January 2007, the Southeastern rail franchise announced plans for major cuts in opening times at 30 offices in south London and Kent, leaving many of them unstaffed for long periods outside peak hours and at weekends.

A briefing was distributed to all MPs in the franchise area, and an EDM tabled by Gwyn Prosser (MP for Dover). EDM 751 ‘Ticket Office Opening Hours’ has already been signed by 33 MPs and the full text and signatory MPs can be viewed in Annex 1. The EDM has been signed by the following MPs served by the Southeastern franchise: John Austin, Derek Conway, Jim Dowd, Kate Hoey, Joan Ruddock, and Derek Wyatt.

Gwyn Prosser has also written to Southeastern setting out his opposition to the proposed ticket office closures.

Environmental case for Rail

Following the publication of the Eddington Review on 1st December 2006, the Group circulated the response of the RMT and Transport 2000 to MPs.

The Group has also tabled EDM 730 ‘Rail Freight and the Environment’ in the name of Kelvin Hopkins MP, which had already been signed by 71 MPs by the end of February 2007 to highlight the case for modal shift from road to rail and to oppose the introduction of heavier HGVs on UK roads.

Anti-Social Behaviour on Northern Rail

The Group tabled EDM 134 ‘Anti-Social Behaviour on Northern Rail Services’ in the new 2006-07 parliamentary session, which has so far been signed by 46 MPs.

A press release on the issue has been circulated to all MPs and the full EDM text and signatory MPs can be viewed in Annex 1.

15 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Sale of Rail land

The Group has tabled two written questions on the sale of British Railways Board (Residuary) Ltd land and buildings, since May 1997:

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what the (a) location, (b) value and (c) the purchaser are of British Railways Board (Residuary) Ltd land and buildings sold since May 1997;

Tom Harris: The location of all properties held by BRB (Residuary) Ltd. (BRB(R), including those sold since May 1997 can be found on the BRB(R) website at www.brb.gov.uk . The company also holds some 4,000 structures such as bridges and tunnels over and under disused railway lines. A list showing the location of these is in the Library of the House. Between 1996-07 and 2005-06 BRB(R) has sold in excess of 680 sites which have generated proceeds of approximately £480 million. In view of the large number of sites and the timescales involved details of individual purchasers can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. As at 31 March 2006 the book value of BRB(R)’s non operational land and buildings was £154 million. However, the company also has interests in a number of administrative office buildings which are held on historic onerous leases. The company has made a provision of £143 million to cover this liability. The actual proceeds from future sales will be dependant on a number of factors such as any restrictions placed on sales by the autonomous Property Review Group and market conditions at the time of sale. DfT guidance on the operation of the Property Review Group can also be found on BRB(R)’s website.

Jeremy Corbyn: (2) what the (a) location and (b) estimated value is of British Railways Board (Residuary) Ltd land and buildings that he intends to dispose of by 2011.

Tom Harris: The location of all properties held by BRB (Residuary) Ltd. (BRB(R), including those sold since May 1997 can be found on the BRB(R) website at www.brb.gov.uk . The company also holds some 4,000 structures such as bridges and tunnels over and under disused railway lines. A list showing the location of these is in the Library of the House. Between 1996-07 and 2005-06 BRB(R) has sold in excess of 680 sites which have generated proceeds of approximately £480 million. In view of the large number of sites and the timescales involved details of individual purchasers can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. As at 31 March 2006 the book value of BRB(R)’s non operational land and buildings was £154 million. However, the company also has interests in a number of administrative office buildings which are held on historic onerous leases. The company has made a provision of £143 million to cover this liability. The actual proceeds from future sales will be dependant on a number of factors such as any restrictions placed on sales by the autonomous Property Review Group and market conditions at the time of sale. DfT guidance on the operation of the Property Review Group can also be found on BRB(R)’s website.

Grayrigg rail crash

Following the train derailment in Grayrigg, Cumbria at the end of February 2007, RMT press releases have been circulated to MPs.

16 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

John McDonnell and Bob Crow were both quoted in the Daily Mirror on 28th February after it emerged that . John McDonnell, said, “the fact that Network Rail apparently had footage of a missing stretcher bar days before the fatal crash is very worrying”.

Bob Crow, said “Inspectors who walk the track are the eyes and ears of the railway. They don't just check the safety of the track, they look at the area surrounding it, check for signs of potential trouble such as gaps in the fence where vandals could get in”.

17 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

LONDON UNDERGROUND

The 31st December 2006 marked the fourth anniversary of the London Underground PPP. To highlight this anniversary, the Group tabled EDM 529 ‘Anniversary of London Underground Public Private Partnership’. The EDM calls “on the Government to bring forward the necessary legislative changes to abolish the PPP and allow for maintenance and renewals to be bought back in-house under the control of London Underground”, and has been signed by 30 MPs – the full EDM text and signatory MPs can be viewed in Annex 1.

In this and the previous parliamentary session the Group has played a key role in highlighting the exploitative conditions to which London Underground cleaners are exposed by contractors such as ISS and Blue Diamond. The Group has distributed updates and press releases to MPs on the current situation with PPP operator Tube Lines and its contractor ISS.

Just prior to the Christmas recess, the Group tabled EDM 533 ‘London Underground Cleaning Services’ to draw attention to the fact “that Tube Lines has ordered a substantial cut in the value of its station and train cleaning contract; further notes that this cut will mean the loss of 100 station cleaning jobs amounting to a 50 per cent. reduction in cleaning staff working on stations”. The EDM, supported so far by 38 MPs, “supports the RMT campaign to reverse these cuts and urges Tube Lines and ISS to reconsider their plans” and the full text and signatory MPs can be viewed in Annex 1.

Fire Safety Regulations

The old and new regulations have been running in tandem since 1st October 2006. In practice this means that any changes to the 1989 regulations require an application being made, and then a risk assessment being completed for the application to be approved.

The Group has tabled EDM 133 ‘Fire Precautions Regulations’ and has been signed by 45 MPs, including the following London MPs: Karen Buck, Jeremy Corbyn, Andrew Dismore, George Galloway, Neil Gerrard, Glenda Jackson, John McDonnell, and Rudi Vis. The full text and signatory MPs of both EDMs can be viewed in Annex 1.

In March 2006, in a meeting with then Fire Services Minister Jim Fitzpatrick MP, the Group first proposed a working party to look at the gaps in cover between the 1989 regulations and the 2005 Fire Safety Order.

Jeremy Corbyn MP tabled a written question about what process the Department would pursue on fire precautions regulations at sub-surface rail stations, and this resulted in the Minister confirming that a working group would be established:

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether she plans to bring forward amendments to the Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) Regulations 1989.

Angela Smith: It is our intention to replace the existing, highly prescriptive, Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) Regulations 1989 with the risk based regime brought into force by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. However before doing so we will have to be fully satisfied that necessary protections will be maintained or enhanced by the change. Decisions about replacement of the 1989 regulations will therefore be taken in the light of (a) evidence gathered during a period of parallel running of the regulations and the regime applied by the Regulatory 18 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005; and (b) discussion and consultation with stakeholders through a small working group.

In December 2006, it was confirmed that Angela Smith MP (DCLG Minister with responsibility for the Fire Service) had approved the Group’s proposal for a working party. The Working Party has been established under the auspices of the RMT Parliamentary Group, with John McDonnell as Chair of the working party.

On 17th January 2007, John wrote to the Minister setting out the Group’s proposed terms of reference for the working party (the full text of the letter is in Annex 2), specifically:

“To discuss and confirm the legal correlations between the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) Regulations 1989 and the Transport Premises and Facilities Guidance.

Further, to examine each requirement of the Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) Regulations in order to identify any amendments or additions to the Regulations that may be required since the introduction of the regulations in 1989.

Once concluded, the working party will report its conclusions to the Under Secretary of State with recommendations for action if necessary.”

The Minister replied on 6th February, the day before the first meeting of the working party, and stated that:

“The working group is the RMT Parliamentary Group’s and it is not for me to dictate or agree terms of reference. However, it may be useful for the group to note when considering the proposed terms of reference, that my officials are attending only to discuss correlation of the 2005 Order with the 1989 Regulations.”

The Minister concluded the letter by stating that she looked forward to receiving the Group’s recommendations.

The Working Party has invited stakeholders from the TUC, FBU and other rail unions, as well as from the DCLG, London Fire Authority and London Underground. Apologies for the first meeting were received from the TUC, who sent through a letter setting out their concerns about the shift from minimum standards to risk assessments – the letter was circulated at the meeting. Apologies were also received from Andrew Dismore MP (Chair of the FBU Parliamentary Group, who was a solicitor with Thompson’s at the time of the 1987 King’s Cross fire).

The first meeting of the working party took place on Wednesday 7th February 2007 in the House of Commons. The attendees are listed below:

Attendee Organisation John McDonnell RMT PG James Croy RMT Andy Jack DCLG Warwick Allen DCLG Paul Clyndes RMT Bobby Law RMT Unjum Mirza RMT Dean Mills FBU Glyn Evans FBU Peter Wise LFEPA

19 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Mike Strzelecki LUL Andrew Fisher RMT PG

The meeting established some areas of concern, which will be discussed at a second meeting of the working party on 14th March 2007.

East London line

There has been ongoing confusion about the decision to privatise the East London Line, which is being extended and offered as a private concession, under the control of Transport for London (TfL).

Following the commencement of the 2006-07 parliamentary session, the Group tabled EDM 286 ‘Future of London Underground Passenger Services’, which has already been signed by 36 MPs. The full text and signatory MPs of both EDMs can be viewed in Annex 1. A briefing and joint RMT/TSSA/SERTUC press release has been circulated to all Labour MPs, encouraging them to sign the EDM.

In the November 2006 adjournment debate on ‘Rail Franchises’, John McDonnell asked the Minister about the process for the East London Line extension:

John McDonnell: My hon. Friend the Minister has mentioned the range of new franchises. The east London line extension is critical for London. It has been welcomed by all, and was to be transferred to London Underground, but can he clarify—if not today, then in correspondence—whether it was a condition of transfer to the Mayor of London’s responsibilities that the line should be franchised out?

Tom Harris: My hon. Friend might anticipate my answer to that. I shall have to write to him once I have checked the details.

The Group raised the issue when it met with the Minister on 12th December 2006, and the Minister wrote to the Group on 30th January 2007, stating:

“On the question of funding for the East London Line, this was agreed at the Spending Review 2004. No conditions were applied to the funding commitment with regard to the franchising of the service”.

20 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

MARITIME

The Group had a constructive and open dialogue with the Maritime Minister, Dr Stephen Ladyman MP, when it met with him in May 2006. The Minister promised, or alluded to, prompt progress in a number of areas on which the Group has been campaigning in the past three years.

At that May 2006 meeting, the Group floated the idea of a parliamentary seminar on the future of the maritime industry – hosted by the RMT Parliamentary Group, and involving the relevant trade unions, the DfT and industry representatives.

This Maritime Seminar is now confirmed for Tuesday 13th March 2007, and Dr Stephen Ladyman MP confirmed his attendance in a letter to the Group on 19th December 2006. All MPs have been written to by the Group, inviting them to the seminar, and a number have confirmed their attendance.

Tonnage Tax

Gwyn Prosser (MP for Dover), who has often led on maritime issues on behalf of the Group, met with the Maersk shipping company regarding their proposals to implement a pilot voluntary employment link to the Tonnage Tax. The Group has long campaigned for a statutory employment link to the Tonnage Tax regime.

The Group wrote to Maersk on 7th December 2006 (full text in Annex 2) inviting them to a meeting to discuss their initiative.

The Group and the RMT met with Maersk Managing Director Mark Malone on 19th February to discuss the company’s proposals, which had initially been confined to officers but which has now been expanded to include ratings.

Following discussions at the meeting, the RMT and the Group agreed to welcome and endorse Maersk’s proposals, while not withdrawing the RMT’s campaigning policy for a statutory and mandatory employment link to the Tonnage Tax.

It was therefore agreed that the RMT and Maersk would write jointly to the DfT outlining the proposals and requesting a meeting. The letter is currently being drafted.

Thames Boatmasters’ Licences

At the beginning of December 2006, the Government tabled two statutory instruments (SIs) to amend the current regulations on Thames Boatmasters that were brought in following the 1989 Marchioness disaster. SIs are secondary legislation that can amend the law without the need for a Bill (primary legislation) being taken through Parliament.

The Group tabled a ‘prayer’ (similar to an EDM) to oppose the SIs on 12th December 2006. If not opposed by a prayer, SIs become law within forty days of them being tabled by the Government. As a result of ‘praying against’ the SI, the whips appoint MPs to a Delegated Legislation Committee to debate the SI and the prayer against.

In advance of the committee being established, an adjournment debate on Thames Boatmaster licensing was secured on 10th January 2007, by Angela Watkinson (Tory MP for

21 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Upminster). In advance of the debate, an RMT briefing was distributed to MPs and attendance was encouraged at the debate.

Both John McDonnell MP and Kate Hoey MP spoke in the debate on behalf of the Group (the full text of which is copied into Annex 3).

In the debate, John said:

“despite the long consultation period, the Government do not seem to have listened to the representations made by various parties on a number of issues, and it is important that the Minister listens this morning . . . It behoves the Government, particularly in matters such as this in which safety is the issue, not only to consult but to listen. When there is a difference of views, they should be explicit about why they have failed to take them into account, especially those expressed by front-line practitioners. I remember bringing experts—people who are responsible for vessels on the Thames—to our meetings with Ministers. To a person, they opposed the Government’s regulations, and they did so politely and with professional explanations. It behoves the Government to respond to those concerns in detail”

Kate Hoey also referred to the Group’s meeting with the Minister in her contribution to the debate:

“If the Government get away with what they are trying to do, it will leave the people who use and work on the river at risk. It will also bring this great city into disrepute. From the beginning of the process, and in our meetings with the Minister, I always thought that common sense would prevail. Anyone who knows anything about the River Thames, particularly the non-central part of it, knows just what a dangerous river it is. Given that the Government seem to have gold-plated every other European Union directive, it is amazing that they want to downgrade this one”

On 18th January 2007, it was announced that the Delegated Legislation Committee would consider the SI on 24th January 2007. The membership of the committee, to be chaired by William McCrea (DUP), was announced as:

Charlotte Atkins (Lab), Julian Brazier (Con), Alistair Carmichael (Lib Dem), Charles Clarke (Lab), Claire Curtis-Thomas (Lab), Simon Hughes (Lib Dem), Dr Stephen Ladyman (Lab), Margaret Moran (Lab), Albert Owen (Lab), Andrew Pelling (Con), Andrew Rosindell (Con), Frank Roy (Lab), Mr Lee Scott (Con), Marsha Singh (Lab), Andrew Slaughter (Lab), Andrew Smith (Lab) and Bob Spink (Con).

Both Kate Hoey and John McDonnell also attended the committee to raise concerns on behalf of the Group, but they were unable to vote as they were not members of the committee. Despite being whipped to vote in favour of the SI, having heard the case against from Kate and John, Group member Marsha Singh voted against the SI. Despite his rebellion, the Government still had a majority on the committee and the SI passed this stage.

The final stage of the process was a vote (without debate) of all MPs in the House on 7th February 2007. In advance of this vote, the Group distributed briefings to all Labour MPs from the RMT, TGWU, and ETF. The SI passed, with the following 13 Labour MPs rebelling against the SI:

Katy Clark, Harry Cohen, Jeremy Corbyn, Jon Cruddas, Ann Cryer, David Drew, Ian Gibson, Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins, John McDonnell, Linda Riordan, Alan Simpson and Ian Stewart.

22 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Race Relations Act

Despite the Minister’s commitment at the May 2006 meeting that “I remain committed to bringing the 1976 Act within EU law” and his concession that “the RMT occupies the moral ground here” there has been little progress on this issue.

At that meeting, the Minister said that the draft Order, to amend the 1976 Act, had taken longer to draft than expected, but that it would be laid after the summer recess, but nine months on, nothing has been tabled.

The Group has tabled EDM 479 ‘Race Relations Act and the Minimum Wage’ in the name of Gwyn Prosser MP, calling “on the Government to ensure that seafarers are properly protected by the United Kingdom minimum wage on United Kingdom ships within United Kingdom waters”. The EDM has been supported by 55 MPs to date and the full text and signatory MPs can be viewed in Annex 1.

In light of instances of low pay being paid on Irish ferry services that were identified, the Group tabled EDM 425 ‘Seafarers on the Irish Sea’, which noted “that an inspector from the International Transport Workers' Federation recently found Ukrainian, Polish and Russian workers on the Irish Sea on rates as low as two euros per hour”. The EDM then called “on the Government to extend minimum wage legislation to apply on all vessels operating in UK waters”. The EDM has been signed by 52 MPs – the full text and signatory MPs can be viewed in Annex 1.

Grounding of the Napoli

Following the grounding of the MSC Napoli off the south-west coast at the end of January 2007, the Group tabled EDM 807 ‘Grounding of the Napoli’ which highlighted “that the vessel also grounded in 2001, and the fact that the company has been blacklisted by the UK maritime trade unions” and “calls on the UK Government urgently to consult on what measures can be taken to improve safety and working conditions on UK flagged vessels”.

The EDM has been signed by 41 MPs to date and the full text and signatory MPs can be viewed in Annex 1.

The EDM was reported on the BBC News, and the BBC website stated:

“The Commons motion - signed by John McDonnell, Gwyn Prosser, Bill Etherington, Katy Clark, Austin Mitchell, Jim Cousins, Bob Wareing and Jeremy Corbyn on Thursday - expressed concerns at the ship's beaching and expressed regret at the environmental damage caused. It called on the government to urgently consult on measures to improve safety and working conditions on such vessels”

The full news item can be viewed at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/6325071.stm

The Government made an oral statement in the House of Commons on the Napoli on 1st February 2007. John McDonnell MP intervened on the statement:

John McDonnell: The House is now aware that the vessel was British-flagged and that it was grounded in 2001. Is the Minister also aware that maritime unions have blacklisted the company that owns the vessel because of its operations, standards and practices? May I suggest that it is now a matter of urgency that we look again at how British flagging procedures secure the health and safety of working practices on British-flagged vessels? 23 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Dr Stephen Ladyman: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern over the issue. He and the unions with which he often works have made representations to me about the issue previously. I can tell him—perhaps I should also have said this in response to the question from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen)—that the MAIB investigation will consider all the factors that contributed to the event. If it turns out that the management, crewing or communication among the crew of the vessel was responsible, or that the MCA could have done something better to prevent the incident, that will emerge in the findings, which will be published in the accident report. I assure my hon. Friend that action will then be taken.

24 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

BUSES

As announced in the November 2006 Queen’s Speech, 2007 will see two key pieces of Government legislation that relate to bus policy: the Concessionary Bus Travel Bill and the Local Government Bill – which will give local authorities the power to regulate bus services, a power removed under the Thatcher Government.

The Group wrote to Gillan Merron MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for bus policy, on 13th November 2006 to invite her to a forthcoming Group meeting. Gillian was originally due to attend the Group meeting on 6th February 2007, but could not attend due to pre-existing diary commitments. However, a meeting has been re- arranged for 7th March 2007.

There was a House of Commons debate on the ‘Future of Buses’ on 8th February 2007, prior to which the Group circulated a briefing to all MPs. David Drew (MP for Stroud) intervened in the debate:

David Drew: Have the Government looked at the subsidy regime in rural areas? There is a clear misuse of funds in such areas—not corruption, but misuse in the sense that we are not benefiting from the best use of the money. Is it not time for a wholesale look at some of the Spanish practices that exist? I am told, for example, that bus companies receive payment in connection with bus stops that have not been used for donkeys’ years. That needs to be brought into the open and dealt with.

25 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

OTHER CAMPAIGNS

Trade Union Freedom Bill

The RMT and its parliamentary group have been prominent in the campaign to promote the Trade Union Freedom Bill, along with a number of other unions and their parliamentary groups. A new EDM (532) ‘Trade Union Freedom Bill Campaign’ has been tabled in the 2006-07 parliamentary session to focus the campaign. It has already been signed by 83 MPs and the full text and signatory MPs are copied in Annex 1.

In the 2006-07 Private Member’s Bill ballot, John McDonnell MP was drawn at No.16 in the ballot – meaning that he will be able to publish the Bill, but is unlikely to be able to have it debated or voted upon. The first four MPs drawn in the ballot were all Conservative MPs. The Bill was presented to the House of Commons as the ‘Trade Union Rights and Freedom Bill’ on the 13th December by Katy Clark MP on John McDonnell’s behalf.

The Bill has been drawn up by the TUC in consultation with John Hendy QC and the Institute of Employment Rights (IER) and is now publicly viewable on the TUC website.

To commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Trade Disputes Act and the presentation of the Bill, John was invited by the RMT region covering south west England and south Wales to unveil a banner on 11th December 2006. John also spoke at the launch conference held by the IER in London on Wednesday 31st January 2007.

The Bill is timetabled to have its second reading on Friday 2nd March although there will be no time for the Bill to be debated. The drafting has now been finalised with the parliamentary clerks and the Bill will be officially published by the House of Commons on the day of second reading. The United Campaign to Repeal the Anti-Trade Union Laws is hosting a rally for the Trade Union Freedom Bill on Thursday 1st March, the eve of the second reading, at 7pm in Committee Room 12 of the House of Commons. Both John McDonnell MP and Bob Crow will be speaking at the event.

The next stage of the campaign will be to seek to persuade the Government at least to allow a Green Paper on the issue, which commits them to nothing other than consultation, but will help us progress the campaign and move towards further lobbying later in the year.

‘Public Services Not Private Profit’ Campaign

The RMT has played a prominent role in bringing together unions for a campaign right across the public sector to defend public services in the face of the Government’s ongoing strategy of privatisation. The aim of the campaign is to highlight the threat of privatisation and commercialisation running throughout the Government’s policy proposals for the public services and to promote the value of public services.

