RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
RMT
Parliamentary
Group
Report
January 2005 – March 2006
1 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Contents
Parliamentary Group 3 - 4
Rail 5 - 12
· Northern Rail
· Virgin Cross Country
· Greater Western
· Rail Workers’ Pensions
· Indemnification of TOCs
· Crossrail
· Environmental case for Rail
· Delivering Safer Rail Stations
London Underground 12 - 15
· PPP
· Fire Safety Regulations
· London Underground cleaners
· London Terrorist Attacks
Maritime 16
Irish Ferries dispute
Tonnage Tax
Thames Boatmasters’ Licence
ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS 17
TRADE UNION FREEDOM BILL 17
JOINT PUBLIC SERVICES CAMPAIGN 17
Annex 1 – EDMs 18
Annex 2 – Letters 32
Annex 3 – Hansard 36
2 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Parliamentary Group
The previous Group report, which covered the period from July to December 2005, was presented by John McDonnell MP (Group Chair) to the RMT Executive at their meeting on Thursday 12th January 2006.
Group Meeting – 17th January 2006
Apologies: Michael Clapham, Jeremy Corbyn, Jim Cousins, Andrew Dismore, David Drew
Group Meeting Tuesday 17th January 2006 4:30pm Room P, Portcullis House
Agenda 1. Apologies
2. Railways · Railway Pension Scheme · Railway Industrial Relations · Environmental Case for Rail · South Eastern Trains & Re-franchising
3. London Underground · Dispute update · Sub Surface Fire Regulations · Crossrail
4. Maritime · Tonnage Tax · Section 9 Race of Race Relations Act · Minimum Wage
5. Trade Union Freedom Bill
6. Other Political and Industrial issues
7. Diary Dates
8. Any other Business
Due to the parliamentary timetabling of the second reading of the Education and Inspections Bill, it was necessary to reschedule the Group meeting that had been arranged for Wednesday 15th March. The next meeting of the Group will now take place on Wednesday 22nd March 2006 (TBC).
The Group will also shortly meet with Transport Minister (maritime) Dr Stephen Ladyman MP to discuss the review of the Tonnage Tax.
3 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Briefings circulated
Since December 2005, briefings have been circulated on the following issues:
Rail · Crossrail · Delivering Safer Rail Stations · Indemnification of Train Operating Companies · London Underground disputes · Northern Rail services · Rail workers’ Pensions · Virgin Cross Country dispute
Maritime: · Tonnage Tax and seafarers’ employment · Irish Ferries dispute
4 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
RAIL
The Group has tabled a large number of questions to ascertain the cost of the re-franchising of the railways industry to TOCs. John McDonnell asked the question below:
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what total costs have been incurred by (a) the Government and Government agencies and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority in the franchising and tendering of passenger rail services since 1997.
Derek Twigg: The letting of franchises since 1997 has been undertaken by a number of successive agencies, namely the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising, the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority, the Strategic Rail Authority and since July 2005, the Department for Transport. Franchise tendering costs were part of the general business costs of such agencies and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information is more readily available from April 2004 and costs incurred are £16.9 million. This represents 0.06 per cent. of the value of the five franchises let.
Northern Rail
Since the refranchising process began for Northern Rail, members of the Group have raised a number of questions about the costs of refranchising, the bidding companies, the subsequent franchise review initiated by the SRA, and now the delays in that process.
Northern Rail Meeting with Derek Twigg – Tuesday 27th February
Apologies: Michael Clapham MP, Ann Cryer MP, Bill Etherington MP, Graham Stringer MP, Jon Trickett MP
Jim Cousins MP met with RMT members at a regional lobby, and as a result tabled a written question to secure a meeting.
Jim Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet hon. Members from the north east to discuss (a) the Northern Rail franchise and (b) the north east England rail regional planning assessment.
Derek Twigg: I should be happy to arrange a meeting.