Sixteen public sector trade unions came together as the initial organisers of the campaign, in conjunction with a number of campaigning organisations, such as Defend Council Housing, Health Emergency, and the National Pensioners’ Convention. BECTU has now also joined the campaign and requested that their logo be included in all our materials.

So far the campaign has achieved significant advances in a relatively short period. In September, the TUC Conference 2006 endorsed the aims of the campaign and agreed a TUC ‘Day of Action’ on 23rd January 2007 to defend public services, with a rally in Methodist Central Hall attended by about 500 trade unionists, and several hundred lobbying their MPs. 26 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

The campaign played a constructive role in helping to mobilise for the TUC Day of Action in January and in support of colleagues in the front line of dispute.

Since then, there have been a number of ‘Public Services Not Private Profit’ meetings across the country, including in Barnet, Bristol, Camden, Cardiff, Croydon, Islington, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, and Westminster. There are further rallies planned for Sheffield, Nottingham and Newcastle.

In the 2006-07 parliamentary session, the Group has supported EDM 499 ‘Speak Up for Public Services’, tabled by Tony Lloyd, in support of the TUC campaign. The text of all the EDMs and signatory MPs can be viewed in Annex 1.

John 4 Leader

RMT Parliamentary Group Convenor John McDonnell MP announced that he would challenge for the Labour Party leadership, once Blair stood down in July 2006. John’s blog, events diary, policy proposals and latest campaign updates can be viewed in full at www.john4leader.org.uk.

At the December Council of Executives, the RMT agreed to endorse John’s candidacy and to make a donation to the campaign. Since that time, ASLEF and FBU have also voted to endorse John in his candidacy for the Labour leadership.

John has also been endorsed by the broad left organisations within Amicus, CWU, TGWU and Unison. A large number of trade union branches have also voted to back John4Leader and to make a donation, including RMT Piccadilly and District West branch – which voted to back John in February 2007. John has also been endorsed by every grassroots organisation of Labour Party members including the LRC (to which the RMT is affiliated), the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, the Network of Socialist Campaign Groups, the Scottish Campaign for Socialism, and Welsh Labour Grassroots.

John is speaking at packed public meetings and to trade union branches, CLPs, and other campaigning organisations across the country. In January 2007, John spoke to a meeting of over 400 activists in Lewes, East Sussex – as well as speaking at large meetings in Glasgow, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Nottingham in 2007.

In Parliament, John believes he has secured about half of the 44 required nominations to get onto the final ballot paper for Leader, with a further swathe of MPs potentially nominating on the basis of supporting a genuine contest. John is approaching all unions, branches and members for assistance with lobbying of MPs to encourage them to ensure that John receives the nominations he requires.

BNP’s trade union front

Following a discussion at the Group meeting on 6th February 2007, John McDonnell tabled EDM 847 ‘British National Party Trade Union Front’ to draw attention to plans of the BNP to launch a trade union – to be known as ‘Solidarity, the British Workers’ Union’, which was launched in London on 24th February 2007. The President of the union is Patrick Harrington, a railway worker who was expelled from the RMT union.

The EDM, tabled in February 2007, has already been signed by nearly 100 MPs – the full EDM text and signatory MPs can be viewed in Annex 1.

27 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Annex 1 – EDMs

The new 2006-07 session of Parliament began on 15th November 2006, the following EDMs have been tabled on behalf of the Group:

EDM 133 FIRE PRECAUTIONS REGULATIONS 45 signatures

That this House notes that the Government is reviewing the Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) Regulations 1989, introduced following the Fennell Report into the 1987 King's Cross fire disaster; further notes that those regulations set out minimum standards for fire precautions in sub-surface railway stations including means of escape, means of fighting fire, minimum staffing levels and staff instruction and training; and therefore calls on the Government to maintain the regulations to ensure that there continues to be minimum statutory fire safety protection at sub-surface railway stations.

John McDonnell Anderson, David Bottomley, Peter Buck, Karen Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Clapham, Michael Clark, Katy Conway, Derek Corbyn, Jeremy Cryer, Ann Davies, Dai Dean, Janet Dismore, Andrew Drew, David Ennis, Jeff Etherington, Bill Flynn, Paul Galloway, George George, Andrew Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Hamilton, David Harvey, Nick Hemming, John Hopkins, Kelvin Illsley, Eric Jackson, Glenda Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne Llwyd, Elfyn McDonnell, Alasdair Owen, Albert Prosser, Gwyn Riordan, Linda Robinson, Iris Russell, Bob Simpson, Alan Swinson, Jo Taylor, David Truswell, Paul Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty Willis, Phil

EDM 134 ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ON NORTHERN RAIL SERVICES 46 signatures

That this House notes with concern that anti-social behaviour is an increasing threat to rail staff and passengers; notes that in the last five years staff assaults have risen on the mainline railway by 106 per cent.; therefore supports the campaign by RMT Northern Rail trade union representatives to reduce anti-social behaviour on Northern Rail services and its key objectives of targeted increases in police and staff resources, the banning of alcohol on some services and the full enforcement of railway by-laws; and therefore urges Northern Rail and the British Transport Police to respond positively to the campaign's objectives.

Jim Cousins Anderson, David Atkinson, Peter Campbell, Gregory Campbell, Ronnie Clark, Katy Clelland, David Conway, Derek Corbyn, Jeremy Cryer, Ann Dean, Janet Dismore, Andrew Drew, David Ennis, Jeff Etherington, Bill Flynn, Paul Francis, Hywel Grogan, John Hamilton, David Hemming, John Hepburn, Stephen Hopkins, Kelvin Illsley, Eric Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne Leech, John Martlew, Eric McCafferty, Chris

28 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

McDonnell, John Owen, Albert Pope, Greg Prentice, Gordon Riordan, Linda Robinson, Iris Simpson, Alan Simpson, David Spink, Bob Stringer, Graham Stunell, Andrew Trickett, Jon Truswell, Paul Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty Willis, Phil Wilson, Sammy

EDM 286 FUTURE OF LONDON UNDERGROUND PASSENGER SERVICES 37 signatures

That this House welcomes the important role that the London Underground East London Line extension will play in creating a world class transport infrastructure in preparation for the 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic Games; further notes that the East London Line is currently operated in the public sector by London Underground; is concerned that there are proposals to transfer responsibility for operating the line to the private sector which would represent the first privatisation of a tube passenger service; believes that the benefits of an extended East London Line will be best achieved by the service remaining wholly in the public sector; notes the IPOS/MORI poll showing that three quarters of people in London and the South East want the East London Line operations kept in the public sector; welcomes the decision of the 2006 TUC Congress opposing the privatisation of the East London Line; and supports the rail unions and TUC campaign to keep the East London Line wholly in the public sector.

Jeremy Corbyn Anderson, David Austin, John Caton, Martin Clapham, Michael Clark, Katy Cohen, Harry Dean, Janet Drew, David Etherington, Bill Francis, Hywel Galloway, George George, Andrew Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Hamilton, David Hancock, Mike Hoey, Kate Hopkins, Kelvin Humble, Joan Jackson, Glenda Jones, Lynne Marris, Rob McDonnell, Alasdair McDonnell, John Meale, Alan Naysmith, Doug Osborne, Sandra Owen, Albert Riordan, Linda Robinson, Iris Simpson, Alan Taylor, David Turner, Desmond Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N

EDM 371 GNER 32 signatures

That this House notes reports that the Department of Transport has decided to re-let the East Coast mainline franchise and place the operator GNER on a fixed management contract; further notes that the Transport Select Committee press release accompanying their recent Passenger Rail Franchising report described the franchising process as “a complex, fragmented and costly muddle”; believes that GNER services should not be re-let to a private operator; and therefore calls on the Department of Transport to protect services and jobs by returning operations on the East Coast Mainline to the public sector.

Jim Cousins Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Corbyn, Jeremy Crausby, David Cryer, Ann Davidson, Ian Dean, Janet Dobbin, Jim Drew, David Ennis, Jeff Etherington, Bill Francis, Hywel Hamilton, David Hoey, Kate 29 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Hopkins, Kelvin Illsley, Eric Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne McCafferty, Chris McDonnell, Alasdair McDonnell, John McGovern, Jim Riordan, Linda Rowen, Paul Simpson, Alan Skinner, Dennis Trickett, Jon Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty

EDM 425 SEAFARERS ON THE IRISH SEA 52 signatures

That this House welcomes the call by the maritime workers' unions, RMT in the UK and SIPTU in Ireland, for an investigation into all ferry services trading in the Irish Sea; notes that an inspector from the International Transport Workers' Federation recently found Ukrainian, Polish and Russian workers on the Irish Sea on rates as low as two euros per hour; further notes that the minimum wage does not apply to workers operating in UK territorial waters; and therefore calls on the Government to extend minimum wage legislation to apply on all vessels operating in UK waters.

John McDonnell Abbott, Diane Anderson, David Bottomley, Peter Campbell, Gregory Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Conway, Derek Corbyn, Jeremy Crausby, David Cruddas, Jon Cryer, Ann Cummings, John Dean, Janet Dismore, Andrew Drew, David Durkan, Mark Etherington, Bill Francis, Hywel Galloway, George Griffith, Nia Hamilton, David Hancock, Mike Hemming, John Hepburn, Stephen Hopkins, Kelvin Hoyle, Lindsay Iddon, Brian Illsley, Eric Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne Keetch, Paul Llwyd, Elfyn Marsden, Gordon McCrea, Dr William McDonnell, Alasdair Moon, Madeleine Morgan, Julie O'Hara, Edward Owen, Albert Prosser, Gwyn Simpson, Alan Simpson, David Skinner, Dennis Swinson, Jo Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty Williams, Hywel Willis, Phil Wilson, Sammy

EDM 479 RACE RELATIONS ACT AND THE MINIMUM WAGE 55 signatures

That this House is deeply concerned that the UK Government is currently in breach of European free movement of workers provisions in its treatment of other EU nationals through specific discrimination against seafarers that continues to be permitted through the Race Relations Act 1976; notes that seafarers are only entitled to the protection of the national minimum wage in UK internal and not territorial waters; further notes the continued employment of foreign national seafarers on rates of pay below the national minimum wage on United Kingdom ships and in United Kingdom territorial waters; welcomes the fact that the Government has acknowledged that the seafarers' exemption contained within the Race Relations Act 1976 needs reform; therefore urges the Government to ensure that the exemption in the Race Relations Act 1976 is urgently and fully repealed following the forthcoming consultation exercise; and calls on the Government to ensure that seafarers are properly protected by the United Kingdom minimum wage on United Kingdom ships within United Kingdom waters.

30 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Gwyn Prosser Abbott, Diane Anderson, David Bottomley, Peter Buck, Karen Burgon, Colin Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Clapham, Michael Clark, Katy Corbyn, Jeremy Crausby, David Cruddas, Jon Cryer, Ann Dean, Janet Dismore, Andrew Doran, Frank Drew, David Durkan, Mark Ennis, Jeff Etherington, Bill Galloway, George George, Andrew Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Godsiff, Roger Hamilton, David Harvey, Nick Hemming, John Hopkins, Kelvin Iddon, Brian Illsley, Eric Jackson, Glenda Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne Lazarowicz, Mark Lloyd, Tony Llwyd, Elfyn Marris, Rob McCafferty, Chris McDonnell, Alasdair McDonnell, John [R] Mitchell, Austin Simpson, Alan Singh, Marsha Skinner, Dennis Stunell, Andrew Swinson, Jo Taylor, David Vis, Rudi Walley, Joan Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty Willis, Phil Wyatt, Derek

EDM 480 MERCHANT SHIPPING (S.I., 2006, NO.3224) 40 signatures

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Merchant Shipping (Local Passenger Vessels) (Crew) Regulations 2006 (S.I., 2006, No. 3224), dated 5th December 2006, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th December, be annulled.

John McDonnell Amess, David Austin, John Beith, AJ Bottomley, Peter Burrowes, David Cable, Vincent Campbell, Ronnie Carmichael, Alistair Clark, Katy Cryer, Ann Cunningham, Jim Davey, Edward Davies, Dai Donaldson, Jeffrey Drew, David Etherington, Bill Galloway, George George, Andrew Hamilton, David Hancock, Mike Harvey, Nick Hepburn, Stephen Holloway, Adam Hopkins, Kelvin Hunter, Mark Keen, Alan Lamb, Norman Marshall-Andrews, Robert Penning, Mike Prosser, Gwyn Simpson, Alan Simpson, David Singh, Marsha Spink, Bob Stoate, Howard Walter, Robert Wareing, Robert N Widdecombe, Ann Wood, Mike

EDM 529 ANNIVERSARY OF LONDON UNDERGROUND PPP 30 signatures

That this House notes that 31st December 2006 is the fourth anniversary of the beginning of the imposition of the Public Private Partnership (PPP) on London which fragmented and privatised London Underground's infrastructure; notes that under the terms of the PPP, multinational companies, Atkins, Balfour Beatty, Bombardier Transportation, EDF Energy, RWE Thames, Amey and Bechtel are responsible for the maintenance and renewal of the Underground's track, trains, signals, stations and escalators; is concerned that whilst these companies have made tens of millions of pounds in publicly-subsidised profits there are still frequent service disruptions and closures; fears that the continued failure of the PPP will disrupt London's hosting of the 2012 Olympics and Paralympic Games; further notes that on 31 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP the mainline railway, where Network Rail has bought maintenance back in-house on a not-for-dividend basis, punctuality and efficiency has been significantly improved; believes that the PPP has proved to be an expensive mistake; and therefore calls on the Government to bring forward the necessary legislative changes to abolish the PPP and allow for maintenance and renewals to be bought back in-house under the control of London Underground.

John McDonnell Abbott, Diane Anderson, David Buck, Karen Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Cohen, Harry Corbyn, Jeremy Cruddas, Jon Cryer, Ann Dismore, Andrew Drew, David Etherington, Bill Galloway, George Gerrard, Neil Hancock, Mike Hopkins, Kelvin Hoyle, Lindsay Illsley, Eric Jones, Lynne Llwyd, Elfyn Mitchell, Austin Prosser, Gwyn Simpson, Alan Singh, Marsha Stringer, Graham Taylor, David Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N

EDM 532 TRADE UNION FREEDOM BILL CAMPAIGN 83 signatures

That this House recognises that free and independent trade unions are a force for good in UK society around the world and are vital to democracy; welcomes the positive role modern unions play in providing protection for working people and winning fairness at work; notes the 1906 Trades Disputes Act granted unions the legal freedom to take industrial action; regrets that successive anti-union legislation has meant that trade union rights are now weaker than those introduced by the 1906 Trades Disputes Act; therefore welcomes and supports the TUC campaign for a Trade Union Freedom Bill whose principles include better protection for workers, such as those sacked by Gate Gourmet in 2005, the simplification of ballot procedures and to allow limited supportive action, following a ballot, in specific circumstances; and therefore urges the Government to bring forward legislation to address these proposals.

John McDonnell Anderson, David Austin, John Borrow, David S Burgon, Colin Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Clelland, David Cohen, Harry Connarty, Michael Cook, Frank Corbyn, Jeremy Crausby, David Cruddas, Jon Cryer, Ann Davidson, Ian Davies, Dai Dean, Janet Dismore, Andrew Dobbin, Jim Drew, David Durkan, Mark Etherington, Bill Francis, Hywel Galloway, George Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Godsiff, Roger Griffith, Nia Hamilton, David Hancock, Mike Havard, Dai Hepburn, Stephen Heyes, David Hoey, Kate Hopkins, Kelvin Hoyle, Lindsay Iddon, Brian James, Sian C Jenkins, Brian Kaufman, Gerald Keen, Alan Khan, Sadiq Lazarowicz, Mark Llwyd, Elfyn Mackinlay, Andrew MacNeil, Angus Marris, Rob Marsden, Gordon McCafferty, Chris McDonnell, Alasdair McGovern, Jim Meale, Alan Mitchell, Austin Moon, Madeleine O'Hara, Edward Owen, Albert Pope, Greg Prosser, Gwyn Purchase, Ken 32 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Sheridan, Jim Simpson, Alan Singh, Marsha Skinner, Dennis Strang, Gavin Taylor, David Tipping, Paddy Trickett, Jon Turner, Desmond Vaz, Keith Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty Williams, Hywel Wright, Iain

EDM 533 LONDON UNDERGROUND CLEANING SERVICES 38 signatures

That this House notes that under the terms of the London Underground Public Private Partnership (PPP) Tube Lines, a consortium of Amey and Bechtel and its multinational cleaning contractor, ISS, are responsible for cleaning trains and stations on the Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly lines and that since the introduction of the PPP Tube Lines has reported pre-tax profits of £150 million; is concerned that Tube Lines has ordered a substantial cut in the value of its station and train cleaning contract; further notes that this cut will mean the loss of 100 station cleaning jobs amounting to a 50 per cent. reduction in cleaning staff working on stations and bring additional pressure to bear on a poorly paid and vulnerable group of workers; and therefore supports the RMT campaign to reverse these cuts and urges Tube Lines and ISS to reconsider their plans.

John McDonnell Anderson, David Bottomley, Peter Buck, Karen Burgon, Colin Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Corbyn, Jeremy Cruddas, Jon Cryer, Ann Dean, Janet Dismore, Andrew Drew, David Etherington, Bill Galloway, George George, Andrew Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Goodman, Helen Hamilton, David Hancock, Mike Hoey, Kate Hopkins, Kelvin Hoyle, Lindsay Jones, Lynne Llwyd, Elfyn McDonnell, Alasdair Mitchell, Austin Moon, Madeleine Prosser, Gwyn Simpson, Alan Stringer, Graham Taylor, David Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty Williams, Hywel

EDM 730 RAIL FREIGHT AND THE ENVIRONMENT 71 signatures

That this House notes the environmental benefits of rail freight over other transport modes; recognises that an average aggregate freight train can remove up to 120 HGV lorries from the road network; supports Government steps to encourage modal shift from road to rail; and is therefore opposed to the introduction of longer and heavier goods vehicles that could weigh up to 60 tonnes and be as long as 25.25 metres onto the UK road network.

Kelvin Hopkins Anderson, David Bayley, Hugh Beith, AJ Breed, Colin Burt, Lorely Cable, Vincent Campbell, Gregory Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Cohen, Harry Conway, Derek Corbyn, Jeremy Cryer, Ann Cummings, John Davidson, Ian Dean, Janet Dismore, Andrew Dobbin, Jim Drew, David Ennis, Jeff Etherington, Bill Farron, Timothy Featherstone, Lynne Foster, Don Francis, Hywel Galloway, George 33 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Griffith, Nia Hamilton, David Hancock, Mike Hepburn, Stephen Hoyle, Lindsay Iddon, Brian James, Sian C Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne Leech, John Marris, Rob McCafferty, Chris McDonnell, Alasdair McDonnell, John Meale, Alan Mitchell, Austin Moon, Madeleine Murphy, Denis Prentice, Gordon Prosser, Gwyn Pugh, John Riordan, Linda Sheerman, Barry Short, Clare Simpson, Alan Smith, Robert Stewart, Ian Stringer, Graham Stunell, Andrew Swinson, Jo Taylor, David Truswell, Paul Vis, Rudi Walley, Joan Waltho, Lynda Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty Williams, Hywel Williams, Stephen Wyatt, Derek Younger-Ross, Richard

EDM 751 TICKET OFFICE OPENING HOURS 31 signatures

That this House notes proposals by the Southeastern rail franchise to reduce ticket office opening times at dozens of their stations; believes that such a move will lead to a lower level of service to the travelling public, act as a disincentive for the public to make use of the network, threaten revenue protection and potentially make stations an unsafe environment for rail users; further believes that automatic ticket machines are an inadequate substitute for well trained railway staff; is therefore opposed to any loss in jobs which could result from the proposals; and calls on the Southeastern franchise to withdraw its plans.

Gwyn Prosser Austin, John Bottomley, Peter Campbell, Gregory Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Conway, Derek Cook, Frank Corbyn, Jeremy Cryer, Ann Dean, Janet Dowd, Jim Flynn, Paul Galloway, George Gerrard, Neil Hoey, Kate Hopkins, Kelvin Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne Leech, John McDonnell, John Mitchell, Austin Riordan, Linda Ruddock, Joan Simpson, Alan Stoate, Howard Stringer, Graham Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty Wyatt, Derek

EDM 807 GROUNDING OF THE NAPOLI 40 signatures

That this House is deeply concerned at the recent grounding of the UK flagged ship the Napoli on the south west coast; regrets the environmental damage that is being caused through the leakage of oil and other materials; notes that the vessel also grounded in 2001, and the fact that the company has been blacklisted by the UK maritime trade unions; further notes that the vessel was flagged in the UK and had eight different nationalities on board; is concerned that such examples of sub-standard shipping will spoil the image of the UK flag; and calls on the UK Government urgently to consult on what measures can be taken to improve safety and working conditions on UK flagged vessels.

John McDonnell Bottomley, Peter Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Cohen, Harry Conway, Derek Cook, Frank Corbyn, Jeremy Cousins, Jim 34 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Cryer, Ann Cummings, John Dean, Janet Dismore, Andrew Drew, David Etherington, Bill Flynn, Paul Hancock, Mike Hopkins, Kelvin Hoyle, Lindsay Iddon, Brian Illsley, Eric Jackson, Glenda Jones, Lynne Lazarowicz, Mark Llwyd, Elfyn McDonnell, Alasdair Mitchell, Austin Prosser, Gwyn Riordan, Linda Simpson, Alan Skinner, Dennis Stringer, Graham Swinson, Jo Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty Williams, Hywel Wyatt, Derek Younger-Ross, Richard

EDM 847 BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY TRADE UNION FRONT 93 signatures

That this House expresses its extreme concern at the planned launch by the British National Party (BNP) of a trade union front organisation called Solidarity, the British Workers Union; wishes to expose this front organisation for what it is, nothing other than a vehicle for peddling the racist propaganda of the fascist BNP; and aims to ensure that the British public is aware that this organisation has nothing to do with the traditions and values of trade unionism in this country.

John McDonnell Abbott, Diane Anderson, David Austin, Ian Barron, Kevin Battle, John Berry, Roger Blunkett, David Borrow, David S Bottomley, Peter Bryant, Chris Burgon, Colin Cable, Vincent Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Challen, Colin Clapham, Michael Clark, Katy Clelland, David Cohen, Harry Cook, Frank Corbyn, Jeremy Cousins, Jim Crausby, David Cryer, Ann Dean, Janet Dismore, Andrew Dobbin, Jim Dowd, Jim Drew, David Durkan, Mark Ellman, Louise Evans, Nigel Farrelly, Paul Flynn, Paul Francis, Hywel Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Gilroy, Linda Hamilton, David Hamilton, Fabian Hancock, Mike Harris, Evan Hepburn, Stephen Hodgson, Sharon Holmes, Paul Hopkins, Kelvin Horwood, Martin Howarth, George Iddon, Brian Illsley, Eric Johnson, Diana R Jones, Helen Khan, Sadiq Laxton, Bob Lazarowicz, Mark Leech, John Llwyd, Elfyn Love, Andrew Main, Anne Mann, John Marris, Rob McCafferty, Chris McCarthy-Fry, Sarah McDonnell, Alasdair Meale, Alan Mitchell, Austin Mole, Chris Moon, Madeleine Morgan, Julie Pelling, Andrew Pugh, John Riordan, Linda Ruane, Chris Salmond, Alex Sanders, Adrian Sarwar, Mohammad Seabeck, Alison Simpson, Alan Singh, Marsha Swinson, Jo Taylor, David Taylor, Richard Vis, Rudi Walter, Robert Waltho, Lynda Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty Williams, Hywel Williams, Stephen

35 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Annex 2 – Group Letters

Please find below all letters sent by the RMT Parliamentary Group between December 2006 and the end of February 2007:

Mark Malone Managing Director (Shipping Division) Maersk Marine Services Ltd Stockbridge House, Trinity Gardens Quayside NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE NE1 2HU

Thursday 7th December 2006

Dear Mark,

I am writing to you in my capacity as Convenor of the RMT Parliamentary Group to invite you to a meeting with the Group.

Group member Gwyn Prosser MP has brought to the attention of the Group the proposals that you have developed for the employment and training of UK ratings. As you may be aware, these issues are of great concern to the Group and have been the focus of our campaigning on maritime issues for several years.

We would therefore be very interested in meeting with you and discussing your initiative early in the New Year. I would be most grateful if your office could liaise with Simeon Andrews, Group co-ordinator (details below), who can co-ordinate diaries and make the necessary arrangements for a meeting.

Yours sincerely,

John McDonnell MP Convenor, RMT Parliamentary Group

Tom Harris MP Department for Transport Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DR

Tuesday 19th December 2006

Dear Tom,

Thank you for attending the meeting of the RMT Parliamentary Group on Tuesday 12th December. As stated at the meeting, we are keen to maintain an open and constructive dialogue on rail policy and on various issues as they arise.

36 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

The Group understands that previously arranged meetings between the RMT and Douglas Alexander have unfortunately fallen through. We would appreciate any assistance you can give in facilitating such a meeting with the Secretary of State, which the Parliamentary Group would be pleased to host.

We also discussed with you the Secretary of State’s speech to the Transport 2000 “Growing the Railways Conference” in November. Douglas Alexander said the Government will ask its officials to set up consultation meetings with stakeholders so the Government can share and develop their future rail proposals. Douglas Alexander also intends to chair a seminar in the New Year. We would be grateful for your confirmation that the unions will be involved in this consultation and seminar?

Thank you also for agreeing, diary permitting, to participate in a seminar in the Spring on future rail strategy. As per the ‘Sustainable Case for Rail’ seminar last year, we envisage an afternoon seminar with attendees from the rail unions, TUC, rail passenger groups and policy specialists – together with parliamentarians, which will provide an opportunity to both showcase and discuss Government policy on long-term rail investment. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this and we will liaise with your office in the New Year to find a mutually convenient date.

It was also welcome to hear that you are “agnostic” about whether the railways are operated in the public or private sector. As discussed at the meeting, we believe that Network Rail has demonstrated considerable efficiencies since regaining control of track maintenance and that there is a strong case to reconsider whether track renewals should be brought in-house under Network Rail. As discussed we would be grateful if this could be raised with your officials and in discussions with Network Rail. Perhaps a way forward would be for Network rail to consider an in-house trial with one of its renewal contracts, as was the case before Network Rail maintenance was brought back in-house.

The demise of GNER has again illustrated the problems in franchising that were identified in the recent Transport Select Committee report – and we look forward to the Government’s response in the New Year. As stated at the meeting, we believe that a public sector comparator would provide a useful benchmark, and achieve improved performance as previously did the SET franchise. I also welcome your assurance, given at the meeting, that the rail unions will be fully consulted if, as has now occurred, the franchise is removed.

The Group is also concerned about the increase in staff assaults on the railways, and we are therefore pleased that an invitation will be extended to the RMT to have representation on the Rail Security Forum. There are a number of forums within the industry and we would be grateful to receive some more information on this issue.

As we raised with you at the meeting, we would welcome anything you can do to bring pressure to bear on First Great Western, and we would be happy to offer any assistance we can give to protect these vital services.

Finally, as raised in the adjournment debate, I would also welcome your clarification on whether the funding to TfL for the East London line extension was conditional on the franchising of the service.

I would be most grateful if your office could address all correspondence to Simeon Andrews (details below) who is the co-ordinator of the Group, and will pass on the relevant information.

Thank you again for participating in what we thought was a very useful and constructive meeting.

37 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Yours sincerely,

John McDonnell MP Convenor, RMT Parliamentary Group

Alison Forster Managing Director First Great Western Milford House 1 Milford Street Swindon SN1 1HL

Tuesday 9th January 2007

Dear Alison,

We are writing to you as MPs with serious concerns about the new timetabling and performance of First Great Western services, and to invite you to an urgent meeting with MPs from the south west of England and Wales, and members of the RMT Parliamentary Group.

As you will be aware, there has recently been a great deal of public concern about rail services in the area, and MPs have received large amounts of correspondence from concerned constituents.

We note media reports that you are conducting a review of the new timetable, and feel that it would be useful for MPs to express their concerns to you directly based on their experiences and the numerous correspondence received from constituents.

Just prior to the Christmas recess, the Group raised our concerns with the Minister and it was agreed that we would seek a meeting directly with you in the New Year.

If you would be willing to meet, we would be most grateful if your office could liaise with Simeon Andrews (details below) who is the co-ordinator of the Group and can make the necessary arrangements for a meeting.

Yours sincerely,

John McDonnell MP David Drew MP Convenor, RMT Parliamentary Group Stroud

Angela Smith MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Department for Communties and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place

38 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

London SW1E 5DU

Wednesday 17th January 2007

Dear Angela,

Re: Working Party on Fire Safety Regulations at Sub-surface Railway Stations

Thank you for your letter of agreeing to a working group to discuss the outstanding isse of the legal correlation between the Order and the 1989 regulations and the wider picture.

I am very grateful for that we are moving forward on this issue and am hopeful that the working group will be able to find solutions that will meet all of our concerns. I also understand that you are due to meet with the RMT on 19th February.

I am also very happy to convene the group and, in discussions with your offcials, I am in in the process of sending out inviations to participants for the first meeting of the working group to take place on Wednesday 7th February at 4pm in Room B, 1 Parliament Street.

To help focus the discussions I am suggesting the following terms of reference for the working group:

“To discuss and confirm the legal correlations between the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) Regulations 1989 and the Transport Premises and Facilities Guidance.

Further, to examine each requirement of the Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) Regulations in order to identify any amendments or additions to the Regulations that may be required since the introduction of the regulations in 1989.

Once concluded, the working party will report its conclusions to the Under Secretary of State with recommendations for action if necessary.”

Thank you once again for agreeing a constructive way forward and I look forward to our continued dialogue on this issue.

Yours sincerely,

John McDonnell MP Convenor, RMT Parliamentary Group

Rt Hon Andrew Smith MP (Oxford East)

Monday 22nd January 2007

Dear Andrew,

Re: Delegated Legislation Committee – 24th January 2007 / Safety on the River Thames

I am writing to you regarding the above committee which will consider the proposed annulment of the Merchant Shipping (Inland Waterway and Limited Coastal Operations) (Boatmasters’ Qualifications and Hours of Work) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006, No. 3223).

39 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

I am seeking your support for the annulment of the regulations as they downgrade the experience and training needed for service on the River Thames as a Watermen and Lightermen. In summary the new regulations, which are being introduced as a result of a new European Union Directive on harmonising boatmasters’ licences, change the requirements that were in place until 1st January 2007 as follows:

· Removing all mandatory college based training. · Reducing the number of examinations to one as opposed to the four that were previously required. · Substantially reducing the scope of the local knowledge (LK) area. · Downgrading the required service for local knowledge on the River Thames from 2 years to 6 months. · Reducing the overall qualifying service from five years to only two years.

In addition, the current Port of London Authority Watermen & Lightermen’s Byelaws 1993 (as amended) provide that a passenger vessel on the Thames is not only under the command of a Licensed Waterman but must also be navigated by a fully qualified licensed Waterman.

Under the new proposals, inland waterways vessels carrying cargo or passengers will be under the command of a Licensed Boatmaster but the vessel can be navigated by any person that the Boatmaster believes is competent to do so. Consequently a vessel the size of the Bowbelle (80 metres) may be navigated by any person over the age of 16 years who is not properly qualified or who has not even undertaken a medical. At the adjournment debate on 10th January 2007, the Minister did not address this further fundamental weakness in the regulations.

As a result of the representations made by trade unions during the consultation process the local knowledge endorsement required for the Thames was increased from 16 trips to the current one of 6 months’ service and for an increased age requirement from 18 years to 21 years for cargo vessels over 40 metres in length. Unfortunately these minor changes do not make a substantial difference to the regulations and they are therefore still a long way from being acceptable.

The Government can retain higher standards for the River Thames. The European Transport Workers Federation have studied the Directive and stated:

“Whereas national navigable waterways not linked to the navigable network of another Member State are not subject to international competition and it is therefore not necessary to make compulsory on those waterways the common provisions for the granting of boatmasters certificates laid down in this Directive.”

RMT welcome the fact that the new regulations will place training and certification for non- passenger vessels in UK inland waterways under a statutory footing. However this must not be at the expense of safety on the River Thames where detailed local knowledge is required for the conditions that apply on different sections of the River.

Finally I must also point out that the standards I am seeking to protect are those that were put in place following a long campaign by the Marchioness Families Disaster campaign and a Public Inquiry led by Lord Justice Clarke arising from the Bowbelle/Marchioness disaster. The Marchioness Action Group, which represent survivors and bereaved families of the disaster, are alarmed at the drastic lowering of safety standards and their spokesperson Margaret Lockwood-Croft has stated that with the increasing amount of traffic on the Thames safety standards should be strengthened not lowered.

40 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

If you are concerned about these changes I would welcome your support at the Delegated Legislation Committee on Wednesday 24th January 2007. If you need any further information please do not hesitate to contact my office.

Yours Sincerely

John McDonnell MP Convenor, RMT Parliamentary Group

Rt Hon Stephen Ladyman MP Minister of State Department of Transport Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street LONDON SW1P 4DR

Tuesday 30th January 2007

Dear Stephen,

Re: Maritime Seminar – Tuesday 13th March 2007

I am writing to advise you further regarding the RMT Parliamentary Group which you have kindly agreed to attend on the afternoon of Tuesday 13th March 2007.

We would be most grateful if you could speak shortly after the start of the seminar. As you are aware the seminar will be considering the UK Flag and possible measures that could be taken to tackle low pay and poor conditions that may exist on the UK Register. We therefore very much welcome your contribution to this debate.

Following a brief introduction from myself, Frances O’Grady, TUC Deputy General Secretary, will be speaking just after 2pm and we would request that you speak at 2.15pm for a period of approximately fifteen minutes. After the initial panel session has concluded there will be the opportunity for contributions and questions from the floor and I believe this will conclude by 3pm. However I do hope that you can stay to hear further contributions as the seminar carries on until 4.30pm and we have also invited NUMAST, the Chamber of Shipping, the ETF and of course RMT to speak.

I will send a full timetable to your office nearer the time.

Yours sincerely,

John McDonnell MP Convenor, RMT Parliamentary Group

Tom Harris MP Department for Transport 76 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DR 41 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Wednesday 31st January 2007

Dear Tom,

We are writing to you as MPs with serious concerns about the new timetabling and performance of First Great Western (FGW) services, and to request an urgent meeting to discuss possible options and the proposals made so far by FGW.

As you will be aware, there has recently been a great deal of public concern about rail services in the area, and we have received large amounts of correspondence from concerned constituents.

We would also like to thank you for making time to meet with many of us to discuss our concerns, but believe we need a meeting to discuss the entire franchise area, as any solution must not be to the detriment of other areas of the franchise or other rail services.

The current situation also impacts upon a number of other areas of Government policy, including modal shift and the environment, economic efficiency and growth in the franchise area, and social exclusion for constituents who rely on public transport. As you will appreciate, we believe that this is an issue of the utmost importance.

If you would be willing to meet, we would be most grateful if your office could liaise with Simeon Andrews (details below) who is the co-ordinator of the Group and can make the necessary arrangements for a meeting.

Yours sincerely,

David Drew Kerry McCarthy John McDonnell MP MP for Stroud MP for Bristol East Convenor, RMT Parliamentary Group

Linda Gilroy MP for Plymouth Sutton

First name, surname MP Constituency

Thursday 1st Feburary 2007

Dear MP,

RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP - MARITIME SEMINAR

I write to invite you a forthcoming maritime seminar on the afternoon of Tuesday 13th March 2007, 2pm to 4.30pm, committee room 12.

The seminar, which is being hosted by the RMT Parliamentary Group, will include representatives from across the shipping industry. The Shipping Minister, Stephen Ladyman MP, has agreed to attend and I can also advise you that Frances O’Grady, TUC Deputy

42 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

General Secretary, and Bob Crow, RMT General Secretary, will be speaking, in addition to the Director General of the Chamber of Shipping, Mark Brownrigg.

The aim of the seminar is to raise awareness of the lack of social protection for seafarers in respect of exemptions from the UK Race Relations Act and the National Minimum Wage, and to debate possible measures to tackle this.

As you will be aware that the UK Race Relations Act specifically allows discrimination against foreign national seafarers on UK ships, including EU nationals, and we have now been advised that this review by the Department for Transport will be forthcoming very soon. We have also invited speakers from the European Transport Workers Federation and the seminar will also reflect on the position in the Irish Sea, including the recent Irish Ferries dispute.

Should you be able to attend it would be most helpful if your office can confirm by e-mailing [email protected] as this will greatly assist our planning for the seminar.

Many thanks and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,

John McDonnell MP Convenor, RMT Parliamentary Group

Tuesday 6th February 2007 Dear Colleague,

Re: URGENT VOTE ON RIVER THAMES SAFETY

I am writing as Convenor of the RMT Parliamentary Group to seek your support in voting against proposals for the implementation of an EU Directive on Boatmasters licences as contained in Statutory Instrument 3223, which will voted upon tomorrow afternoon (Wednesday).

If passed the legislation will downgrade safety and training standard brought in following the Public Inquiry led by Lord Justice Clarke into the Bowbelle/ Marchioness disaster. The proposals:

· Remove all mandatory college based training · Reduce the number of examinations to one as opposed to the four that were previously required · Substantially reduce the scope of the local knowledge (LK) area · Downgrading the required service for local knowledge on the River Thames from 2 years to 6 months · Reduce the overall qualifying service from five years to only two years

In addition to RMT members on the Thames, the proposals are also opposed by the TGWU, and the Marchioness Action Group (the families of the victims of the Marchioness disaster

Under the new proposals, inland waterways vessels carrying cargo or passengers will be under the command of a Licensed Boatmaster but the vessel can be navigated by any person that the Boatmaster believes is competent to do so. Consequently a vessel the size of the Bowbelle (80 metres) may be navigated by any person over the age of 16 years who is not properly qualified or who has not even undertaken a medical. 43 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

I welcome the fact that the implementation of the Directive on boatmasters licences has enabled the Government to place training and certification for non-passenger vessels on a statutory footing – strengthening regulation on many other UK waterways. However these proposals weaken the higher safety standards on the River Thames.

The European Transport Workers Federation has studied the Directive. They have confirmed that higher standards can be retained on the River Thames (as they have on the Danube) through the following statement:

“Whereas national navigable waterways not linked to the navigable network of another Member State are not subject to international competition and it is therefore not necessary to make compulsory on those waterways the common provisions for the granting of boatmasters certificates laid down in this Directive.”

I hope you can support efforts to retain existing training and local knowledge requirements on the River Thames by voting against SI 3223

Best wishes,

John McDonnell MP Convenor, RMT Parliamentary Group

44 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Annex 3 – Excerpts from Hansard and Group Members

Thames Boatmaster licence adjournment debate – 10th January 2007

Angela Watkinson: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise this extremely important matter. It arises from significant changes that have been made to the level of competence and the experience required to obtain a boatmaster’s licence in order to operate on British waters. Those changes, effective from 1 January, will mean an inevitable lowering of safety standards. That will have a particular impact on the tidal Thames, where conditions and the potential for accidents are almost unique. The purpose of the debate is to make the strongest possible case for special status for the tidal Thames requiring a licence that maintains our traditional high standards. However, those standards were swept away—I hope that the House will forgive the nautical term—on 1 January at the behest of the European Council. I shall describe the changes that have been imposed on us. To comply with European Council Directive 96/50/EC, the boatmasters directive, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has introduced a new licence for passenger and non-passenger craft of more than 24 m on all inland waterways, and it allows European boatmasters to operate in British waters. Until 1 January, a licence granted by the Worshipful Company of Watermen and Lightermen and the Port of London Authority demanded five years’ experience on the Thames and four exams—practical, oral and written. To qualify, applicants had to be certified by five separate masters as being able to manage their craft. The old licence therefore created a maritime elite, reflecting the ability to handle craft of different types, speeds and sizes over a wide range of tidal, visibility and weather conditions—and with detailed local knowledge. That licence is now defunct. However, the new licence has not yet been issued. All a that waterman can produce at the moment is proof of posting of his application for the new boatmaster’s licence—a Post Office receipt. Therefore, the Post Office is currently—I hope that hon. Members will forgive me another pun—in charge of administering Thames licences. The new licence demands only two years’ experience and one practical examination. That demonstrates the ability to manage one craft on one occasion under one set of river conditions. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and Transport and General Workers Union are right to be concerned that those requirements are not sufficient to qualify a master to navigate safely on the tidal Thames.

Susan Kramer: Is the hon. Lady aware that relatives of those who died in the Marchioness disaster live in my constituency, and that they are distraught that it took 10 years to get the public inquiry that led to the safety improvements on the Thames that they now see being seized with this opportunity to roll back that safety and protection? After such a loss of life, would she not say that the Minister should understand the high risk of using the Thames waterway?

Angela Watkinson: I was not aware of the hon. Lady’s personal connection to those involved in the accident between the Marchioness and the Bowbelle. I shall refer to it later, but she is right in what she says. The river carries a wide variety of craft in dense traffic conditions, with a huge tonnage of goods. Large and small passenger craft, dredgers, Thames barges, tugs, small private motor boats, small hired boats, passenger ferries, fireboats, sailing dinghies, rowing boats and canoes, speed boats and water skiers, river buses and houseboats—I apologise for any omission—all share the same busy water from Teddington down to the estuary, and all those involved must know and understand its bridges, moorings, currents and tides. I understand that the pride and joy of the Royal Navy, the newly refitted aircraft carrier Ark Royal, will be visiting London this spring. That will be an auspicious occasion. Under the old 45 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

licence standards, we could be confident of the qualifications and experience of other vessels sharing the river with her. We need that assurance still. I have some limited personal experience in bringing small motor yachts of 30 ft and 40 ft down from the upper Thames to St. Katharine’s dock. It taught me great respect for the river, especially the importance of local knowledge—for example, how to negotiate the half-tide lock at Richmond, or how to follow the line of the river bed at low water at places such as Syon reach, where it would be easy to go aground with a draft of more than 3 ft—and most importantly the rules of precedence on the water. It is common in summer to see small hired boats in the hands of people who are probably competent car drivers but who have found to their dismay after some brief, rudimentary instruction that boats do not have brakes and that stopping them requires some forward planning. Even when her engines are stopped, a boat does not stand still; she moves with the tide and current unless she is tied up. Sailing and rowing boats have precedence over boats with engines, but their crew often have unrealistic expectations of their ability to stop and of the manoeuvrability of vessels under power. The conflict of uses between the different types of craft frequently compromises safety. The high standards that prevailed until 1 January were set in the wake of the accident in 1989 between the Marchioness and the Bowbelle, which claimed 51 young lives. It is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that every precaution possible is taken to prevent another accident of that magnitude—or, indeed, any accident.

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend refers to the Marchioness. I pay tribute to my constituent Margaret Lockwood Croft, director of the Marchioness action group. She has been fighting a fantastic, sterling battle over the past 17 years, and is hugely concerned that all that has been achieved during those years is being frittered away by the Government. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to some figures given to me by the Minister, which show the number of incidents involving non-qualified and qualified personnel. During the past three years, unqualified personnel were 50 per cent. more likely to have been involved in an incident than qualified watermen and lightermen. Does that not speak for itself? Given that unqualified lightermen are involved in many more incidents than qualified lightermen, there is evidence that, if the Government go down that route, the prospects are for a much unsafer Thames.

Angela Watkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. None of us would underestimate the long-term effect of the Marchioness disaster on the bereaved families involved.