Jim opened the meeting and stated that the Government had received considerable negative press over a number of rail issues in the North East, including the Tyne Valley Line, the cutting of the Newcastle-Sunderland shuttle service, and the leaks over the Northern Rail review.
Derek Twigg outlined some of the various reviews and strategies that impact upon transport in the North East:
· He said that the Review was complete and was with Ministers, and there would be an announcement in the “very near future – weeks not months”. John asked whether the original review by the consultants SDG would be published, to which the Minister replied that the review would be published by the DfT.
5 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
· He said the Regional Planning Assessment (RPA) would look at changes in population, housing need and business development; as well as current footfall, and possible future infrastructure projects. He said the Rail Utilisation Strategy (RUS) had been produced for the Great Western and West Midlands areas. The RUS will look at capacity opportunities on the current railway (not new infrastructure projects), under Network Rail.
· The DfT has taken over the Review of Northern Rail from the SRA, with a different specification from the original SRA document. The RPA will also feed into the Regional Economic Strategy and the Regional Spatial Strategy. Additionally there is also the High Level Output Strategy for the next control period from 2009.
In relation to Jim’s point about concessionary fares, the Minister said that as there was only one Passenger Transport Authority (PTA) in the North East, there were problems with funding. He said Nexus has thrown in £2m of their reserves – so “they are not in a position to develop new opportunities”. However, regional funding has increased. The Minister said he worked closely with the PTAs in the Northern Rail area and their proposals are considered in the RPA.
Jim was concerned about the overall strategic control, and asked for example who the partner body would be for the electrification of Tyne-Tees rail links. The Minister replied that it would be Network Rail, the PTA and the local councils, adding that “we talk to Nexus on a regular basis”.
The Minister said the RPA would look at “what the issues are, what the strengths and weaknesses are, what the demand is and what we can and can’t do about it”. He added that the Office for Rail Regulation (ORR) will make the decision on access for GCR.
Jim said that it was incredibly important that we create extra capacity and modal shift, as the NE needed some “good news”. The Minister replied that the Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) would look at extra capacity, and whether this required trains or buses, and how to integrate. Jim asked who the planning agent would be for inter-modal shift, and the Minister replied that Network Rail would lead on the basis of a firm business case, and the Government and the RPA would look at long-term planning.
The rolling stock on the Northern Rail franchise was also raised by Jim, who raised his concerns about the pacer trains, and that Northern Rail has said that the leasing term does not match the end of franchise date, but they have been granted “extra flexibility for a surcharge”. The Minister replied that the franchise and rolling stock lease were co-terminus, and that the surcharge for terminating the lease was “not a large premium”. He said he had recently spoken to Northern Rail on these issues and would meet again soon – adding that it is the youngest rolling stock for some years.
John McDonnell asked when the review and the RPA would be published. The Minister said it would “be weeks rather than months”. John asked if the Minister would be willing to hold a seminar with the RMT Parliamentary Group and Northern MPs following the publication of both reports, and asked if it would be possible to see the consultant’s report and the technical papers.
The Minister said he would do a “presentation on the general structure”.
6 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Virgin Cross Country franchise
RMT members have been engaged in a long-running dispute with Virgin Cross Country over pay. In light of reports that Virgin may be compromising the safety of passengers by the use of untrained and medically restricted personnel on strike days, Jeremy Corbyn MP tabled EDM 1574 on the Virgin Cross Country dispute, urging the franchise to return to the negotiating table. This EDM has been signed by 25 MPs, and can be viewed in Annex 1.
Group MPs have also tabled some written questions on the dispute:
Jim Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with Virgin Cross Country regarding the use of untrained staff on strike days in the current dispute with the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union.
Derek Twigg: Pay and conditions are matters for negotiation between staff and employers. Her Majesty's Rail Inspectorate have been consulted on the arrangements of trained staff to provide cover as guards/train managers on strike days. The company are satisfied that their safety case has not been compromised.
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received from train operating companies on industrial disputes.