Martin Linton: Does the hon. Lady accept that, although the focus of this debate is on the Marchioness accident and accidents that involve other pleasure craft, many more accidents happen on the Thames? For instance, a barge driver recently collided with Battersea bridge, causing it to be closed for three or four months. Although those accidents do not have such tragic results, they cause huge disruption to river traffic and to road traffic crossing the Thames. Although that accident is sub judice, it is one of a string of accidents, with barge drivers causing huge disruption to London by driving into Thames bridges.

Angela Watkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We seem to be quite consensual thus far in our common desire for the highest possible safety standards on the Thames and the highest degree of professionalism that can be achieved. Traffic on the river has increased significantly since 1989, and it is likely to increase even more with construction traffic in the preparations for the 2012 Olympics and the tourist traffic during the games, when large numbers of visitors will be in the capital. Local knowledge is essential to ensure the safe use of the entire length of the tidal Thames from Teddington to Lower Hope point, and not only the Woolwich to Putney part of the most dangerous stretch, to which the new examination applies.

46 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

The Port of London Authority’s application for local knowledge area for the entire length of the Thames was made as recently as October 2005, but it now supports the shorter section. What has brought about that change of mind? The area above Putney is characterised by restricted tidal navigation where the river is shallower and narrower. That area is often congested by vulnerable leisure users with no professional training, and it is also used by passenger boats at least as far as Hampton Court—some even go as far as Henley and Oxford on the upper Thames. The area below Woolwich is where approximately 90 per cent. of the 50 million tonnes of the port of London’s annual cargo is handled. Add to that the sailing clubs and private motor yachts that use the estuary to cross the channel and, considering the estuary’s sandbanks and the sunken wreck of the Montgomery, the potential for an accident is enormous. The new boatmaster’s licence will enable captains to qualify for an even more limited zone in the local knowledge area. Passenger-carrying vessels may, for example, be restricted to the stretch between Westminster and Tower piers, but if another accident or emergency that required evacuation similar to that of July 7 2005 occurred outside that restricted zone, such vessels would not be able to respond. On July 7 2005, approximately 100,000 people were evacuated from central London and Canary Wharf by river in a well organised operation that involved several passenger-vessel operators. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Port of London Authority are apparently confident that safety standards will not be undermined by the new boatmaster’s licence on the grounds that the shorter qualifying times will be more intensive. I am at a loss to understand how the daily activities of each candidate could be monitored in such detail. The suggestion that much of the former five-year qualification period was spent sweeping the decks simply cannot be substantiated. Shore-based training has been reduced from a mandatory 10 weeks, plus other optional courses and two examinations for underpinning knowledge, to one week of safety training and only one examination for underpinning knowledge—a reduction of 90 per cent. Qualifying service has been reduced from five years to 30 months, which is a reduction of 50 per cent, while the number of days that candidates are required to work has been reduced from 750 to 360—a reduction of 55 per cent. The number of days per year required for the revalidation service has been reduced from 50 to 24, which is a reduction of 52 per cent, and the number of examinations to be taken is down from four to one or two—a 50 or 75 per cent. reduction. The minimum level of local experience is down from two years to six months—a reduction of 75 per cent.—and examiners will not, in future, necessarily be locally experienced watermen. What consistency in the standard of examiners can be demonstrated to ensure consistency of qualifying performance in applicants? Can all examiners match the knowledge of a waterman? Practitioner testimonies are down from six to one, which is an 83 per cent. reduction. In September 2002, the Baxter-Eadie study of the competencies and skills required by operators on the River Thames identified that about 500 skills are required. It would be impractical, if not impossible, to test all those skills in one practical test. Competence could only be guaranteed in the conditions prevailing on that day. A test taken on a nice sunny day in June under calm conditions would not qualify someone to work at night, in a storm, in fog or any other of the multitude of conditions that prevail on skippers who regularly use the river. Practical examination has been a welcome addition for a large passenger vessel endorsement to the waterman’s licence. It was introduced without a reduction in the length of qualifying service and is currently held by approximately 50 per cent. of watermen. Continuous assessment is a reliable and proven means of assuring extensive practical competence. The testimonial system is one form of continuous assessment, but signatories should be made more accountable to achieve transparency, and the addition of practical testing should not come at the expense of reductions in other elements of the qualifying process. The candidate logbook does not offer true assessment, as it testifies only to a candidate having assisted in tasks. The fact that the merchant navy model has discounted the use of practical testing stresses that that form of assessment can prove unworkable.

47 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

An additional requirement has been introduced for all licence holders to hold valid certificates in firefighting, first aid, personal survival and, in the case of passenger vessels, passenger management. That is very welcome, and I am rather surprised that it was not put in place after the 1989 accident. The generic licence, plus the passenger operations endorsement, is very similar to the provisional waterman’s licence followed by the full waterman’s licence. There is no difference in the application of the qualification, as both licence holders will need to be qualified to command a passenger carrying vessel. However, the new modular route to qualifying can now be completed in half the time that was previously required. Currently, other freight and towing operations are covered by the PLA craft registration policy and management guidelines on competencies—byelaw 12 of January 2002. The recommended qualifying service defined in those guidelines for towing vessels is nine years, now reduced to 30 months, and the guideline levels of experience for motor barge skippers is five years, now also reduced to 30 months. The new legislation covers all passenger operations including ferries, but its application to other freight vessels is limited to those over 24 m. That will leave many vessels, including craft-towing tugs and workboats, unregulated within the boatmaster’s licence regulations. That issue exposes grey areas that require urgent clarification. The use of a tier 2 boatmaster’s licence on the tidal Thames in London for passenger operations has not been ruled out by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, yet only the tier 1 boatmaster’s licence offers the standard outlined in the quantitative summary comparison. The boatmaster’s licence established in 1993 ensured that local knowledge assessment was guaranteed for all category A, B, C and D inland waters. That requirement has been removed and therefore standards have been lowered, except for those with local knowledge assessment. It is madness to lower our standards in this way to accommodate visiting European craft. They are very welcome to visit—indeed, they are encouraged to do so—but they must use standards born of the experience of professional users of the Thames. How could an employer ensure that an applicant is fully competent on a different vessel from the one used for the one single practical examination? Under the old waterman’s licence an employer was guaranteed that the applicant had appropriate experience in vessels of a variety of characteristics and propulsion systems, gained during five years of training. The new licence has been designed as a national system. The density of traffic and variety of craft on the tidal Thames, with its tides, currents and bridges, are incomparable with other waterways and make it deserving of special status. There may well may be other UK waters for which the new generic licence is not appropriate. Old London bridge supported bustling houses and businesses and had so many columns, or starlings—14 from memory—that the flow of water was slowed down to such an extent that the Thames would freeze in sustained periods of cold weather. Hence, there were frost fairs when oxen were roasted on the ice. Watermen in those days, who were also the taxi drivers of their time, had no option but to raise their oars and pray as they went through the narrow arches under the bridge. It was so dangerous that, in the 16th century when King Henry VIII was rowed down from Hampton Court, he would not risk going through by boat. He was set down at the steps before the bridge and rejoined the boat after it had safely emerged downwater. Those currents still prevail, as was demonstrated to me yesterday, when I was on the river and saw tugs towing heavily laden barges. The boatmasters knew exactly which course to steer to navigate the bridges safely and each bridge has its own characteristics. I am unclear whether the MCA and the PLA is the final authority on the tidal Thames and whether it is possible under the law to obtain an opt-out from the new boatmaster’s licence and reinstate the former qualifying standards.

Simon Hughes: This is fairly complicated legislation, regulation, directive and the rest of it, but does the hon. Lady agree—I hope that the Minister will deal with this later—that it appears, from reading the documents, as though it is possible to comply with the European requirement but to have a two-tier system in the UK, which allows a general provision across

48 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

general coastal and tidal waters and inland waterways, and a separate specific arrangement for specific waterways?

Angela Watkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I hope that what he describes is possible and that the opportunity will be taken to ensure that the appropriate standards on the tidal Thames are imposed, so that there is safety for all. Fifty million tonnes of goods and 5 million passengers are carried annually on the Thames, and it is our responsibility to set the standards that have been shown through experience to be necessary to maintain safety on the water for all users. The watermen and lightermen and many regular users of the tidal Thames believe that the new licence lowers safety standards and increases the potential for accidents. The Minister must not put his head in the sand and dismiss the watermen as a cosy club or a closed shop. That simply does not hold water—there is another pun. Currently, there are two 16-year-old trainees who are the sons of taxi drivers. They have no previous connection with watermen’s families. The onerous rules were not intended to keep people out of employment, but to ensure the highest possible standards of professionalism. The Government must listen and act now before it is too late.

Several hon. Members rose—

Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. Clearly, many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. I ask them to bear it in mind that the Front-Bench contributions should commence no later than 10.30am.

Dr. Howard Stoate: Thank you, Mr. O’Hara, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this very important debate. I represent a constituency that borders the River Thames and is notable for its very high tidal set. The tide can rise and fall by up to 8 m in a single day, so it is a significant tidal area. I am an amateur boatman; I am a keen sailor. I was brought up on the River Thames, but on the non-tidal section, and one thing that someone notices when they move to the tidal section is that there are significant difficult waters and treacherous currents in the tidal section that simply do not apply to the non-tidal section of the Thames. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to go aboard the boat Mercia and I had a very interesting briefing from Alex Hickman about the tidal section of the Thames. We spent some time going up and down the Thames, looking at other craft and seeing how they handled. What was brought to our attention was the size and make-up of some of the barges and tugs that navigate the tidal section of the Thames. A single tug can tow three barges. Those barges can each carry up to 600 tonnes of freight, so the total towing capacity is up to 2,000 tonnes. A 2,000-tonne vessel trying to negotiate a 5-knot tide in difficult waters under serial bridges involves quite a feat of boatmanship. Anything that is done to reduce the skill of those boatmen would be very detrimental to safety on the river. The historical methods of becoming a lighterman or boatman have not been arrived at lightly. Let me give some background. Watermen have enjoyed the exclusive right to carry passengers on the tidal Thames since 1510. They provided the first form of licensed public transport on the Thames. Acts of Parliament dating from 1514 and 1555 were passed to ensure that the profession was regularised and standardised fares were introduced to protect the public from unscrupulous dealing and to introduce safety measures. The 1555 Act also established the Company of Watermen, one of the City of London’s ancient trade guilds, to ensure that the profession was regulated. The world’s oldest continuously run sporting event—the rowing race for Doggett’s coat and badge—is conducted each year over 4 miles and 5 furlongs from Swan pier at London bridge to Cadogan pier in Chelsea to test the skill of Thames watermen. That race is run even now, and the winner receives the traditional waterman’s coat and a silver badge representing liberty. Many years ago, one Thomas Doggett fell into the river and was rescued from a watery grave by watermen. To mark his thanks to them, he set up the race,

49 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP so it goes back a long way and represents an important mark in ensuring continuing standards and safety on the River Thames. The watermen’s business has gradually reduced over many years because of changing freight methods on the Thames and changing passenger numbers, but now there seems to be a revitalisation of Thames traffic. Far more freight is being carried. There has been a significant tonnage increase in freight moved on the Thames and a significant extra number of passengers carried on the Thames over the past few years, which makes it even more important that we maintain standards and ensure that all those involved in navigating and mastering those vessels are of the highest possible standard. We have heard a great deal from the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) about the changes in regulations, so I need not rehearse those issues, but they are of great concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I want to touch on some issues that particularly affect me. As I have said, the tidal Thames is one of the more difficult areas to navigate in the country. It has many treacherous water channels, cross-currents and hidden underwater obstacles. As I have also pointed out, 8 m, which is about the height of this Chamber, is the tidal change in one day on the Thames. That can cause significant changes in the channels, the markings and the height of bridges above water level, all of which will have a significant impact on people using the Thames. We have heard about the Bowbelle disaster and the difficulties that that has caused. Some of the rules that we are discussing were introduced following that terrible tragedy, but it is not the only collision that has taken place on the Thames over the years. The collision between the pleasure steamer the Princess Alice and the Bywell Castle off Woolwich resulted in the loss of 700 lives. That was one of the worst disasters ever to take place in British river or coastal waters. It took place on a stretch of the Thames that, if the legislation that we are discussing proceeds, will be outside the local boat knowledge area for boatmasters. In other words, that type of event could happen again with a master who is not as qualified as current boatmasters. In more recent times, the tugboat Hawkstone was thrown into the wash of a ship on the River Blythe, which resulted in the loss of six lightermen and the tug crew. At Tilburyness, the Rora Head ran down the tugboat General 7, with the loss of four lightermen and the tug crew. As well as being one of the most treacherous rivers in the UK, the Thames constitutes one of the busiest commercial ports in the country. In fact, the number of watermen and lightermen operating on the Thames is greater than the total number of skippers on the rest of the UK’s inland waterways put together. We are talking currently about 600 people. In the past few years, there has been significant growth in the level of traffic and the number of passengers carried on the Thames. Each year now, 2.3 million passengers use the Thames, which represents an increase of 44 per cent. since 1999. The increase in the number of commuters has been even more marked, with a leap of 80 per cent. in the past year alone. The amount of freight transported is also growing. It has risen from 50 million tonnes in 2000 to 56 million tonnes in 2005—an 11 per cent. increase. More importantly, 95 per cent. of that freight is handled on the stretch of Thames below Woolwich—the part that will in future no longer be covered by the local knowledge certificate. That is of great concern to me, and many of my constituents who work on the river have brought it to my attention and wish to make their views known. Much more investment is being put into updating and improving passenger piers and craft on the Thames. Companies are purchasing new boats every year because of anticipated growth in traffic. All that makes it even more important that we do nothing to water down—to use another pun—the qualifying requirements for Thames skippers. We must ensure that we do not open up the river to people with skills and training that do not meet the difficult and demanding requirements of the river. I do not wish to speak for too long, because many other hon. Members want to speak, but I have received a briefing from the European Transport Workers Federation on whether we are able to have a change of regulation compared with the rest of Europe. It states that

50 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

“the requirements of directive 96/50/EC state...‘national navigable waterways not linked to the navigable network of another Member State are not subject to international competition and it is therefore not necessary to make compulsory on those waterways the common provisions for the granting of boatmasters’ certificates laid down in this Directive’.” That organisation has interpreted the rules as saying that it is perfectly acceptable for Britain to have a separate local knowledge certificate not covered by the rest of Europe. That is what has happened on the Rhine. The ETF goes on to say that the Rhine boatmaster’s licence is significantly more difficult to obtain than the licence that currently obtains in this country. To paraphrase the document again, in order to get a patent to navigate the Rhine, a person has to be at least 21, with four years as a crew member, at least two of which were as a boatman, and acquisition of local knowledge must be significant. Overall, it means that, to obtain a boatmaster’s certificate on the Rhine, a person has to have a minimum of six years’ training and work experience. The ETF believes that that would also be an appropriate level at which to operate on the Thames. All we are saying is that having the same level of safety and qualifications in Britain as on the Rhine would meet most of the unions’ objections and make perfect sense in terms of safety and public confidence. It should be well within the scope of the regulations to allow that to happen. I ask the Minister to revisit the issue to see whether there is any way in which we could follow the example of the Rhine boatman’s certificate and apply the same regulations to the tidal part of the Thames. We must ensure that what we understand by the tidal part of the Thames still goes as far as it currently does and does not stop at the Thames barrier, as under the current proposals.

Mark Field: I am glad to be able to make some brief comments, because I appreciate that other hon. Members want to contribute to this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on her excellent speech, which brought all the issues out into the open. I obviously represent a central London seat, which is at the heart of the Thames and the City. Tragically, it was in my constituency that the horrendous events involving the Bowbelle and Marchioness took place 18 years ago. All London Members on both sides of the House have a great passion for our city, and the Thames is at the heart of the city. That is particularly true of hon. Members in the centre, although the same applies, of course, to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer), whose constituency is not quite in the centre, but which is, none the less, a Thameside constituency. We recognise the importance of the Thames, which has been at the heart of London’s economic and recreational growth. As the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) rightly said, however, it has also become increasingly busy in recent years. Five million passengers and 50 million tonnes of goods are carried on the Thames every year. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Rhine, and I hope that the Minister will give clear consideration to that issue. The same point also applies to the Danube, which is an important part of Romania, one of the new EU nations. Special rules apply on those two rivers, so it would seem sensible that such rules should also apply on the Thames. There has been a long struggle over this issue. In considering the 10-year struggle of those who lost loved ones and near ones on the Marchioness, we recognise our impotence and powerlessness as Members of Parliament. At times, those people must have thought that they were having to break down the walls of bureaucracy—to some extent, that is one thing that I hope all of us, as Members of Parliament, can do on behalf of our constituents—to bring in new rules and regulations. All Opposition Members look with a certain scepticism at any new regulations, and there is always a sense in which business should not be over-regulated. Above all, however, there is an issue of public safety. Of course, we do not want such stringent rules on any of our rivers—or, indeed, on any form of transport—that it is impossible for people to go about their everyday business. Inevitably, any form of transport will always involve an element of risk, and the idea that we can entirely eliminate risk is unrealistic. Equally, however, we need to

51 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

ensure that, as far as possible, we strike the right balance between ensuring that the Thames is a great place for pleasure and commerce and a safe place. I therefore entirely endorse the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster. She was right to say that we need to consider the Thames alongside the Rhine and the Danube, and I hope that the Government will make strong representations on the issue in Europe. We do not expect special treatment, and it is quite sensible to apply the proposed rules to many of our other rivers, but the Thames will be increasingly important. Another important issue will be some of the river’s tributaries, most importantly those around the Lea valley. I spent last Sunday walking around the Olympic site, although, rather depressingly, little work seems to have been done in the 17 or so months since we won the Olympic bid. However, significant work has been done on the towpaths in the upper Lea valley to make them safe and to ensure that the site is attractive for the many millions of people who will visit the Olympics, as well as for those who will live and work in the area in the years ahead, when the site ceases to be an amalgam of former industrial sites. That shows the important role that water will play for London’s economic growth in the future, and we need to have an eye to the safety aspects. I have just one other comment at this juncture. It has been suggested that the watermen and lightermen’s company is some sort of trade union that is looking after its own interests. It is probably fair to say that that was its underlying raison d’être when it started up in the 16th century. However, it now plays an important part not only in London’s history, but in ensuring that the Thames is safe and that those working on it can go about their business. I praise the watermen and lightermen’s livery company for playing an important social role, as do many of our livery companies in London. Indeed, if one walks down Penge high street, one will see almshouses going back to the 17th century, which were run by the watermen and ligthermen’s company. The company is now working with the London borough of Bromley to ensure that many dozens of people can live happy lives in one of our London suburbs. When it began its life, the watermen and lightermen’s company, like many livery companies, may have focused on acting as a guild for its members, but it now plays a much more important social role. Part and parcel of that role are the representations that the company has made to Members of Parliament in London and beyond, and I hope that the Government will give clear consideration to what it has to say. It is the expert in this field, and I sincerely hope that the recommendations of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster will see the light of day in the Minister’s comments and, more importantly, in what is done in the months and years ahead.

John McDonnell: I speak as chair of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers parliamentary group, and I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests in that regard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on securing the debate. She set out our views in a detailed way. As interventions have shown, there is consensus across the Chamber, and I think that that will remain the case. It is important for the RMT that we place on record its concerns expressed over the past 18 months as part of the consultation. When a Government intervenes on safety regulations, the most important thing is that people have confidence in that intervention and that the Government take everybody with them. My concern about the process so far is that despite the long consultation period, the Government do not seem to have listened to the representations made by various parties on a number of issues, and it is important that the Minister listens this morning. I share the anxieties expressed about statements made to the Evening Standard yesterday, and I would welcome the Minister clarifying the position and amending some of them. The primary objective of everybody who has been engaged in the consultation process and other discussions has been to improve and maintain safety on the Thames. There have been no attempts to protect individual interests, and the issue for those involved has been the interests of the people who work and sail on the river, as well as those of passengers. It is

52 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

unacceptable to describe those who take that attitude as being part of a cosy club, and I hope that the Minister will resile from that view. The debate is not simply about European standards either. During the consultation process, we accepted, as I think the Government did, that EU standards could apply but that we should have the right to apply higher standards in this country if we specific issues have to be addressed. One thing that has come out of all the debates and consultations is that we are dealing with a river that has complications in its navigational system. That requires higher standards, and that is what we should aim for. Indeed, all the inquiries into the various disasters on the Thames have increased standards at each stage, and the one thing that we do not want to do is to step back from those. On that basis, I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to start listening to those on the front line who deliver the service—the professionals who have operated the service over the years on such a difficult stretch of the river. The RMT’s concerns replicate those set out by the hon. Lady. The union is anxious about the significant cut in mandatory college-based training. That training was one of the key elements that the professionals whom we brought to discuss the issue with the Minister said should be maintained. As the hon. Lady said, apart from the weak safety training, it looks as though there will be a cut of up to 90 per cent. The replacement of four examinations with one is not acceptable to the union as it does not encompass the full range of testing that is required. Many professionals view the 75 per cent. reduction as a retrograde step. The reduction of time in which to gain local knowledge is baffling to most people who operate on the Thames. The change is based on a limited risk assessment undertaken by the PLA which was contested by many parties involved in subsequent discussions. The Minister should re-examine that urgent matter. Having only six months instead of two years in which to gain local knowledge represents a 75 per cent. reduction, and people do not understand why we are stepping back from the very issue that has been highlighted in report after report: the need for detailed local knowledge of the Thames. This is not an attempt to exclude Europeans who want to sail or undertake work on the Thames, but a recognition of the difficulties with this piece of water. The change from five years to two regarding qualifying services does not replicate what is happening elsewhere in Europe, and significantly reduces the potential for people to become used to the river and to become professionals. Will the Minister clarify the situation as regards to being in command of a vessel on the Thames? The current PLA Watermen and Lightermen Byelaws 1992, as amended, provide that a passenger vessel on the Thames must not only be under the command of a licensed waterman but be navigated by a fully qualified licensed waterman. Under the new proposals, inland waterways vessels carrying cargo or passengers will be under the command of a licensed boat master, but any person whom the boat master believes is competent to do so will be allowed to navigate the vessel. If that is the case, it is a significant worry for many who work on the Thames because it means that a passenger vessel may be navigated by someone who is not fully qualified or who does not fulfil the age or medical conditions, such as those on eyesight and colour blindness. People were explicit in the consultation. Following a detailed consultation with its members who work on the river, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers concluded that the new system will have potentially disastrous consequences for tidal river safety. The RMT and others have discussed the matter with people who tragically experienced what happened with the Marchioness and the Bowbelle.

Julian Brazier: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. Does he accept that it simply is not good enough for the Government and the PLA to keep saying that there was a long and extensive consultation process—which there was—given that at every stage the consultees were ignored?

John McDonnell: It behoves the Government, particularly in matters such as this in which safety is the issue, not only to consult but to listen. When there is a difference of views, they

53 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

should be explicit about why they have failed to take them into account, especially those expressed by front-line practitioners. I remember bringing experts—people who are responsible for vessels on the Thames—to our meetings with Ministers. To a person, they opposed the Government’s regulations, and they did so politely and with professional explanations. It behoves the Government to respond to those concerns in detail if they are to vary their judgment. I wish to place on record the RMT’s opposition to the proposals. It consulted Margaret Lockwood Croft, to whom we have all paid tribute. She told us:

“There is absolutely no logic, rhyme or reason for a Labour government to renege on the improvements in safety on the Thames...The minimum standards in the EU directive would be welcome on other waterways where there are currently no or lower standards, but not on the Thames and those other tidal rivers where the standards are already considerably higher. With river traffic increasing we need higher standards, not lower...It took our campaign 17 years to get a multi-agency emergency exercise to take place on the Thames, but if these changes are not stopped we could be seeing the real thing all too soon.” The RMT, many colleagues on both sides of the House and I fully concur with that view. We urge the Government to step back, consult again and re-examine how we can maintain the high standards that are so needed on the Thames.

Simon Hughes: First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). She excellently set out the practical reasons why, at this last stage of the proceedings, this debate has commanded so much support from parliamentarians across the House who know about these issues because they have been involved with the Thames and the people who work on it. We represent those people and are therefore telling the Minister that we want him not only to hear what we are saying, but to implement the request that comes both from this debate and the prayer in the Order Paper that the regulations dated 4 December and laid before the House on 7 December, for which the statutory period in which the House can make a decision has not yet ended, should be annulled. We are in the ridiculous legal position, which you will know well, Mr. O’Hara, that the Government can lay a statutory instrument that can come into force before the end of the time in which the Houses of Parliament can decide whether they agree with it. Although the new regulations technically came into force on 1 January, at this moment the House can say no to them. We ask the Minister to tell the business managers that we want a debate on the regulations in Government time at the earliest opportunity. At that stage, we would like the Government to say that they will take back the proposal and listen to the advice that they have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House. If he is not persuaded by the advice and views that he has heard today, I assure him that there is plenty of supporting evidence and advice available elsewhere. My constituency name reflects that it is a riverside constituency. The Southwark borough has sent MPs here since the 13th century to represent the riverside community. Bermondsey has sent MPs here for over 100 years to represent an archetypal riverside community—the docks community—and it was hugely populated by people with a docks and Transport and General Workers Union background. When I was first selected, I came to this House from my constituency by boat to represent that importance. This is not about self-interest and protection but a matter of public interest and the safety of the people who use the Thames. I was the MP for North Southwark and Bermondsey on 20 August 1989 when the Marchioness sank at 2 am. I received a call about three quarters of an hour later and I was on the riverside that night. I worked with colleagues such as the former Member for Newham, South, and Lord Brooke, who was then the Member for Cities of London and Westminster and with families and survivors, including the Dallaglio and Perks families, for 10 years. Eventually, the Deputy Prime Minister, to his great credit, agreed that there should be a public inquiry. That is one thing for which I shall always be grateful to him because it was his decision and the public inquiry was held.

54 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

At the inquiry, which I attended, Lord Justice Clarke was very clear. He made 74 recommendations in his two reports. There were two follow-up reports in November 2001 and February 2003. The reports made absolutely clear the danger of the Thames. I have been on the Thames often enough in good weather and bad. I have been on the tidal and non-tidal Thames and I have even fallen in it once—actually, I was thrown in, but that is another story—so I know from my good and bad experiences that it is a dangerous river. We are trying to bring tourism to this capital city. If we think that it is in Britain’s interest in the run-up to the Olympic games to risk a reduction in safety in the Thames, we are sadly misguided. My friend, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), and I are trustees of the Mayor of London’s Thames Festival Trust—I am the chair. Over 10 years, the festival has brought hundreds of thousands of people to celebrate the river. It is partly a celebration of the fact that the river is now a much safer place for people to use for travel. What do we want of the river? We want it to be an even safer place. We want it to have more business, not less. We want more freight on it, not less. We want it to be more busy, not less busy. So, what should we do? We should listen to the expertise of people who know what they are talking about. The problem in this debate is that the Company of Watermen and Lightermen is a name that sounds medieval, so people think that its views must be medieval. That medieval background comes from the fact that it has hundreds of years of experience. I shall cite one example of that from a letter that I received on this subject from a licensed waterman and lighterman, who lives in Deptford but was born in Rotherhithe, in my constituency. It stated:

“I have had the pleasure of conveying you on the vessel I was captain of at the time, the Mayflower Garden. Like all watermen we have all had a legal apprenticeship...I am from a Rotherhithe family and have worked the River for 61 years...My grandfather was drowned at work and I have lost three of my personal friends through drowning at work. I am therefore not unfamiliar with the danger” of the Thames. This is the sort of experience that we are talking about. This is not a closed shop, because there are about 600 licensed watermen and lightermen, and about 60 new people join every year. That is the rate of application from young people and there is no barrier to people coming—people who were born in Orkney, Shetland, Scilly or abroad can join. I was at a local fire station the other day, and I know that firefighters who were born in America work in the London fire service. There is no barrier or discrimination on this matter, but there is one requirement—that people are well prepared and are willing to come to do the particular apprenticeship that is required to ensure that they do the job properly. The directive was published in 2006. I have read the good briefing notes and the explanatory memorandum on the regulations being proposed and the directive. They make it clear that the UK can derogate, as the Minister knows. The explanatory memorandum states:

“The Department has taken advantage of the derogation in article 3(2) of the Directive, which permits Member States to exempt boatmasters from the requirement to hold an EU-model boatmaster’s certificate where they operate exclusively on waterways not linked to a waterway of another Member State.” That situation applies, and therefore the Government have said, “Yes, we will do our own thing.” Having decided that we will do our own thing, it is clear to me that we are allowed to decide in law that we can have a particular regime for a particular place. In a way, this is not the same as the situation in respect of the Rhine, because that river crosses different countries, whereas the Thames runs through just one country. Therefore, we are allowed to have a requirement. All the notes make it clear that the Government can impose higher standards than the minimum standards required under the EU legislation. I understand the case for EU legislation, and I do not oppose such legislation, but we are required to say that there is a

55 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP particular reason involved here. People can apply from anywhere in the world to get the standard, but they must have the required training and qualification. In July, some of us took a petition to Downing street with watermen and lightermen. We talked to both them and the unions before, during and after that event, up to today. Thus we are clear that this matter is about ensuring that, if it is humanly possible, there is never another terrible tragedy like the sinking of the Marchioness. They want there to be jobs for people of this great city on the river, as that is a valid concern, but their first concern is that the experience of centuries should not be lost. I ask the Minister respectfully and sincerely to say that it would be the greatest foolishness to go down the road that the Government propose. They might have all the professional advice from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency that they need, but if they do not listen to the experience of the people who work the river and their representatives, they are taking incomplete and insufficient advice. There is a chance to change this proposal. I hope that in the next few days we shall have the opportunity to debate it and that the Government will announce that they will re-examine it. I hope that they will come up with the requirement to sustain the higher level of qualification for work on the Thames than is required elsewhere. It needs to be higher because this is the most dangerous river in this country and there is a requirement to ensure that people who travel on it are safe.

Kate Hoey: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on securing the debate. I think that all hon. Members agree with every word she said. I have no disagreement with any comments made, so I shall not go over any of the ground already covered. I represent a riverside constituency, as does the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), and I live by the river. In my many years as a Member of Parliament, I have seen the increased use of the River Thames. If the Government get away with what they are trying to do, it will leave the people who use and work on the river at risk. It will also bring this great city into disrepute. From the beginning of the process, and in our meetings with the Minister, I always thought that common sense would prevail. Anyone who knows anything about the River Thames, particularly the non-central part of it, knows just what a dangerous river it is. Given that the Government seem to have gold-plated every other European Union directive, it is amazing that they want to downgrade this one and that they do not want to use the power that we have to maintain those extra, higher standards on the Thames. I do not understand it. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to explain why we are even thinking of taking this course of action. So far he has not been able to do so; he has merely referred, in that rather glib way, to a cosy club. I am not an expert on the Thames, but if I had to choose between the advice and guidance of the Minister, his civil servants and even people from the Port of London Authority, and the advice and practical experience of those members of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers who work on the river and the members of the Company of Watermen and Lightermen, who have worked on the river for many years, I know which side I would come down on. The public would also come down on that side. Along with many of my colleagues, I have prayed against the proposal. The Minister has had an opportunity to listen to the united views expressed today and to all the views expressed during the consultation. If he does not do so, we will have to find a way of voting on the issue somewhere in the Palace. As a riverside MP, I am not prepared to allow my Government to put through something that without doubt will put people’s lives at risk without having had a chance to show that I totally oppose it. I ask the Minister to re-examine the issue and come back to us with some common-sense proposals. We must ask why we are adopting this proposal, because it does not make sense given that we have a standard that has been fought for and achieved. I hope that he has listened to the strong views expressed by hon. Members from all parties.

56 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Alistair Carmichael: I almost feel like an interloper because I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a Member who represents a Thames-side constituency. However, I do represent an island constituency that has a number of treacherous stretches of tidal water. My constituents’ experiences, and their views about respecting the potential danger of tidal waters and the need for and importance of local knowledge, would find a ready resonance with the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on the way in which she opened the debate. The reasoned and measured way in which she put her powerful and cogent case is to be commended. The debate has been exceptionally good. I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that we have heard views from a wide range of people, many of whom are not what would be referred to as the usual suspects. The contribution by the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) was particularly powerful and useful, because I would normally regard him as being something of a Government loyalist. His position was well reasoned and powerful, and I have no doubt that opposing his Government was not easy. I commend him for that and hope that it will be recognised by the Minister. The debate’s tone stands in marked contrast with the tenor of the Minister’s remarks yesterday as reported in the Evening Standard. I shall read a couple of them for the record. It reported that the Minister said:

“What the boatmen and some of their supporters seem to be saying is that it takes as long to train a boatman as it does to train a hospital doctor. Is that reasonable?” There is more than the merest whiff of academic snobbery in that comment and I hope that the Minister will dissociate himself from it. He was asked if he referred to a cosy club and said:

“Oh yes—I don’t think there’s any doubt about it.”

I find the tone of those remarks completely reprehensible. From my contact with watermen and lightermen on this issue it seems that they are a body of very well-qualified men who take an exceptional pride in the experience and standard of service that they can offer to the community. Hon. Members referred to the Marchioness disaster. Let us not forget the role that the watermen played in the weeks following the disaster when many of them were finding bodies after the official authorities had given up the search. That is the sort of experience that they have endured and it makes them understand and value the nature of their profession. For such reasons, they are determined to defend the practice that they have enjoyed to date. That should not be denigrated in the way that the Minister chose to do. Hon. Members referred to the reinvigoration of the Thames, and that should be welcomed for many reasons. The Minister is on the record as having said on several occasions that he is a fan of short sea shipping as an effective and environmentally friendly way of moving goods around. With the advent of the construction of the Olympic site for 2012, that will increase. For that reason alone, surely we should maintain the highest possible standards on a difficult stretch of water. To replace a five-year apprenticeship relating specifically to the Thames with a two-year apprenticeship applying to all inland waterways is asking for trouble. Why is it that every time the Government seek to level standards there is always a levelling down from the gold standard? The practice and history of the watermen and lightermen should be celebrated and protected rather than denigrated and downgraded, as the Government seek to do. The great frustration of Westminster Hall debates is that the Minister is left with just 10 minutes at the end during which he can do little other than read a speech that has been prepared for him. We have had an excellent debate, but we have not heard much from him and there is no opportunity for cross-questioning, so I shall conclude my remarks and hope that during his response he will allow a wide range of interventions from hon. Members who feel strongly about the issue.

57 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Julian Brazier: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on securing this debate and on her remarkable speech when introducing it. I also congratulate all the other hon. Members who have spoken. There really is a consensus that the proposal is simply not good enough. The Minister has the power, in theory through Parliament, to set the standards of training and safety on the Thames. Those who travel and work on the Thames expect him to put safety first. He has chosen to dismantle the system that was put in place on the river as a result of the tragic sinking of the Marchioness in 1989. I, too, pay tribute to Margaret Lockwood Croft and her campaigners who have done so much to highlight the implications of the tragedy—the things that needed doing—in their campaign for a public inquiry. I pay tribute to her for her role in fighting the changes and the regulations. I shall give one example of what is wrong. The new regulations allow a boatmaster from the continent, who may never have operated in tidal waters, to come to London for six months, take one test—perhaps in ideal conditions—and then skipper a boat with 500 passengers on one of the world’s busiest waterways. Incredibly, the same regulations will require someone who has worked the Thames all his life to be retested every five years. No doubt the Minister will tell us about the European directive. The Select Committee on Transport, whose distinguished Chairman is with us here today, described the Government’s handling of the directive as an example of gold-plating at its worst. The problem is compounded, as several hon. Members said, by the way in which the licence is being implemented. The statutory instrument was laid before the House on 7 December, leaving barely a week and a half for hon. Members to object before the new regulations came into force. They have already come into force and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster told the House, the computer has crashed and people are operating boats technically illegally, and their licences are effectively proof of posting their applications. We have seen the depth of concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House. The matter should be subjected to a proper, full debate upstairs with Government proposals that are acceptable to the House as a whole and the community that works on the Thames.

Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Julian Brazier: Briefly. Like the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I want to leave time for the Minister to respond.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted a full debate upstairs. Given the breadth of concern, will he reconsider and suggest that the debate should be, as is permissible, on the Floor of the House so that we can expose the issues more broadly? That is what some of us would like.

Julian Brazier: I am so sorry. I had a slip of the tongue. What I meant from down here in Westminster Hall was on the Floor of the House. I thank the hon. Gentleman for correcting me. The River Thames is unique in Europe with 50 million tonnes of goods and 5 million passengers carried each year. It has waters that rise and fall by as much as 25 ft twice a day. Boatmen must navigate 27 bridges and negotiate the waters with as many as 12,000 vessel movements a month. It is little wonder that from time to time things go wrong. The consequences can be massive, final and tragic. A great deal has rightly been said about the tragedy of the Marchioness. When 52 innocent people were killed in the London underground the year before last, the Government promised measures to help to prevent a repeat of the tragedy. We have had new legislation, and billions of pounds have been committed to try to prevent another such outrage. Yet in 1989, 51 people—only one fewer—died needlessly and nastily in the waters of the Thames. The inquiry called it a

“catastrophe which should never have happened”.

58 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

There were many causes of that terrible waste of life and Lord Justice Clarke’s investigation was detailed. He made 44 recommendations, which were formally accepted by the Deputy Prime Minister in 2000. In his report, Lord Justice Clarke praised the watermen and lightermen licence for requiring “a two-year apprenticeship followed by three years as a professional waterman” before anyone can captain a passenger vessel on the Thames. Evidently, he did not regard that as a cosy closed shop. I shall summarise a few of the differences between the old watermen and lightermen licence and the new boatmaster's licence. To master a boat requires only 30 months’ qualifying service, not the five years formerly demanded. When one considers that the minimum age demanded has fallen from 21 to 18, there will be boatmasters with much less experience of both the river and life trying to negotiate one of the world's busiest rivers. It is a lethal cocktail of goods, passengers, youth and inexperience. It is a recipe for carnage, especially in the run-up to the Olympics, as another hon. Member pointed out. One week of safety training will replace the mandatory 10 weeks; one shore-based examination will replace the two of old; 750 days on the river will be scaled down to 360; four exams will be cut to one or two; and the number of current practitioners vouching for the applicant will be reduced from six to one. The most dangerous aspect of the new regime is the amount of local knowledge demanded. A captain will need only six months’ experience of the river, where before a minimum of two years’ local knowledge was expected. I, too, was on the Thames yesterday, and I endorse everything that colleagues who were there have said. The most striking factor was the emptiness of the water compared with the water in the height of summer, when I was also privileged to be there. It suddenly struck me: if somebody had been taking a test yesterday, would that really have shown whether they were ready to take it during peak conditions in July, when there are perhaps three or four times as many vessels on the water in the busiest areas? The section of the Thames to which the provisions apply simply stops at the Thames barrier; there is no local knowledge requirement beyond that. Is it right that somebody who has never worked in tidal waters should be able to take charge of a vessel after just six months and one test? Surely, it is not, and like others, I urge the Minister to reconsider the legislation. I welcome some aspects of the new scheme, some of which have already been mentioned. The need for certificates in fire control, passenger management, first aid and personal survival is a good advance, although all new applicants must pass those four tests anyway. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, I welcome the fact that for the first time, tugmasters and captains of freight vessels will have statutory licences, although, as she pointed out, the proposals are incomplete. I urge the Minister to reconsider the workings of the scheme. A unique alliance has been formed against the new licence. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and other unions have united, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, with one of the City’s oldest livery companies, the Worshipful Company of Watermen and Lightermen, which is a great institution that proved its worth yet again through its reaction to the bombings on 7 July 2005. I must also congratulate one of the company’s members, Alex Hickman, who has done a wonderful job leading the campaign with Margaret Lockwood Croft to bring to Parliament and to the public an understanding of just what is being proposed. Together, the group collected thousands of signatures in a petition against the measures, which we presented to the Prime Minister in September together with a cross-party delegation of MPs. I shall quote two other sources. First, from the unions, Nick Bramley, the president of the European Transport Workers Federation, which is based in Switzerland, said that

“the ETF has a very real concern that the levels being proposed in Britain are below these standards”, and he questioned the usefulness of the proposals. He continued:

59 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

“The ETF would sooner welcome UK National licensing provisions based on former arrangements through the provisions for certificating Watermen and Lightermen of the River Thames or a system based on the current Rhine Patent.” Secondly, Scott Newton, captain of the Woolwich ferry, on which I have travelled many times, wrote to a number of hon. Members, wanting to

“highlight concerns arising from the imminent reduction of safety standards on the River Thames”. The Rhine and Danube rivers present us with a good model. I have been privileged on a couple of occasions to travel down the Rhine on a yacht; it was a very frightening experience. As I am sure the Minister will tell us, the sheer volume of commercial traffic on the Rhine is much higher than on the Thames, but the difference between the Rhine and the Thames is that vast numbers of pleasure boats do not mix with commercial traffic on the Rhine. We hardly saw another boat that was not a barge as we travelled down the river. The Rhine patent was negotiated by the practitioners on the rivers and the relevant countries. It allows only those people who have six years’ experience and who have been thoroughly examined to become master of a boat on either the Rhine or the Danube, and the Rhine has far fewer pleasure boats on it and far fewer passengers exposed to risk. The German and Austrian Governments in particular fought hard for that exemption, and they have successfully and rigorously maintained safety standards on the two rivers. That is all the more reason why the Thames should be granted similar exemption. We should by all means accept the continental standards, but we should add some local extras to maintain our standards. Many hon. Members from all parties have made it clear that they want nothing to do with the new licences. I urge the Minister at this last moment to think again. I have the highest respect for the Minister—my constituency neighbour—as an MP and as a human being. He is just as anxious as every other Member who has spoken to ensure that there is no ghastly tragedy on the Thames. He must reconsider the provision. I urge him to return with better proposals that are designed to meet the challenges of safe navigation on the Thames.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on securing this debate, and on her interest in this important matter. I congratulate, too, all Members who have contributed to or attended the debate on their interest. Let me begin by making something crystal clear: if I thought for one second that the proposals would reduce safety standards on the Thames, I would not introduce them. I have the greatest respect for the qualifications and professionalism of those people—not only in the House today, but outside the House—who have raised concerns about the matter. I accept entirely that the Thames watermen are motivated by an interest in maintaining the standards of safety on the river. I shall address the comments about the cosy club, because I have been specifically asked to clarify them, and I shall do so in a moment. I want to put on record that I have the highest respect for the people who have campaigned on the issue. Mrs. Lockwood Croft has been mentioned on several occasions, and I have the highest respect for her and for the other people whose relatives suffered in the Marchioness catastrophe. They have been campaigning for safety on the Thames over the years, and I have had the pleasure of working with them during the 18 months that I have done my job. I have the highest respect for them. I simply believe, however, that they are wrong on the issue before us. Members ask me whether we can have another debate and why the statutory instrument was not laid until December, and one reason why was my delaying it to add further gold- plating to the recommendations that I had been given by the experts who advise me. I wanted to be absolutely sure that I was erring on the side of caution, not expediency. I accept that the simplest thing for me politically would be to say, “Let’s stick with the current arrangement,” because nobody would argue with it. I simply happen to believe that the new arrangements will be better. They improve on the old arrangements in several areas. We have mentioned the Marchioness catastrophe. The hon. Lady and most hon. Members who

60 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP have contributed to the debate mentioned it. However, I thought it a bit rich of my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), to raise the matter as he did, given that his Government refused to undertake a Thames safety inquiry or a public inquiry into the Marchioness disaster. It was actually the Deputy Prime Minister who ordered the inquiry under this Government, and we have implemented all its recommendations; and Lord Justice Clarke said that, in so far as training standards on the Thames were concerned, he was content with them. But equally, he said that there were two anomalies: first, that we did not have a national licence or an equivalent waterways regime outside the Thames, which we needed to do something about; and secondly, that certain categories of user, such as operators of commercial vessels that do not go to sea, do not need licensing on the Thames. He required us to look at the way in which we license boatmasters in order to produce a national scheme. So we are fulfilling one of his recommendations.