Derek Twigg: Although train operating companies (TOCs) have not made representations to the Secretary of State, the nature of the franchise agreement means that TOCs do talk to the franchise managers about potential industrial disputes. Currently the only TOC which is in discussion with their franchise manager in this way is Virgin Cross Country.
John McDonnell MP also raised the issue of the dispute in the adjournment debate he secured on ‘Industrial Relations in the Railways Industry’ – the full text of which is in Annex 3. A briefing on this issue has also been distributed to MPs.
Greater Western franchise
EDM 534 on the Public Ownership of the Greater Western rail franchise received support from 36 MPs. However, the franchise has now been re-let to First Group. Prior to this, David Drew MP tabled the following written parliamentary questions:
David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will undertake an investigation into reliability of trains on Great Western lines; and if he will suspend the franchise process until reliability has improved.
Derek Twigg: Joint action plans are in place between Network Rail (who have overall responsibility for performance) and First Great Western and Wessex Trains to address performance trends. These are monitored monthly. The new Great Western franchise awarded to First Group plc, announced on 13 December contains clear and improving performance targets which the operator must meet.
David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the procedures are for Network Rail to give notice of maintenance works, with particular reference to the
7 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Great Western line; and how much notice is required to be given to the train operating companies.
Derek Twigg: Under condition 9 of its network licence, Network Rail is required to plan their engineering work, provide information about this work to train operators, and to manage the resulting revisions to the national timetable at least 12 weeks in advance of operation (T-12). The procedures apply to planned engineering works across the whole of Network Rail's network, including the Great Western line. Where it is necessary to carry out emergency engineering works, the notice given may be much shorter.
Rail Workers’ Pensions
The rail industry pension scheme was splintered into over one hundred units by privatisation. The Group has become aware that many employers are discussing closing existing pension schemes and introducing inferior arrangements. These include, increasing retirement ages, loss of protection against inflation and removal of ill health benefits.
In light of these attacks, the three rail unions have launched a joint campaign, and an EDM was tabled by RMT Group Chair, John McDonnell MP, seconded by Alan Simpson MP, ASLEF Group Chair. EDM 1681, tabled in February 2006, has already been supported by 25 MPs, and the full text and signatories can be viewed in Annex 1.
MPs also raised their concerns about the attacks on the rail workers’ pension scheme during the debate on 28th February 2006 on ‘Industrial Relations in the Railway Industry’. The full text of the adjournment debate can be viewed in Annex 3.
Indemnification of TOCs in dispute
In 2003, the SRA began offering indemnification to train operating companies (TOCs) that were in dispute. Tabled written parliamentary questions revealed that the DfT
In light of these answers, we tabled EDM 1093 ‘Indemnification of TOCs during industrial action’ to raise awareness of this practice. This has now been signed by over 40 MPs. For full text of the motion and signatory MPs, see Annex 1.
The Group has also sent documentary evidence and briefings to members of both the Transport Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee, and has encouraged both committees to set up an inquiry into this issue.
To further raise awareness of this issue, Group MPs have been applying for an adjournment debate. These debates take place outside of the main House of Commons chamber, but provide MPs with an opportunity to set the topic of a debate to which Ministers must attend. Each Government department responds to adjournment debates every two weeks, and there is a ballot to decide which topics are debated.
John McDonnell MP (Group Chair) was successful in the ballot, and secured a 90-minute adjournment debate on ‘Industrial Relations in the Railway Industry’, which took place on Tuesday 28th February 2006. As well as the indemnification of TOCs, John also raised other industrial relations issues including the Virgin Cross Country dispute, the Rail pensions scheme, and the relationship between the rail unions and ATOC. A number of other MPs also participated in the debate – the full text of which can be viewed in Annex 3. 8 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Crossrail
Following the second reading of the Bill in July 2005, a small committee of 12 MPs was appointed. The standing committee for the Crossrail Bill included two RMT Group MPs: Katy Clark and Kelvin Hopkins. The Committee had its first meeting in December 2005 and is continuing to meet.