Kate Hoey: Of course, nobody disagrees with a national minimum standards scheme. We are talking about specific extra safety standards for the tidal Thames.

Dr. Ladyman: The recommendations include those. I shall provide some details because Members seem to have formed the view that I have plucked the recommendations out of the air, when they resulted from consultations held over a long period. The initial proposals were formed as a result of two working parties set up in February 2003—the freight standards steering group and the boatmaster’s licence working group. We conducted a non-statutory consultation on the first proposals between December 2003 and February 2004, and a second one in 2005. We conducted a statutory consultation between April 2006 a July 2006, and in 2006, we held ministerial meetings that involved myself and other Members of Parliament, the RMT and other representatives of boatmen. As a consequence, we improved significantly the original proposals. We have said that a person will not gain their local knowledge of the Thames during the two years in which they obtain their generic licence, but during six months of training afterwards. So we have already gold-plated the original recommendations precisely as a result of listening to representations from people who complained to me about the original proposals.

John McDonnell: Despite those discussions, the RMT and everybody else have made it clear that the Minister’s final proposals, no matter how much they have been amended—I think that the amendments are minor—are still unacceptable.

Dr. Ladyman: I accept that the RMT and some practising watermen do not think that we have gone far enough, but nevertheless, the consultation took a great deal of time. I have been advised by experts, such as port authorities, Associated British Ports, the British Ports Association, the Port of London Authority and the United Kingdom Major Ports Group, and they all support the recommendations.

Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Ladyman: Let me make some progress, please. Navigation authorities, including the Association of Inland Navigation Authorities, and unions and operators were involved in the consultations as well. Afterwards, the resulting reports were subject to a very thorough consultation, which resulted in significant strengthening of the rules. In recent months, we have done that by making the acquisition of local knowledge consecutive with the generic licence and by introducing the principle of revalidating local knowledge every five years.

Julian Brazier: Will the Minister give way?

61 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Dr. Ladyman: Let me make some progress. I have very little time and some key points to make. After that, I shall give way happily. From the comments made by some Members, I think that there is some misunderstanding about the way in which the new regime will work. It is true that, under the old regime, people worked for five years to obtain licences, but having got them, they were qualified to work in a whole raft of areas on the Thames and to fulfil a range of different functions. Under the new arrangements, that will not apply. We now have a modular licensing system in which a person first gets a generic licence that will require two years of experience, to include 240 days of service. If that person wants to operate on the Thames, they will have to do their six months’ local endorsement. In addition, a person will require a range of other endorsements. For example, a general passenger endorsement will require another 120 days of service, with another endorsement of 60 days’ service for larger numbers of passengers. Sixty days of extra service will be required for general cargo; 60 days for carrying oil; 60 days for towing and pushing; 120 days for dredging; and 120 days for going to sea. In other words, if a person is going to get a licence qualifying them to do what the existing licence allows them to do, 720 days of service will be required. The existing regime requires 750 days of service, so the systems are almost equivalent. If a person is going to get a licence equivalent to the current regime, they will need to do almost exactly the same service.

Julian Brazier: Will the Minister tell us why no local knowledge will be required below the Thames barrier?

Dr. Ladyman: The Port of London Authority, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and other experts told me that such a requirement is not necessary. Beyond the barrier, the issues to be addressed are the same as anywhere else. The regime is strengthened by the fact that, when a person acquires their local knowledge, having trained for six months, they will be qualified for a restricted route on the Thames. If they want to change their route in the local knowledge area—perhaps because they change operator or employer—they will need to repeat their local knowledge training. From that point of view, the system is being strengthened considerably. Furthermore, they will need to revalidate their local knowledge every five years—a further strengthening of the current regime.

Simon Hughes: Nobody is arguing that there cannot be changes or improvements—the Minister has set out many of them—but the European norm will be four years of training. Does the Minister not understand that the central objection to the proposal is that the minimum training barrier in the one of the most difficult rivers in Europe will be half of what it is across Europe? If he is willing to change that and one or two of the other matters raised, we could agree on a package that is an all-round improvement, not one that improves some areas, but leaves a great hole in the middle.

Dr. Ladyman: The European norm will not be four years. The directive makes it clear that, if a person’s training is entirely practical, it will be four years, but that period can be reduced to one year by taking exams. We have gold-plated that requirement significantly, as we have done in a number of areas. For example, we have introduced far more stringent medical testing requirements and retesting of those who will operate under the new regime. We might well be challenged on that and will have to defend it to some of our colleagues in Europe, because it will look to them as though we are gold-plating the proposals to restrict them. The five year revalidation is a gold-plating of the directive and we will have to work very hard to convince our European colleagues otherwise—and the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) says that we have reduced the requirements. My officials and experts have conducted a stringent analysis of standards across the rest of Europe and they assure me that standards will not be higher anywhere else in Europe.

62 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister said at the start of his speech that he would address his comments in the Evening Standard. He has one minute left in which to do that.

Dr. Ladyman: The standard attained under the new regime—

Alistair Carmichael: I asked about your comments in the Evening Standard.

Dr. Ladyman: Oh sorry. Whether it has happened deliberately or by accident—I accept that it happened by accident—the regime excludes people from different backgrounds and places from becoming watermen.

First Great Western adjournment debate – 24th January 2007

Edward Vaizey: This is the first time that I have spoken under your chairmanship, Mr. Atkinson, and I look forward to being guided by you throughout the debate.

The debate is about First Great Western commuter services. I shall speak specifically about the services that run from Didcot Parkway railway station in my constituency, but I shall also make some remarks on behalf of other hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and the hon. Members for Reading, West (Martin Salter) and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), none of whom can be here. I also present apologies on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson), who had hoped to speak in the debate but is currently stuck on a First Great Western train between Reading and Paddington. If the debate was interactive, no doubt we could receive BlackBerry text messages from him, updating us on the service.

Didcot Parkway dominates the town of Didcot. It is the reason, pretty much, for the existence of Didcot, and every day it takes thousands of passengers to London as well as taking passengers to Swindon and Bristol. In December 2005, First Great Western re- won the rail franchise for a further seven years, with the opportunity to extend it for another three. Many colleagues, from all parties, were pleased with that result. We had no reason to doubt that First Great Western would provide a good service, and many of us—[Laughter.] That is my first remark on behalf of the hon. Member for Reading, West.

Theresa May: I apologise to hon. Members, including the Minister, because I shall not be able to stay for the whole debate, but I did introduce an Adjournment debate last week on this issue. Some of us were very concerned when First Great Western was given the whole franchise, not simply because it was First Great Western, but because we were concerned that the concept of merging a commuter franchise with a long-distance franchise meant that commuter services would lose out, and I am sure that that is exactly what has happened.

Ed Vaizey: I certainly appreciate my right hon. Friend’s point. I know that, in her constituency, the loss of the separate franchise held by Thames Trains has had a very bad effect. Speaking personally, however, I had no problem with First Great Western winning the franchise at the time.

Peter Luff: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly as, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, I cannot stay for the whole debate, because of Select Committee business. I had hoped to be able to pour praise on the Minister for the announcement that he made about the potential redoubling of the

63 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Cotswold line, which could solve many of the problems in Worcestershire. I should like to express my gratitude to him at length, but I cannot do that. However, I have severe reservations about the management ability of First Great Western and, in particular, about its management of the franchise that we are debating. Repeatedly, its service between Worcestershire and London has descended into chaos, and that is true again now. The problems include very long delays, the wrong rolling stock and a timetable that does not enable my constituents, for example, to commute back to Worcester. I do not think that the company is up to the job.

Ed Vaizey: I am coming to that point. I was speaking about my feelings 18 months ago. They have changed, I can assure hon. Members. At the time, the then Secretary of State for Transport, who is now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, shared my optimism. He wrote to me to say that

“passengers will benefit from a major increase in peak-period capacity into and out of London Paddington and a commitment to improve performance and reliability”.

He told Parliament that on both franchises the contracts would

“deliver...an improved service for passengers.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 13 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 142WS.]

At the time, First Great Western wrote to me, in memorable words:

“We have the experience, drive and proven track record to transform travel and we look forward to setting new standards for customer service, creating the benchmark by which all rail travel is judged”.

It has certainly done that, but not in the way it intended.

Dan Rogerson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. If First Great Western is the benchmark by which other rail companies will be judged, I am sure that it is very pleased with that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, particularly on longer services, such as those from my area of Cornwall, customers find that refreshment services that are advertised are in fact not available for large parts of the journey? That is a particular inconvenience and could be a problem for many travellers. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that issue ought to be addressed by the company?

Ed Vaizey: That is absolutely the case. I understand that First Great Western is now also laying off some travelling chefs, and of course the trolley on commuter services is complete fiction because, as passengers are packed in like sardines, it would take a Houdini to get the trolley from one end of the train to the other.

First Great Western did carry out a consultation on the proposed new timetable that was to come into force in December 2006. The company heard from 9,500 separate correspondents, but one has to question whether it listened to a single one. One correspondent—me—wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport and to First Great Western on 5 September saying that

“one can see I think quite a big reduction in service during the peak commuting time around 0730. Between 0717 and 0748, there are currently 5 fast trains. In December there will effectively be only one. I can assure you this will lead to serious overcrowding, and would really urge you to try and insert an additional 2 fast services at this time”.

64 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

At the time, consulting only the timetable, I was blissfully unaware that shorter trains were also about to be brought into service. I met the head of First Great Western and the then Minister responsible for rail, who is now the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg). We saved one train, the 05.46, but nothing else was changed.

Siân C. James: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Will he join me in condemning the decision made by First Great Western to terminate the important 15.15 service between London Paddington and Swansea at Cardiff? Unlike its fellow Welsh operators, which are doing exceptionally well, First Great Western is at the bottom of the pile. The company has had to reverse a number of timetable decisions on services in England. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it should now do the same for Welsh customers?

Ed Vaizey: I could not agree more. Since introducing the new timetable in December 2006, First Great Western has set

“new standards for customer service” and created a new, very low benchmark by which all rail travel can be judged. To put it bluntly, since the introduction of the new timetable, commuters in my constituency using Didcot Parkway have received an abominable service. They have suffered a quadruple whammy. First, the new timetable means that there are fewer fast trains in the morning or evening. Secondly, the replacement of high-speed trains with Adelantes means that most trains arriving at Didcot are already full to the brim. Most commuters cannot get on at Didcot. If they do manage to get on, they are packed like sardines. I understand from the newspapers that the Office of Rail Regulation says that that is the safest way to travel now. Some people are even being forced to stand three to a lavatory. Thirdly, and to make matters even worse, it is now routine—a daily occurrence—for trains to be delayed or cancelled, and fourthly, to add insult to injury, all that has happened at the same time as massive fare increases and huge hikes in parking charges.

I shall give just a few specifics. There is now no train at all from Didcot to Paddington between 07.07 and 07.30. Seating capacity has been massively reduced. Some estimates are that it has fallen from 1,800 seats to just 600 at peak times. Two fast evening services from Paddington to Didcot have gone. There is barely a service between Oxford and Didcot in the morning now, and it is almost impossible to connect to any train leaving Didcot going west. For those travelling from Didcot to Swindon in the morning, the service is completely surreal. People get on the 07.41 and then have to wait at Swindon for 40 minutes to catch the 08.50. They therefore arrive at work late. If someone wants to get from Didcot to Bristol in time for work, they have to get the 06.24. A first-class season ticket now costs £6,800 a year; there has been a 15 per cent. increase this year. A second-class season ticket—now known by passengers as a “standing-class” ticket—now costs £3,800 and the price is due to rise to £4,250. Car park charges have risen by 60 per cent.

I have been an MP only for a short time, but I can assure you, Mr. Atkinson, that there are many important issues in my constituency. However, this issue has far exceeded any that I have come across. The very large bundle of papers that I am holding up represents the number of e-mails that I have received since the new timetable was introduced. It would be hard for me to exaggerate the enormous chaos that that is causing.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is extremely generous with his time. I have received more than 600 e-mails from my constituents about this issue. At Paddington last night, I saw the FGW strapline, “Transforming Travel”. It has indeed, for my constituents, transformed 65 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP a good, reliable service with a good choice of fast and semi-fast trains for commuting to London into a very, very bad service, with a significant reduction in the number of trains available, and overcrowding. Does my hon. Friend agree that for commuters from the Thames valley, what is crucial is increasing the number of fast and semi-fast services into Paddington so that the overcrowding can be reduced and our constituents can have a decent service to get into London?

Ed Vaizey: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. She represents her constituents, and the anger that we heard in her voice represents the anger felt by so many of them. Indeed, we need to increase not only the number of services, but the length of the trains. Quite a few commuters are returning to the car, which is not something that those of us who care about the environment want to see. Even worse, some commuters are honestly thinking of giving up their jobs, while others are even being told by their bosses that it might be better to leave.

Let me give just a flavour of some of the remarks that have been made to me over the past month. One commuter said:

“I have been commuting from Didcot for nearly 20 years—I have never been so angry that I have been forced to complain to my MP”.

Another commented:

“It feels as though commuters are being punished/taxed for using the railways”.

Another said:

“It pains me to send an email to you for the first time in my ten year commuting career. The first two weeks of 2007 have been so appalling that I feel compelled to write to you”.

And so the comments go on.

Let me describe a typical week in the life of a commuter from Didcot. On Monday, the 7.19 was cancelled, the 7.30—the new train that First Great Western had trumpeted— was cancelled, the 7.36 was delayed until 7.54 and so it goes on. I came into the office yesterday to find a dozen e-mails from people who had seen the new 7:30 train, which was supposed to help my constituents, come into Didcot, slow down and then carry on without stopping. That was apparently because of driver diagram error, which is a new one on me. First Great Western has been fatally damaged by this chaos, and commuters now refer to it as Last Great Western or Forever Getting Worse. I suspect that there are plenty of other names, but they may be too rude for a family audience such as the one that we have with us today.

As I said at the beginning, I hope that hon. Members will indulge me while I briefly make some points on behalf of hon. Members who cannot be here. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney wrote to me to say:

“It is clear that the punctuality of the service has deteriorated, and overcrowding has reached unacceptable levels.”

Perhaps the Minister can confirm in his reply that serious efforts will be made in the short term to achieve a marked improvement in First Great Western’s performance along the Cotswold line and that there is a real prospect of redoubling the line in the medium term. 66 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

The hon. Member for Reading, West, who, as I said earlier, was optimistic about the First Great Western franchise, wrote to the chief executive to say that she had

“lost the confidence of myself and the travelling public”.

In his letter, he raises many of the complaints that I have raised, but he also refers specifically to his concern that late-night trains no longer stop at Reading. The last train stops there at 10.30, and there has also been a reduction in the number of fast and semi- fast trains serving Tilehurst, Reading and Pangbourne.

In her note to me, the hon. Member for Slough highlighted similar issues—a reduction in service, overcrowding and worsening reliability. She says that local firms are suffering and quotes many of the e-mails from her constituents, who use phrases such as

“I am nearly at breaking point”.

She concludes by saying that

“people are paying more to get less”.

Let me return to my specific concerns about Didcot. At a time when Didcot has been designated a growth point in the south-east, when thousands of new houses are planned for Didcot and nearby Grove and when the Government say that they are committed to public transport and to getting people out of their cars, the present situation is completely and totally unacceptable. I repeat: the situation is completely and totally unacceptable, and it must be sorted out.

The great difficulty, of course, is that each side blames the other. Not to put too fine a point on it—I hope that I am not telling tales out of school—First Great Western blames the Government. It wrote to me, saying:

“the new timetable was based on the timetable specified in the Greater Western franchise bid...any timetable has to meet both Network Rail and Department for Transport specifications”.

The Government responded on 2 November. They wrote to me, saying:

“In relation to the timetable due to commence this December...I consider a reasonable balance has been struck in the level and structure of provision of train services from Didcot Parkway”.

If I were in a mischievous mood, I would put those words on a large billboard outside the Didcot Parkway station, but I would probably be responsible for starting a riot, so I will not.

In all my negotiations with First Great Western and my attempts to bring colleagues from all parties together to meet the company and sort the situation out, I have tried to avoid partisanship. However, the more I look into the situation, the more concerned I am about the effect of the Railways Act 2005, which gave the Government the power to set the timetable. Some of the current problems are the result of botched nationalisation, rather than botched privatisation, which is often the charge that Ministers make against any Conservative who takes issue with the state of the railways. I should remind hon.

67 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Members, however, that the Government have been in charge of the privatised railways five times longer than the previous Conservative Government.

In the past few days, the Evening Standard has run an important campaign on the issue. It has focused mainly on overcrowding, but it could have focused on a host of other issues, although there would have been no room in the newspaper for any other news. I was particularly taken by an article in yesterday’s edition by Christian Wolmar, the well- known transport journalist. He says, I am afraid, that

“most of the blame lies squarely with the Department for Transport and its ministers, who have been attempting to micro-manage the contract from 100 miles away...the buck stops with the Transport Secretary”.

Having had my partisan outing, I want to look ahead to see what can be done to solve the problems for my constituents and those of the dozens of hon. Members present. First, the Minister must accept responsibility for the way in which the franchise was tendered. Transport 2000, the well-known transport lobbying group, told me:

“the Government imposed a timetable and train leasing framework which involved fewer trains”.

I hope that the Minister notes the use of the word “imposed”. It is plainly silly for the Department to try to micro-manage such franchises, because they only end up taking the blame.

It is also bizarre that the specification of the timetable is kept confidential for commercial reasons when it is put out to tender. Presumably, all the train companies tendering for the specification see it, so there could be no issue of commercial confidentiality between them. It would be extremely helpful if members of the travelling public, most of whom know a great deal about the railway that they use every day, had a chance to see the tender and comment on how realistic it was.

What needs to change? First, obviously, I would like more train services. I would like to go back to the timetable before December 2006; it was not perfect, but people knew and understood it. I do not know whether, in asking for that, I am asking the Minister to wave a magic wand, but my commuters want that timetable. Secondly, the Minister must answer the charge that 32 rail carriages have been withdrawn from service at the Department’s behest. We want those carriages put back into service.

Peter Luff: I hope that the Minister will address that point when he winds up. The root of the problem could be the attempt, certainly on the Cotswold line, to run a more intensive railway service with fewer carriages. That leads to the frequent cancellation of services and to services running with inappropriate rolling stock. It is clearly ludicrous to go back to Thames Turbos and a journey of two and a half hours between Worcester and London.

Ed Vaizey: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but let me turn my fire back to First Great Western. A major contributory factor to the present situation has clearly been the extraordinary backlog of maintenance. I have no idea what is going on behind the scenes, but it is very bad. There seems to be enormous disaffection among First Great Western’s train drivers and crew, and the company really needs to get a grip on that. I am happy to concede that that is not something for which the Government can take responsibility.

68 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Matthew Taylor: On that last point, the hon. Gentleman rightly says that the buck stops with the Minister, and that is also true as regards the management of First Great Western. The Government have a real influence over the company, but there is no doubt that it has been cutting every corner that it can now that it has the franchise— it is there to make a fast buck. It is deliberately understaffing catering and claiming that crews have not turned up, when, in fact, they have not been employed in the first place. The company is also about to replace the Travelling Chef operation with a massively more expensive alternative that will not actually cater for people. Furthermore, it has withdrawn the breakfast service on the early-morning train from Cornwall: it is a bit hard to think of a train that needs that service more, given that the journey takes commuters five or six hours. The Minister can have a direct influence on all that, because he, unlike the rest of us, is uniquely able to influence the rules under which the company must operate.

Ed Vaizey: I take that point. I was trying to be even-handed in my criticism, but some hon. Members want to hold the Government to account on this, and I appreciate where they are coming from.

Richard Benyon: Cornwall.

Ed Vaizey: They come from Cornwall, as well.

In the long term Network Rail has an incredibly important role to play in upgrading signalling, but also specifically in upgrading Reading, where I believe there is a £250 million proposal on the table. My experience of Network Rail has not been wholly wonderful. Milton Park, the business park next to Didcot, has proposed to pay for a new bridge into the business park over the railway line. Network Rail has not taken up that offer, which would not cost it a penny. It has been extremely dilatory, as far as Reading borough council is concerned, about working out what to do about Reading station. I hope that it will pull its finger out.

As I hope my opening remarks and other hon. Members’ interventions have shown, the situation as it stands is completely chaotic. In my view, the blame game should be played only so as to work out who is responsible for fixing the problem. Nine or 10 MPs of all political parties met me and First Great Western representatives 10 days ago, and we have all written to the Secretary of State and requested one crucial meeting. I hope that hon. Members who did not sign that letter but who are present for the debate will join as signatories to it. The idea is to sit down with representatives of First Great Western, the Government and Network Rail for an hour, half a day or a day—as long as it takes—to try to sort the problem out. The real frustration for Members of Parliament, where this is a constituency issue, is that whoever we meet will blame the other side. Until we have them all in a room together, telling us what is going on and what is possible, we cannot do our job as Members of Parliament, by going back to our constituents to tell them what can be changed and how we can help.

Several hon. Members rose—

Peter Atkinson (in the Chair): Order. A considerable number of hon. Members want to contribute to the debate and the wind-ups should start at about 10.30, so I ask hon. Members to be brief; otherwise some will not get to speak.

Andrew Smith: The First Great Western timetable changes were a complete shambles, and very damaging for commuters from Oxford. I congratulate my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey), on securing the debate. As you said, Mr. Atkinson, many hon. Members want to speak, so I shall keep my remarks brief. 69 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

My first point is that First Great Western and the Department for Transport need to learn the lessons of this fiasco. Thanks to the very swift and loud reaction from people commuting from Oxford, with their petition and complaints through the media, MPs and councillors, First Great Western moved quite quickly to change the new timetable, reinstating and amending a number of services from Monday last week. That was a welcome victory for the campaign. However, if the company were really in touch with and responding to its customers’ needs, the difficulty would never have happened in the first place.

Secondly, that is not to say that services from Oxford are now perfect: far from it. According to Ox Rail Action, the changes mean that local travellers have gone from losing 80 per cent. of their seats from Oxford in the morning peak to losing 20 per cent. The hon. Member for Wantage has already made the point about connections to Didcot and services going west, which is also important.

Thirdly, there is a need for thorough, continuing monitoring of the adequacy of provision, coupled with consultation with and representation of passengers, including, as we have heard, on the matter of the future of the franchise. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will press First Great Western in no uncertain terms on this matter, as I have, and as I know other colleagues here this morning have. I hope that he will give us a commitment to ensure that the monitoring of services and their capacity will be made public, and that he will insist on proper consultation procedures, not just in the immediate aftermath of this row, when it is all in the headlines, but on a continuing basis.

Fourthly, capacity, overcrowding and the type of carriages that are used are a crucial aspect of the problem. One of the main complaints that I have received, after the sheer inadequacy of the new timetable that was initially proposed, was about the number of people having to stand, day after day. Standing is not acceptable on those services. People pay a lot of money for their season tickets, and they are entitled to a reasonable standard of comfort, and the opportunity to get on with some work or reading.

It is important to get those things right, and to assure people that the passengers’ voice will be heard. Everyone is mindful that there is due to be another timetable revision in December, and after what has just happened it is easy to understand why people fear the worst. The Thames valley services affect just about the most dynamic part of the UK economy; poor rail services have a very adverse impact on it.

Boris Johnson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it makes no sense for First Great Western to alleviate overcrowding at one point on the line, such as Henley, by instructing that trains should not stop at another point—viz. Goring? Instead of robbing Peter to pay Paul it should lay on more services.

Andrew Smith: I absolutely agree. It is in the nature of a network and efficient commuter services—and, for that matter, efficient long-distance services—that everything is integrated and we should have a comprehensively acceptable standard of provision, rather than just shifting the problem from one place to another.

It is clear that First Great Western has lost public confidence and we need to hear from the Minister that he will insist that the quality of services and any changes to the timetable and capacity in future will put passengers’ needs first, and that his Department will be dedicated to making sure that that happens.

I would like to close by congratulating Oxford rail users and the Ox Rail Action group for the effective campaign that they have mounted. If one good thing has come out of all of this it is that there is now an organised and well supported group putting the passengers’ 70 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP case. It had better be listened to, and I shall certainly join the hon. Member for Wantage and other hon. Members in taking the case to the Secretary of State.

Sandra Gidley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) on securing the debate. I too applied for a debate on the subject and was unlucky, but the number of hon. Members here today demonstrates the strength of feeling. I thought that I had a large postbag, but clearly problems with the First Great Western franchise are much greater elsewhere.

The tale is one of unremitting misery. In my constituency First Great Western took over the old Wessex Trains franchise, which broadly covers the journey from Southampton to Bristol and sometimes Cardiff via Bath and Salisbury. The first sign of problems, as the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) hinted, was the draft timetable. At that stage the timetable was drawn up so that if one were a commuter living in a village who worked either in Salisbury or Southampton it would be necessary to get up at 6 o’clock in the morning to catch a very early train from Dean, Dunbridge or Mottisfont. It would also be necessary to stay at work for quite a long time, because, depending on where the person lived and worked, they might not be able to get back until 7 in the evening. Understandably many people were rather unhappy at being forced to stay at their workplace longer than necessary. However, the problem was worse than that because the times of trains from the villages to Salisbury, which were relied on by quite a few schoolchildren, were changed such that they would all arrive at school late.

Those concerns were raised with the Minister’s predecessor and the timetable was improved slightly, but I had the feeling then that the train franchise company had proposed the worst possible scenario, so that any small improvement could be regarded as evidence of the company listening. I do not like to think that it was that cynical. Clearly we still have a substandard service, although it is better than the one that was originally proposed. The big problem is the number of peak-time trains that were cut. Although the overall reduction in seats is only about 20 per cent., there is a 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. reduction at peak times, which is causing great problems.

Also raised with the Minister at that time were concerns that the trains in the reduced service were to be reduced from three carriages to two. That seemed particularly perverse because, only a few years before, Wessex Trains had received permission to put on extra carriages because of the demand on the line. Again, we are not learning from the lessons of the past when designing new franchises. I support entirely the call for the draft timetable to be available for public scrutiny.

The public have reacted in droves. I want to give other hon. Members the chance to speak, so I shall simply highlight what is happening by giving some typical quotes from my constituents. A few people have asked why the franchise was given to a company that admitted in writing that it did not have enough carriages to run the service. That is still the case after 12 months. Many people are concerned about fares. A number of people have been caught out by fare increases and the change in the fare structure. One constituent said:

“On the first day that the service was run by First Great Western, my fare went up as they cancelled the ‘super saver’ ticket I had always used.”

Constituents also say that overcrowding is a problem. One said:

“I have a photo of 60 people standing on a one-carriage train all the way to Bristol because the previous train had not turned up.” 71 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Another problem with the franchise is its unreliability. Over the Christmas period in particular, a large number of trains were cancelled, simply did not arrive, or were terminated short of the expected destination.

The changes to the timetable are somewhat perverse. Many of my constituents who travel from Romsey or Southampton to Cardiff sometimes have to change trains at Bristol Temple Meads. On some services, they no longer have seven minutes to change trains because the interval between the services has been changed to three minutes. I know that we are trying to encourage the public to be healthy, but one gentleman told me about an occasion when he had to make such a connection, saying:

“I had to run down the stairs, under the tracks and up the other side to just make it as the doors closed. Anyone not fit would never have made it.”

Clearly, some common sense has to be used when the services are designed.

Several hon. Members have mentioned the problems with maintenance and the lack of rolling stock, which is something of a mystery because there seem to be carriages available. There are quite a few sitting in warm storage—I do not quite understand what that means—at Eastleigh depot, waiting to be used. I gather that there are other carriages at other depots. It has been suggested that they have been put to one side because First Great Western is struggling to meet the repayment terms of the franchise. A huge amount of money was offered for that franchise, and many people thought that the Government were benefiting at the expense of the commuter. Sadly, that seems to have been the case.

Kerry McCarthy: I, too, shall be brief, as other hon. Members want to speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) on securing the debate.

As I am sure the Minister is aware, there was a protest on Monday in the Bristol area by commuters coming in from Bath and Somerset in which members of a campaign group called More Train, Less Strain handed out fake tickets to commuters. It is telling that First Great Western chose not to challenge the people who used the fake tickets because they realised how much uproar it would cause. The headline in the Bristol Evening Post the next day read, “Fake tickets, real anger”, which just about sums it up. There is real anger among commuters in the Bristol area about what has happened to their rail services since the December timetable was introduced. That anger drove people to stand on a railway platform at 6.30 am in the cold and dark to hand out fake tickets because they simply did not know what else to do. They ran the risk of prosecution, a £1,000 fine or imprisonment because they have reached breaking point.

The service has been appallingly unreliable since the new timetable was introduced, with delays, cancellations, short formations and overcrowding. Some of those problems were there before, but whenever I speak to First Great Western it says that they are due to maintenance problems. A new depot in my constituency at St. Philip’s Marsh is supposedly about to open, but I am told by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers that it still looks like a building site. We seem to be given one excuse after another.

David Drew: I thank my hon. Friend and apologise for my lateness. I would have liked to speak in the debate, but the train was an hour late thanks to First Great Western, which is absolutely typical.

I have a question on the issue that my hon. Friend raises, and I disclose my interest with the RMT. There are contractual difficulties with First Great Western that need to be sorted 72 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP out, but the issue that seems to be of greatest dispute with the Government is that of how many sets the company is able to run. It would be useful to know whose figures are correct, because there are significant differences between what used to run on those lines and what now runs. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

Kerry McCarthy: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was about to come to that point. We had a problem in getting our heads around the issue because of what happened in the Bristol area in the 48 hours before the new timetable was introduced. The trains there had been cut, but suddenly—almost overnight—their number increased from 51 to 57 to 60, and then in December extra trains were brought in. I believe that another eight trains were borrowed on Monday from the TransPennine franchise to deal with the protest.

There is also a problem with the short formation of trains. I have been told, anecdotally, that there is a huge amount of rolling stock sitting on the sidings that could be brought into service. We need to get to the bottom of how many trains the company has access to, how much it is prepared to invest in its rolling stock and what service it can run on that basis.

The short formation of trains and the problems caused by cancellations seem to be the main issues affecting Bristol commuters, some of whom have to stand all the way to work. I accept that some people might have to stand on short journeys, but some of them are having to stand for significantly longer periods. Many people cannot even get on to the trains. Sometimes, when a train has been cancelled, eight carriages-worth of commuters—in the past, there would have been two four-carriage trains—are trying to squeeze on to a two-carriage unit, so many people are left standing on the platform. Those people rely on trains to get them to and from work every morning and evening from Monday to Friday every week; their jobs depend on it. However, they miss important meetings, they cannot pick their children up from school because they have to stay late at work, and they lose performance bonuses. To add insult to injury, they are also being asked to pay more for the service.

First Great Western owes the travelling public an explanation of why the problems are being allowed to happen. There is clearly management failure. They seem to be dealing with matters on a firefighting basis: whoever shouts the loudest suddenly gets the temporary improvement in their service. A couple of weeks ago we were told that several branch lines in Cornwall were being closed so that we could have extra trains in the Bristol area. That is good news for me as a Bristol MP, but I imagine that it is not quite so attractive to people in the Cornwall area.

After my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) intervened, I mentioned that we have had some additional units. We want confirmation from First Great Western that those units are here to stay and that the improvement is to be permanent. We also need to know that the company is going to do more to improve the service. It may be that the franchise agreement simply is not deliverable on the current specification, but when First Great Western bid for it, it knew what it was getting into. There has been significant investment in our rail services in the past few years. First Great Western went into the franchise on the promise that it could run a decent service for commuters. If it is really saying that it cannot deliver that, it is time for it to put its hands up and say so to the public and to let someone who can run the service take over.

Richard Benyon: I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) on securing the debate, and I apologise to the Minister and other hon. Members for being unable to stay until the end.

73 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

In the spirit of fairness, before I say what I want to say about First Great Western, I must point out that it had to make its bid against the background of a very prescribed timetable. I know that, because when the draft timetable was published a year ago, an enormous campaign began in my area of west Berkshire, which resulted in two meetings with the Minister’s predecessor and the Secretary of State. The travelling public wrote an enormous number of letters and a petition was presented to Parliament. The result was the reversal of a large number of the proposed cuts to rail services in west Berkshire. I was able to write to the Secretary of State and the Minister to thank them for their intervention. My hon. Friend’s point about our top-down and micro-managed rail service is right, but that is the end of any diversion of blame that I wish to share with the House today.

The problems that concern my constituents started on 11 December with the introduction of the new timetable. At the meeting that my hon. Friend mentioned, which took place a few yards from the Chamber last week, First Great Western’s representatives said that the same number of trains is operating throughout the franchise area now as was operating before 11 December. I wrote those words down to ensure that I remembered them correctly. If they are correct, where have all the trains gone?

The hon. Members for Bristol, East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) referred to rolling stock that is piled up in depots. Our understanding from the meeting is that it is waiting to be fitted with the automatic train protection system, and that the timetable problems are unrelated to that stock. What has happened is that some bright spark—I say that with bitter irony—in First Great Western has decided to remove turbo trains from the two main commuter services leaving Newbury in the morning, and reduce the number of seats from 550 to about 280, by introducing those beastly Adelante trains. And the sooner we see the back of them the better.

What is happening to the travelling public in places such as west Berkshire? Increased travel times have a dramatic social effect, which we must not understate. Children see less of their parents and communities see less activity because people come home so late and so exhausted that they do not want to go out and run the kids’ soccer club. The problems have much wider impact on society in general, not just on the travelling public, but commuters face increased inconvenience and have to change trains more often to get home on time, all at a time of inflation-busting fare increases.

Rob Wilson: On the point about timetables and inconvenience, may I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the effect of the timetable changes that were made late in the day on my constituents who attend Henley college? The timetable was changed literally a few days before the college was due to start its new term, meaning that students could not connect to Henley in time for their lessons. The college had to redraw its timetable from scratch within a few days to deal with those students.

Richard Benyon: It is a familiar story, and I have heard of similar experiences: schoolchildren from places such as Kintbury cannot now reach school on time if they travel by train, so they are either late or their parents drive them. I hope that when the Minister responds, he takes up my hon. Friend’s point. The net effect is more people on the road. I have commuters saying in droves that they are not prepared to put up with the problems and would prefer to sit in a traffic jam for two hours or get their child to school on time than to travel by train. It is a serious worry.

I shall quote one example of my earlier point. Sarah Akass is not a commuter, but her partner is. In one of the many hundreds of e-mails that I have received, she says that her partner,

74 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

“Alec now has a horrendous commute—is irritable, frustrated, spends time each day complaining to FGW (instead of doing his job and performing as he should be), we have less time at home together—and on numerous occasions caused by FGW I have to take the 1 hour round trip to Reading to pick him up... This is not sustainable”.

That is from just one of the many e-mails and letters that I have received on the subject.

I have written about the problem of overcrowding to the Office of Rail Regulation and to the Health and Safety Executive following our meeting last week. I have yet to hear from either organisation, but according to press reports it seems that, bizarrely, there are rules governing the overcrowding of cattle, sheep and pigs during transportation, but none regarding the transportation of people. In fact, the bizarre assertion has been made that in some way it is safer if people stand shoulder to shoulder rather than travel in a looser, seated arrangement. What a ridiculous statement. What a ridiculous state of affairs. The Office of Rail Regulation, the Department, the train operator and the HSE must examine it as a matter of urgency.

Finally, there is a problem of punctuality. Before the timetable change 99 per cent. of the two key morning commuter services that left from Newbury and Bedwyn were on time. Now that the services are dependent on trains that travel from the west country, 99 per cent. of them are late. That situation, when added to greater overcrowding, greater inconvenience and inflation-busting fare increases, is totally unacceptable.

I have written to the Minister asking him to examine the penalty clauses in the franchise document to see whether First Great Western has breached the terms and conditions of its contract. It is not worthy of the contract that it has been offered, and unless there are dramatic improvements in the near future, the Minister should take serious steps against First Great Western.

Alison Seabeck: I welcome the opportunity that the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) has offered us to debate further the failings of First Great Western. I am also grateful to him because I am now much wiser about the timetable into and out of Didcot.

Recent publicity has been about services not to Didcot, but to the Bristol and Bath areas, where serious problems continue. There are also ongoing problems in the far south-west, which is wholly dependent on good rail services for its interconnectivity with other parts of the UK.

In a recent debate in another place, Lord Davies of Oldham did not try to defend First Great Western’s performance record, because it is clearly a cause of deep concern. However, he studiously avoided clarifying whether the Department for Transport as well as First Great Western has a responsibility for the chaos. The Government have invested unprecedented amounts of money in the rail system, particularly in improving safety, and for that they should be applauded. That investment has made the network more reliable, but it has increased the use of the train as a preferred travel option. Many people also rightly use trains to avoid using cars and planes. However, the network has been unable to cope with the increase in capacity, and overcrowding on lines from Plymouth and Bristol to destinations in the north and east has reached unacceptable levels.

The problem is exacerbated by cuts in rolling stock. As the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) pointed out, stock has been placed in warm storage to save costs— trains have been cut in half to save money. I am advised that leasing a carriage costs 75 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP roughly what it cost to build one in the 1980s, so someone is making a nice profit. I am sure that the Minister is closely examining how rolling stock leasing companies operate.

The real problem can be traced to the way in which the franchise was first awarded. I understand that to secure the bid, First Great Western committed a premium payment to the Government of about £1.3 billion over the 10-year period of the franchise. When one considers that the Government paid rail operators about £100 million to £200 million in 2005-06 for the services that the First Great Western franchise offers, one sees the scale of the financial turnaround that the company has to achieve. It can make savings only through higher fares, and we have certainly had those—fares have increased by 12 per cent.—or by reducing the number of trains, which it has done, too.

The difficulties are exacerbated by a backlog of work in First Great Western’s maintenance department, as hon. Members have already described. Add to that the way in which the timetable was changed against the wishes and the advice of a range of people who are experts in the field and it becomes clear that First Great Western’s job of meeting public expectations is almost impossible.

Plymouth city council wrote a long—seven pages—letter to the company in November 2006, flagging up a range of issues. It said:

“The City Council is...aware that some existing incumbent TOCs do not accurately or reliably collect revenue. If such inaccuracy of recording is ultimately used to develop origin and destination trends, and therefore specify service levels, such a process could inaccurately reflect actual travel patterns and demand. Such poor data recording does nothing to help support the case for additional or retention of existing service levels.”

The company has overstretched itself, but if inaccurate data were used during the franchise process, that is clearly worrying.

I am also worried about the way in which the Department for Transport engaged in the franchise process. Did it consider such issues? Was it solely interested in saving money and did it therefore turn a blind eye to the long-term implications for the travelling public in the south-west? Was First Great Western simply being wholly unrealistic? I am not clear where the blame lies, and other hon. Members here today are also confused. I would welcome the opportunity for a round-table discussion with all parties involved in order to get to the bottom of the matter.

There have been calls for First Great Western to be stripped of its franchise in the same way that Connex—with which I am very familiar, having struggled to work on its service for many years—was stripped of its franchise about five years ago. That may be an option, but the Department for Transport must also be open and honest about its part in the matter, not least because we want to avoid a further debacle when the franchise is awarded for the cross-country service. There is widespread public concern about interconnectivity between the cross-country franchise and the greater western franchise. The Minister will know about that because I have already written to him on the subject.

Failures in recent weeks have been well documented and reported in the media, culminating in a very public protest by passengers exercising their power over what is clearly an unsatisfactory service. Knee-jerk reactions from First Great Western, such as transferring stock from rural routes in Cornwall to deal with hazardous overcrowding in the Bristol area, are merely short-term solutions, and surely questions must be asked about how the current inadequate service levels were drawn up and agreed. 76 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Julia Goldsworthy: One of the reassurances we were given during the bid process was that difficulties with rolling stock that resulted in reductions in carriage numbers on branch lines during the busiest time of year would be resolved. We are now seeing such problems extending throughout the year. Does the hon. Lady agree that something needs to be done?

Alison Seabeck: Yes, I wholly agree with the hon. Lady. She will agree, I am sure, that hitting the remote ends of the network because they seem like an easy place to make cuts—if there is such a thing—and trying to consolidate the service in the busier centre is deeply damaging to the objective 1 area that she represents.

This situation cannot continue and I would welcome an all-party, round-table discussion with all the key players, with a focus on gaining a better understanding of rail user requirements and consulting other agencies and local authorities on how to achieve customer satisfaction, balanced against getting maximum value for the resources available. There must also be far greater transparency in the franchising process.

Don Foster: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) on securing the debate, and I thank him for his honesty in his reference to the botched privatisation, which drew attention to failures of the previous Government that added, in part, to some of the current problems.

In July 2000, when the Deputy Prime Minister was in charge of the railways, he said that

“we shall deliver a railway system that is better for the passengers, better for freight, better for the economy and better for the environment”.—[Official Report, 20 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 550.]

Sadly, he and the Government have failed to deliver on that pledge. Railway services in the south-west are simply not fit for purpose. So great is the anger of people in the Bath and Bristol area, to which the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Kerry McCarthy) referred, that thousands of rail commuters, including many of my constituents, took part in a fare strike. Although I cannot condone the breaking of the law, I fully sympathise with the anger that my constituents and many in the area have about the appalling services being delivered by the Government and First Great Western.

Roger Berry: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, according to First Great Western, rail passenger numbers have increased by 41 per cent. in the Bristol area, but it cut the service in December. Does he accept that those of us in the Bristol area appreciate the difficulties that that poses for our constituents, as well as his constituents in Bath?

Don Foster: I do indeed, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point.

It may interest hon. Members to know what was written on the ticket handed out at the protest on Monday. The rail company was described as “First Late Western”. The class was described as “cattle truck”, the ticket type, “standing only”, the route, “hell and back”, and the price, “up 12 per cent.” In a sense, that sums up the issues of real concern to my constituents and others in the wider area. That protest, organised excellently by More Train, Less Strain, brought real concerns to the fore.

People’s concerns fall into four categories. They are concerned by the inadequacies of the timetable, which no longer meets the working patterns of many who wish to commute by rail. They are also concerned about the inadequacy of the number of carriages. We are told by First Great Western that it needs 94 carriages per day to operate the

77 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP commuter services—what we used to know as the Wessex trains— and, indeed, until Monday, it did not have that full number running on any one day. We have been assured that we will get that full number, but as has already been pointed out, even if a full complement is run, fewer carriages are operating than used to. There is also the question of where those carriages come from—it is quite amazing simply to look at the signage on them.

There are deep concerns about excessive delays and cancellations and at the height of all those concerns, ludicrous fare increases were imposed. The fare from Bath to London on the high-speed train is one of the highest priced train journeys per mile in the entire world. Many of my constituents have suffered in massively overcrowded carriages and many have not even been able to get on to the trains.

We have heard about passengers, but in fairness, I should point out that many of the staff working for First Great Western are equally concerned about what has happened. A letter sent to my local paper by a ticket officer who, unsurprisingly, wanted to remain anonymous, read:

“The person selling you your ticket is appalled at the price and embarrassed about the service.