Harry Cohen MP has also tabled EDM 982 ‘Construction of Crossrail’ to “call for the highest standards of health and safety and terms and conditions for those working on it which is almost certainly best achieved by the workforce being fully trade unionised”. To date this has been signed by 32 MPs (the full text and signatory MPs can be viewed in Annex 1.
Environmental case for Rail
Meeting with Elliot Morley (Environment Minister) and Derek Twigg (Rail Minister) - Wednesday 18th January 2006
This meeting arose as a result of an oral question by Katy Clark MP to Elliot Morley (Environment Minister) in October 2005. It was also the first occasion on which the Group had managed to arrange a joint meeting between the Transport and Environment departments.
A pre-meeting was held on Tuesday 17th January, prior to the regular Group meeting, to brief MPs in advance of the joint ministerial meeting. A written briefing was also circulated to all Group members.
Apologies: Lynne Jones, Gwyn Prosser, Alan Simpson, Graham Stringer
John McDonnell opened the meeting, spelling out the issues on the agenda. Elliot Morley replied that there was consensus on the environmental case for rail, and that DEFRA had joint agreements with DfT on air quality (especially in urban areas) and on climate (re: emissions). He said there is successful joint working at all levels of the two departments. Elliot Morley cited a number of issues on which the two departments had worked closely: rural transport, CO2 reduction, biofuels, biocrops, biomass, bioethanol, etc.
The Environment Minister added that DEFRA was also working with the Treasury to incentivise public transport use, but that they do not want to subsidise empty buses. He added that they could not tax aviation fuel as that would require international agreement (due to the Chicago Agreement).
John McDonnell asked how DEFRA was taken into account in policy-making, e.g. on new rail lines or on fares policy. Derek Twigg replied that all factors were taken into consideration, including economic aspects with the Treasury – the DfT does its own Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). He added that DEFRA was supportive of the DfT on road pricing, on which he said that funding and integration were key factors, and there had been a massive improvement in car technology (e.g. fuel efficiency) – however, both departments agreed that they “cannot build their way out” of transport problems with roads, and therefore road pricing would be used for “demand management”. In addition, bus use strategies are improving across the country.
Moving on to rail – the Minister said that cycling facilities had improved at stations, and the capacity to take cycles on trains. The UK has the fastest-growing railway in Europe (by 9 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP passenger use). Over one-third of rolling stock is being replaced – there is “phenomenal investment of over £87m per week” and 84% of trains are running on time. Kent has had £600m of new trains and similar in some other areas.
The DfT is also looking at making better use of existing capacity through the rail utilisation strategy (RUS), which meant looking at timetabling. Freight by rail has increased by 70% since the mid-1990s.
Derek Twigg said there was “quite a structured process for consultation on a new control period”. Elliot Morley added that each Department must produce a ‘Sustainable Communities Report’. The DfT has pledged to reduce noise pollution and emissions, and to look at the potential of hydrogen. He added that money had been poured in to rural lines, such as the Robin Hood line in Nottinghamshire, which will provide rail access for tourism to the community forest and national park.
John McDonnell asked if the environmental impact was adequately regarded in the decision- making process. Derek Twigg replied that for Crossrail had economic assessments and environmental impact assessments with an unprecedented depth of detail. He added that West Coast mainline was not running at anywhere near capacity, and that the Department was looking at the potential of: a north-south link; extending trains with more carriages; and looking at how to integrate transport with rail.
Bob Wareing welcomed the increased investment, and asked whether there was a Cabinet Committee on which both Ministers met, and why the UK had the highest fares in Europe. The Ministers replied that they sat together on the Environment & Energy Committee and also on the ‘Miscellaneous 25’ Committee, which looked at the Thames Gateway. With regard to fares, Twigg stated that there was a multitude of cheap and discounted fares – if there is any criticism it is that information is not always given clearly.
Jeremy Corbyn asked about the possibility of re-opening the east-west freight line, and that it could also link to a new housing development in the area, and there was also therefore an economic case. He also stated that the North London orbital line needed upgrading and that he was contributing to the review/consultation. Derek Twigg replied that they were looking at the east-west freight line, and that the Freight Rail Utilisation Strategy (FRUS) was looking at ways of getting more out of the system.
Katy Clark said that in Scotland Environmental Assessments were mandatory, and asked whether the Government Ministers had looked at replicating the Scottish experience. Katy also asked about the deep water port at Hunterston, from which 15% of the freight traffic goes by road, and asked what environmental assessments had taken place. Elliot Morley replied that it was not necessary as EU Directives require such assessments anyway. Twigg replied that the new ports policy was very important in light of the Thames Gateway. He added that all DfT EIAs were published.
Kelvin Hopkins said that there was still only a modest amount of freight going by rail, although it had improved. He is involved in promoting a Glasgow to Channel Tunnel super- guage freight link to take road haulage trailers and double-stack containers. This would link with the rest of Europe through the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL), with a terminal at the Thames Gateway. This could also be a saviour for the Channel Tunnel, which is bankrupt. Compared with Crossrail this would be cheap (estimated £2.5bn). It could be built on existing old track bed.
Kelvin stated that for the UK proposal, the main spine of the freight line would run from Glasgow through all major industrial centres to east and west London, and then through into Europe. If this is not built it could damage the UK economy.
10 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
The Minister replied that freight use was being looked at in the FRUS, but that he was happy to meet to further discuss these proposals. He also suggested that this proposal should be raised with Rod Eddington as part of his review.
As Elliot Morley had to leave to attend another meeting, John McDonnell asked if he would be prepared to take part in a joint TUC/DEFRA/DfT spring seminar or conference on the ‘Environmental case for Rail’. The Minister replied that he would, but that it should be called the ‘Sustainable case for Rail’ rather than ‘Environmental’.
Derek Twigg stated that the DfT accepts the environmental and sustainable case for rail, and said there was a moral case too. However, it depended on what was affordable and expenditure on rail was set to 2009, which is the end of the control period. He also said project affordability would be considered in the FRUS and the Eddington Review, and options for drawing in money from the private sector, developers and local authorities.
John McDonnell asked for a note on the process and nature of DfT environmental assessments, to which the Minister agreed. John said that the three rail unions were serious about the conference / seminar, and that it could promote the environmental benefits of rail and showcase the improvements made. Derek Twigg agreed that the DfT would be happy to participate in such a conference, diary dates permitting. John also asked whether the DfT could attend a session or become a member of TUSDAC (a DEFRA/TUC body). The Minister replied that he would “get back on that”.
David Drew asked about service reliability on the Great Western rail franchise, and that Wessex had put no effort into the service, once it became clear it would lose the franchise. The Minister replied that this was a “new system of franchising” and that First Group were offering £200m of improvements.
The Rail Minister end by agreeing that a lot of good people had been lost at privatisation, but that Network Rail had set up an apprenticeship scheme again.
Environmental Case for Rail EDM
To continue the campaign and raise awareness of the issues, the Group tabled EDM 1678 ‘Environmental Case for Rail’ in February. The EDM was tabled with around 20 MPs having expressed their support, and has now been supported by a further 30 MPs. The full text of the EDM and its signatories are listed in Annex 1 of the report.
The top six sponsoring MPs were John McDonnell MP (Group Chair), Gavin Strang MP (former Transport Minister), Joan Walley MP (former Transport Minister), David Drew MP (Environment Select Committee), Graham Stringer MP (Transport Select Committee) and Katy Clark MP (who first raised the issue in Parliament in October 2005).
Sustainable case for Rail seminar – 12th June 2006
A date has now been arranged for a joint conference, organised by the RMT and the Group, co-sponsored by the TUC and rail unions, and both the DfT and DEFRA. This will take place in the House of Commons on Monday 12th June, and both Derek Twigg and Elliot Morley have agreed to speak.
11 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
The Environmental Audit Committee has also called a new enquiry entitled ‘Reducing Carbon Emissions from Transport’, to which the RMT has sent evidence.