We’ve voiced our opinions repeatedly, to no avail. We’re on your side, so please, please, don’t take it out on us.”

He went on to point out that no one gets admonished for arriving late at work at First Great Western because very few of those who now work there travel to work by train. Another anonymous letter was sent by a train driver, who wrote:

“Like all the others at the moment, I am appalled at what is happening with the ‘service’ we are supposed to be providing for our customers... reduced services, lack of units, late running or just plain cancellations of services”.

The staff are appalled about the level of service as well.

The Government must take some of the blame. Over a year ago, I wrote to them detailing my concerns about the planned new timetable, and I received a letter on 9 August from the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), about Keynsham and Oldfield Park, and another letter on 13 September relating to Freshford. I had written to him expressing concern about a reduction in the frequency of trains to those stations. I got a letter referring me to table 6.112 of the franchise stakeholder consultation. My attention was drawn to the fact that the table clearly states the intention to retain an hourly frequency at both stations, and that there would also be additional hourly calls, giving two trains an hour at the stations concerned during peak periods. Those promises from the Government were not delivered. Those trains do not exist and there are greater gaps at those stations than were promised.

As I said earlier, rail services in the south-west are simply not fit for purpose, and the Government must take some of the blame for that. The hon. Member for Wantage is right to say that the buck passing has to stop. I join him and all hon. Members who have spoken in urging the Minister to agree to a meeting that will bring First Great Western, the Government and concerned Members of Parliament into one room, in which we will stay until we have sorted the matter out.

78 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Steve Webb: I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) both on securing this debate and on the measured and fair way in which he put his argument. Given the amount of anger among our constituents, to which we have all been exposed, that was quite an achievement.

The hon. Gentleman started by saying that there was a lot of buck passing going on. I absolutely agree with him. Everyone blames somebody else. We should not try to point the finger today, but work out where we should go from here to sort the problem out. Let me give one example of the buck passing. I had a meeting with the regional manager of First Great Western in my area and the cross-Bristol franchise, to which a number of hon. Members have referred. We all know that there have been problems with maintenance. As the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Kerry McCarthy) said, we are told that the maintenance depot at St. Philip’s Marsh is not ready yet, and that neither is the stock that was taken over from the Wessex franchise, which my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) mentioned.

I note in this week’s edition of Rail magazine, however, which I am sure hon. Members read regularly, that Arriva Trains Wales was outraged by that suggestion. The managing director said:

“It is an outrageous suggestion and...utter rubbish. I have had no complaints about the quality or the delivery of their fleet.

We provided full availability every day in the weeks leading up to December 10.”

So why did the rolling stock that Wessex and the Welsh services were able to run reliably right up to 10 December suddenly become so unreliable? That does not add up. Again, the buck passing is not achieving anything.

The right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), speaking with the authority of a former Cabinet Minister, quite properly said that both First Great Western and the Department for Transport need to learn lessons. The issue is not just about party political point scoring; the Department must take some responsibility. I fully accept that there have been management failures, as the hon. Member for Bristol, East said, but the way in which the Department has handled the franchise is a source of concern. The Minister wrote to me about those issues on 16 January, saying:

“I am determined that appropriate action is taken to ensure that the performance of these train services improves.”

However, I am not quite sure what that action is or has been. I hope that he will tell us not simply that the service is not good enough and that he wants it to be better, but what his Department is doing to put things right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey raised the key issue of capacity and referred to carriages being in warm storage. One point that has not been made so far is that if First Great Western provides a service of sorts, with too few carriages, it will not necessarily fail on either its cancellation or punctuality targets. In other words, provided that the train is there with at least one carriage, the operator does not trigger either of those penalties, which would mean having to give season ticket discounts or refunds. It is therefore better financially to run such services short, with all the chaos that we have heard about.

Colin Breed: Does my hon. Friend also condemn the warm storage of our coaches down in Cornwall, which are taken away from us and passed up to Bristol and Bath to try to fix

79 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP the problem there? All my constituents and many others in Cornwall have been consigned to buses, instead of having any carriages whatever.

Steve Webb: I can well understand the anger of my hon. Friend’s constituents about that situation. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) talked about robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is not a solution, although my constituents are grateful for the loan.

We have heard about the issue of the carriages and short formation. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) made a good point, in a good contribution, about the franchise and the profits that the rolling stock companies are making. The current structure was set up by successive Governments, but my sense about the rail industry is that the rolling stock companies are, for want of a better phrase, rolling in it. A letter was sent to me in November by a customer service adviser for First Great Western, who said that

“there are simply not the carriages available”.

I just do not believe that. I suspect strongly that the carriages are available, but at a price, and that it might just not be possible to get them—other than from Cornwall, obviously— within the profit targets that First Great Western has set itself.

The hon. Lady asked a good question, however. There might be analogy, albeit a distant one, with the 3G auction of the mobile spectrum. Huge amounts of money were raised and everyone said how clever the idea was. The Government got lots of cash, but it subsequently became apparent that too much had probably been paid. Although the businesses thought that they had got a good deal, it turned out that they had not. There have been knock-on effects for the industry. I wonder whether too much was paid for the franchise, whether First Great Western was capable of delivering the services that we need, and whether those services were specified to a high enough level. I met the regional manager of First Great Western for the Greater Bristol area and the hon. Lady’s area, who said that the specification was the most basic one possible by the Strategic Rail Authority. Our constituents deserve more than the most basic possible specification of timetables and frequency. The rhetoric about public transport—about modal shift, getting people out of their cars and so on—is used all the time, but the reality is that the Government try to get away with the minimum possible service. That is not good enough.

We have heard many horror stories, which I shall not repeat. However, to cite a further example, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has described a litany of problems, saying that passengers, luggage and even a wheelchair-bound passenger were packed in so tight that the guard could not get on until some of the passengers had got off. That is a complete farce. To be told then that it is safer to have people packed on than having just a few people standing is nonsense. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) pointed out that there are rules for the overcrowding of cattle, but not for that of humans. That is a telling point, and action needs to be taken.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bath rightly highlighted the fact that many of the people who work for First Great Western are as demoralised as our constituents are, and we all agreed with him on that. We do not want to take out our anger on the people who work for First Great Western. I have heard directly from many people who work for the company. People love the railways—they work on them because they want to provide a superb service. They are as frustrated as anybody with the rubbish that we have now.

My hon. Friend highlighted the four key areas, including the inadequacies of the timetable. We have heard about the problems in peak time—in Didcot, in Romsey and in areas in other constituencies—which is the key time when we can get traffic off the roads. 80 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

To give a parochial example, hundreds of people make the journey between Yate, which is a major town of in my constituency, and Filton Abbey Wood, which is a major employer in my constituency, as part of the Ministry of Defence. There are rail stations at the start and at the end of the journey, but lots of people drive, because they cannot rely on the trains. That is madness. I hope that the summit meeting that the hon. Member for Wantage talked about, and in which I would be happy to take part, brings the issue to a head. If all that we and our constituents have gone through in the past few weeks leads to action to get a grip on the situation, everything might not have been in vain, because action is urgently needed.

On railways policy, I have a concern about the length of the franchises that are awarded. In a debate about the failures of First Great Western, it might seem perverse to talk about longer franchises—many people would think that seven days was too long, let alone seven years. However, when franchises are awarded, do companies think that they are in it for the long haul? Do they have an incentive to buy the rolling stock rather than lease it? Longer franchises—of course with regular performance reviews, but with the fundamental assumption that a company that does a damn good job is in there for the long haul— would give the industry the stability that we all want. There should be a presumption of, funnily enough, longer franchises with proper scrutiny. The Liberal Democrats want serious action on train leasing and on the profits that the rolling stock companies are making, because there is a domino effect. The cost of leasing is exorbitant, so the companies do not lease, the service is not good enough and we are where we are today.

Call it blame or responsibility, but the focus in many quarters must be on how we tackle the problems that have arisen throughout the network and which should have been foreseen by both the operating companies and the Government.

Stephen Hammond: Like so many other hon. Members before me, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) not only on securing this debate, but on his eloquent advocacy on behalf of his constituents. That has been a feature of this debate—I was going to name all hon. Members who had spoken, but I have counted 17 contributions or interventions so far. That shows the strength of feeling about the franchise.

We had two debates on the same subject in the Chamber last year, one initiated by the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) and the other by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). In March last year I visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) and other parts of the area to listen to the problems of local commuters and to discuss the issues with First Great Western management.

What has happened has not been a surprise. This debate is important on two levels. First, the service that the train users receive from First Great Western, as operated by First Group, is not satisfactory. In fact, it is so far from satisfactory that it is, to use the currently immortal phrase, not fit for purpose. However, on another level the debate is clearly about some of the key problems of the rail industry, including how it is structured. The hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) mentioned the length of franchises; other problems include the level of Government intervention and how the franchising is being tendered.

Transport 2000, an independent group, has stated that rail use in the south-west and west has grown by 42 per cent. in the past decade. Yet it goes on to say that despite that categorical evidence of passenger demand, in December 2006 in the finalised timetable

81 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

“the Department for Transport’s rail group cut back rail services, taking away 32 rail carriages and with it thousands of rail passenger seats.”

During his excellent contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage said that people are extremely angry and are paying huge prices for an abominable service. He outlined the litany of performance failures. I can only say that on behalf of my constituents and myself, I am glad that I do not travel on the Didcot service. We talk about journey times decreasing; it seems extraordinary that there has been a 20-minute increase in the time that the service takes. That was cited by “The Thunderer” on Monday, the day of action. For those who do not read The Times, I should explain that “The Thunderer” is a columnist who on Monday pointed out the problems not only of delays, but of overcrowding. He specifically mentioned Oldfield Park station, where commuters had difficulty getting on the train. That underlines the consensus of feeling, which is evident not only from hon. Members here today and from “The Thunderer” in The Times. Gerry Doherty of the Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association union said on Monday, the day of the strike:

“Passengers have had enough of paying sky-high prices for appalling services”.

This debate has shown a clear consensus: First Great Western is not providing the service that it should. Inevitably, as predicted by Members in their letters to the Minister and by Transport 2000 and others, we are seeing overcrowding and transference away from trains across the whole area. The service being provided is in direct contrast to the needs of the commuting public and the long-distance traveller.

Rob Wilson: Does my hon. Friend think it fair or just that my constituents now have to pay £3,176 for an annual standard class ticket from Reading station in my constituency to Paddington? That is nearly £6,000 of earned income; a lot of sweat goes into earning that much money, which pays for a standard-class ticket to stand for 30 minutes on journeys to and from Paddington.

Stephen Hammond: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that the senior civil servant who said that standing was acceptable will be regretting his remarks. Rail commuters from Reading may well want to hold him up as one of the villains of the piece.

I want to talk about long-distance as well as commuting issues, as considerable wider west and south-west needs are also involved. The corridor from the south coast to Bristol and Wales links some of the major urban settlements. Particular problems in Greater Bristol, Bath, Wiltshire and south Wales, and the line from London to the south-west peninsula, have been mentioned. The regional spatial strategy and regional economic strategy highlight those as areas of housing and economic growth. The timetabling for those areas has resulted in cuts in service, shorter and less frequent trains starting later in the morning, and longer dwell times—in complete contrast and opposition to the regional economic strategy.

This debate has shown that the plight of all travellers using Great Western since the imposition of the new timetable is simply not acceptable. No one in the Chamber is an apologist for First Group, whose performance has remained inadequate and whose punctuality remains appalling. It needs to spend money—and not a little—on taking urgent action to clear its maintenance backlog. The issue is not only that the prescribed timetable took out some of the carriages, but the huge problem of maintenance. I hear what has been said about targets, but clearing that backlog would do a lot to increase punctuality, reliability and commuter satisfaction.

82 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

First Group, in extensive negotiations with the Government, has restored one commuter service since December. It needs to restore more morning rush- hour trains and to increase the evening peak service. First Group will be listening to this debate; the message is that all those things should be done as a matter not of urgency, but of necessity.

Several Members have said that they do not want to get too involved in the blame game. As I said, First Group needs to make substantial improvements. Given what the Minister has heard from across the Chamber, he must be in no doubt that Members are clear about why the service is so poor: the problems are due principally to the Department for Transport and the prescribed franchise that it imposed on First Group. Some understanding of whom should be mentioned in the blame game is important for understanding the problems not only on this part of the network, but on the network as a whole.

It is true that the Government specified the First Group timetable that has reduced services and led to carriages being withdrawn, and that they extracted the premium from First Group that has forced fare increases. I am sure that the Minister will denounce rail privatisation, forgetting that his party has been in charge of the railways for 10 years and that usage has increased. He will remind us that he has had his brief for only four months and that the franchise re-letting took place before that.

I have had the pleasure of sparring with the Minister on transport issues since he has come to the Front Bench and I know him to be one of the good guys. However, he is a representative of the Government, who cannot escape our criticism and questioning. Our debate has proved that the villains of the piece are not only First Group, but the Government.

The Minister needs to answer a number of problems that underline not only the issues that have been highlighted today, but those for other franchises. How many civil servants in his Department are now writing timetables? How many timetables were included in the invitation to tender for the First Great Western franchise? Which franchise was chosen? Will he confirm that the Government minimum specification was involved, that the Government continue to use that process to deliver franchises, that the specified timetable reduced services and that the timetable specified the length of trains and the number of carriages to be used?

Will the Minister also confirm that between 1 April and 1 December last year, when the finalised timetable was put forward, First Group made numerous representations to the Government, seeking to alter the timetable, and that First Group has gone beyond the minimum timetable specified? Does he agree with Transport 2000’s comment in its publication “Growing the Railways” that the Government imposed a timetable and train leasing framework that involved fewer trains? Will he confirm that the timetable took 32 carriages out of service?

As I said earlier, no one here wants to be an apologist for First Group; its performance and service are unacceptable. However, the Government wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage saying:

“I consider a reasonable balance has been struck in the level and structure of provision of train services from Didcot Parkway.”

Given this debate, the Minister will surely want to recognise that that statement was at least a little early in the making. Will he reconsider it? This debate has highlighted First Great Western service issues and a number of issues in the railway system; 83 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP overcrowding is easily recognised by my constituents on the South West Trains franchise from Raynes Park and Wimbledon. One of my constituents recently wrote to me about a 47 per cent. increase in fares on the Thameslink line. The Government’s micromanagement of the railways is failing.

Let us finish the debate in the same way as it has taken place, by accepting that there is blame on both parties. Even if the Minister cannot answer all my other questions, perhaps he will answer this one: having heard the speeches of the 15 to 20 hon. Members in the Chamber, will he guarantee to get the Members who have spoken on behalf of their constituents, the Department and the management of First Great Western into a room to rectify some of the timetable chaos and problems that result in human misery for the commuters who are the constituents of so many hon. Members here today? Will he agree to do that as a matter of urgency?

Tom Harris: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey). He has received many congratulations this morning; I do not expect to be the same position by the time I sit down.

I am sure that my civil servants will understand why, given the intensity of the feeling in the debate, I shall abandon my prepared comments and try to deal directly with as many comments as possible. I begin by pointing out that although I am the Minister for rail, and possibly, these days, the Minister for Westminster Hall, I am not the Minister for First Great Western. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) said at the end of his comments that no one in this room would be an apologist for First Great Western, and he was accurate in that respect. I do not intend to be an apologist for First Great Western; it is not down to me to defend the unacceptable level of service that First Great Western has provided to its customers over the past few weeks.

First, I shall refer directly to the comments of the hon. Member for Wantage. He asked for more clarification and transparency in the franchising process. I can tell him and the Chamber that the invitation to tender for the greater western franchise will be published shortly, although I do not know in what form it will be published at the moment. However, it will be published and available for public inspection.

Talking about the First Great Western franchise, the most recent edition of Private Eye states that the other problem

“is a savage cut in the number of carriages FGW leases so that they can sit out of use in sidings—at the government’s command.”

The hon. Gentleman referred also to Christian Wolmar’s article in yesterday’s Evening Standard, where he said:

“The number of coaches leased by the company had to be cut from more than 130 to 112, forcing many services to be run with fewer carriages or be cancelled altogether.”

I am grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight. The Government have never and will never specify the number of carriages to be used in the First Great Western franchise or in any other franchise in the United Kingdom.

The responsibility for providing carriages for the services lies entirely with First Great Western and I have spoken on a number of occasions to Moir Lockhead, the chief executive of First Group, who has assured me that he will shortly issue a public apology that explicitly states that stories that have appeared in the press that suggest that the

84 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Government have anything to do with the number of carriages used in the First Great Western franchise are completely erroneous. Given the gullibility of some members of the media, it proves that a lie repeated often enough becomes received wisdom. I hope that that is clarification enough, because many Members raised that point and I wanted to put it clearly on the record—

Sandra Gidley: Will the Minister give way?

Tom Harris: I have seven minutes left to cover one and a half hours of intense debate. I hope that the hon. Lady, who has already made a speech, will forgive me but I do not want to give way. If I do that and do not get round everybody I could justifiably be criticised, and so I apologise.

The hon. Member for Wantage described it as “plainly silly” for the Department for Transport to try to micromanage franchises. I totally agree with him, and that is why we do not. The hon. Member for Wimbledon asked how many civil servants are employed by the DFT to write timetables; he does not need to table a written question on that, because the answer is none.

Stephen Hammond: Will the Minister give way?

Tom Harris: I am not going to give way.

Stephen Hammond: On a point of information, then?

Tom Harris: There is no such thing as a point of information.

Stephen Hammond: On a point of order, Mr. Atkinson. I hear what the Minister has said, but he replied to a parliamentary question to confirm that there are 15 civil servants in his Department.

Peter Atkinson (in the Chair): Order. That is not a point of order.

Tom Harris: There are far more than that number of civil servants in my Department, but none of them is tasked with writing timetables. That is a matter for train operating companies in partnership with Network Rail.

The hon. Member for Wantage referred to Labour criticisms of the “botched privatisation” of the Conservative Government. I do not know if I heard him correctly—perhaps he could confirm this from a sedentary position—but he described what happened under the Railways Act 2005 as a “botched nationalisation”.

Ed Vaizey: indicated assent.

Tom Harris: The railways are not nationalised; they are in the private sector. The railways are provided by the private sector as specified by the Government, and that is exactly the structure that will work in the long term. In response to his request for a summit meeting, given that First Great Western has now gone on the record to accept culpability for the disastrous performance of the past few weeks, I do not at the moment see a need for any kind of summit that involves First Great Western, local MPs and the Department for Transport. Of course, I shall keep that under review but given what First Great Western has said and what I have repeated, I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman wants to sit in my office and listen to Moir Lockhead say exactly the same as he is about to say publicly. 85 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) asked that the Department’s monitoring of the franchise should be made public. I reassure him that the public performance measure, which measures the performance of all the train operating companies in four-week sections over the year, is made public and published on the Network Rail website.

The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) talked about the timetable and the minimum specification. Once again, she will be glad to know that the invitation to tender will be published shortly by the Department. She said that First Great Western cannot afford the premium payments. Once again, a myth is starting to spread throughout the industry about premium payments and their knock-on effect on the service. A number of years ago, the railway industry was a basket case and individual franchises would never have considered paying a premium to the DFT for the privilege of running services. Now we have private companies paying money back into the public purse, and I would have thought that she would have welcomed that. The fact is that there has never been a question mark over First Great Western’s ability to pay the premium to which it is committed under the franchise. There is no question that that payment will not be made or that it cannot afford it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Kerry McCarthy) talked about carriage shortages. She will be glad to know that First Great Western is about to issue an apology and explanation for what has happened on the railway. She asked about the additional units. I understand that First Great Western has provided additional units for the franchise from its TransPennine Express franchise. Although that was originally intended as a temporary measure, I am told that those units are there to stay, which will have a knock- on beneficial effect on the rest of the franchise.

The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) banged the drum of his party about prescribed timetables. He was disappointed, as was his hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, that we do not write timetables. He talked—and was absolutely correct— about the wider social impact on families. I understand the frustration of passengers using the franchise and sympathise with any family that have to suffer the inconvenience and stress of family members returning home from their journey so late that they cannot interact properly with their family. That has to be addressed and I hope that it will be addressed by First Great Western.

The hon. Member for Newbury also talked about inflation-busting fares increases. The hon. Member for Wimbledon agreed that fare increases above inflation are unacceptable. In the minute that I have left, I want to plead with the hon. Gentleman as the spokesman for his party: is he saying that capacity can be increased by x amount and that we can reduce fares at the same time—

Stephen Hammond: indicated dissent.

Tom Harris: In an intervention, he agreed that the price of a season ticket was too high. The Conservative party has to be realistic. It is unrealistic to say that capacity can be increased, fares can be reduced and taxes can be reduced at the same time. It is simply not credible. If we are to have a serious debate, it will have to be on a higher level than simply scoring political points on such an important issue.

The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that the franchises—

Peter Atkinson (in the Chair): Order. We must move on.

86 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP MEMBERS

Name Constituency Diane Abbott Hackney North & Stoke Newington

John Austin Erith & Thamesmead

Jeremy Corbyn Islington North

Michael Clapham Barnsley West & Penistone Katy Clark North Ayrshire and Arran

Jim Cousins Newcastle Upon Tyne Central

Ann Cryer Keighley

Bill Etherington Sunderland North

David Drew Stroud

Kelvin Hopkins Luton North

Bob Marshall - Andrews Medway

John McDonnell Hayes and Harlington

Jim McGovern Dundee West

Stephen Pound Ealing North

Gwyn Prosser Dover & Deal

Linda Riordan Halifax

Marsha Singh Bradford West

Alan Simpson Nottingham South

Jon Trickett Hemsworth

Rudi Vis Finchley and Golders Green

Robert Warering Liverpool West Derby

This report was prepared by: The RMT Parliamentary Unit in association with RMT Head Office

87 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

88