Delivering Safer Rail Stations
In February 2006, the Public Accounts Committee published a report entitled Maintaining and Improving Britain's Railway Stations. The report found that passengers would like to feel safe and secure at rail stations, with staff and good quality information available.
The Group welcomed the report, and tabled EDM 1680 ‘Delivering Safer Rail Stations’, which also noted data from the British Transport Police about crime statistics at rail stations, as well as the RMT study which concluded that the £200 million saved by bringing train operating companies back into public ownership would pay for more than 1600 extra station staff and double the stations' improvements budget.
The EDM, tabled by Kelvin Hopkins, has already been signed by nearly 40 MPs, and a briefing has been distributed to MPs. The full text and signatory MPs can be viewed in Annex 1.
LONDON UNDERGROUND
LU PPP
The Group wrote to London Mayor Ken Livingstone to request a meeting about the future of the London Underground. The Mayor replied just before Christmas 2005 to say that he would be pleased to meet a delegation of RMT Group MPs.
A meeting has been arranged, to discuss the PPP and fire safety regulations at London Underground stations, and is scheduled to take place on Tuesday 28th March 2006 in the Mayor’s office at City Hall. However, due to the Mayor’s legal battle with the Standards Board it is not clear whether this meeting will have to be postponed.
EDM 794 ‘London Underground Public Private Partnership and Train Maintenance’, which: “calls on the Government to ensure that the necessary powers are made available to allow all London Underground maintenance to be brought back in-house“; has received support from 32 MPs. The full text of the EDM and supportive MPs can be viewed in Annex 1.
Fire Safety Regulations
EDM 549 on Fire Precautions Regulations, tabled by John McDonnell in July 2005 has now received the support of 64 MPs. For a full list of signatories and the text of the EDM, see Annex 1.
The RMT Parliamentary Group has been leading the campaign, also supported by the FBU and ASLEF Groups, on changes to the fire safety regulations at sub-surface rail stations that were brought in following the 1987 Kings Cross fire. On 9th December 2005, John McDonnell (RMT Group Chair), Michael Clapham (FBU Group vice-chair) and Frank Dobson MP (MP for Holborn & St Pancras) co-signed a letter to Jim Fitzpatrick to request a meeting. The full text of the letter can be viewed in Annex 2. 12 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Celia Barlow MP (Hove), a member of the FBU Parliamentary Group, secured a 90-minute adjournment debate on 25th January 2006 on this subject. The Group provided Celia with detailed briefing material, and distributed briefings to all Group members.
John McDonnell MP (RMT Group Chair) and Andrew Dismore MP (FBU Group Chair) also attended the debate, as did David Taylor MP. During the adjournment debate John asked the Minister whether he would agree to meet a delegation of MPs, as per the letter sent on 9th December 2005, to discuss this issue further (the full text of the adjournment debate can be viewed in Annex 3 of the report).
A meeting was arranged for Wednesday 1st March, at which the Minister agreed to consider a working party on the new regulations. A summary note of the meeting is copied below.
Meeting with Jim Fitzpatrick on fire safety regulations at sub-surface rail stations – Wednesday 1st March 2006
Apologies: Michael Clapham MP, Jeremy Corbyn MP, Andrew Dismore MP, David Drew MP
John McDonnell opened the meeting and asked Jim Fitzpatrick to outline the current progress with the Fire Safety Order (RR(FS)O). The Minister said the new regulations would be run dual track with the existing regulations for 6-12 months, until there is clear evidence to go with the FSO – although “we will consult with the RMT beforehand”. The implementation of the RR(FS)O has been put back from 1st April, and is now expected to be 1st October 2006. This will therefore be the start date of the ‘dual track’ running of the new and old regulations.
The RR(FS)O subordinate provisions order is scheduled to be laid next week, this changes the date from April to October. Jim said he believed six months would be adequate for the ‘dual track’ and then there would be a revocation order to repeal the old regulations. Jim also apologised for the delay in replying to John’s letter following-up the questions raised in the adjournment debate at the end of January. The reply was only received three hours before this meeting.
John McDonnell thanked Jim for his reply, and said that he would welcome a full 12 months for running the regulations dual track. He and Philip proposed the establishment of a working party to look at where the existing regulations could be strengthened and at where weaknesses could be identified within the new regulations.
The Minister replied that the new suite [of regulations] enhanced the existing provision, and he was confident that it would result in better protection. He recognised that “people were not persuaded”. He said the new suite enables London Underground (LU) to vary levels of staffing, but states there must be an “appropriate or minimum number”. The new suite means more flexibility, but increased complexity, and overall boosts the ability of safety reps to improve safety.
Philip Dee conceded that the RR(FS)O covered more aspects, but it is low on specifics, as it was down to Risk Assessments (RAs) to judge the appropriate level. Based on his experience of dealing with RAs under the Health & Safety Act, he was not confident about this approach. The Minister replied that the 6 or 12 month dual track period, would be an opportunity to look for any evidence of diminution. However, it was pointed out that this would not be possible as the existing regulations provide a minimum – the problems would arise once that minimum is revoked. The Minister was asked whether it would therefore be
13 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP possible to run the two regulatory systems permanently dual track. He replied that it would not be possible as the two systems would conflict. As the regulations are being run dual track for 6-12 months, it was asked how any conflicts would be resolved in this period.
John McDonnell therefore again raised the possibility of a working party to identify vulnerabilities. The Minister said he would need some evidence first, otherwise he would be reluctant to commit staff, but if he received evidence of areas of potential vulnerability, he would convene a working party. Harry Cohen suggested that the FBU should also be involved in any working party.
John then raised some concerns about the guidance being issued to accompany the RR(FS)O. Andy Jack from the ODPM said that the contractors, BuroHappold, would present a draft to the next stakeholder group meeting on 10th March. This would be general guidance for all transport premises, with some separate consideration of sub-surface rail stations. John asked if this guidance would go before the Regulatory Reform Committee (RRC). Andy replied that it did “not have to, but will look at that”. John replied that it would be useful to send it back to the RRC, if only for information, and it would provide a focus.
Harry Cohen asked what was the role of the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) in the guidance and its operation. Andy replied that from 1st April it was the responsibility of the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR), but that the HSE is part of the stakeholder group.
John McDonnell then asked about the process once the draft guidance had been presented to the stakeholder group. Andy replied that the stakeholder group would have about six weeks to look at the draft guidance, and some additional meetings would be convened to discuss some areas of detail. He said at the last meeting it was “put forcefully” to BuroHappold that sub-surface rail must be included, but we “wait to see to what extent”. The guidance is expected to be finalised by June. John replied that it would be useful for the Minister to send a copy to the RRC and to then have another meeting with the RMT parliamentary group. Fitzpatrick agreed to reflect on the possibility of taking the guidance back to the RRC and said that of course he would be happy to have another meeting at that stage.
Philip Dee then raised a technical issue about alteration notices – asking what was the scope of alterations that would have to be notified to the Fire Authority. The Minister replied that any changes would have to be notified to the London Fire Brigade (LFB) as the enforcer. Andy Jack added that it would up to LFB to decide what scope of notifications it would require.
London Underground cleaners
In December 2005, John McDonnell MP tabled EDM 1278 ‘Wages of London Underground Cleaners’, to highlight the appallingly low pay of contract cleaners on the London Underground and to condemn contractors such as ISS and Blue Diamond. The EDM concluded by calling for their pay to be raised to at least £6.70 per hour. For the full text and list of signatory MPs, see Annex 1.
In February 2006 Blue Diamond’s cleaning contract was terminated by Metronet, as it was revealed that the contractor had been paying their workers £5.05 per hour despite having agreed a basic wage of £5.50 with Metronet at the start of the contract in October 2005.
London Terrorist attacks 14 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
EDM 575 ‘Public Service Workers and the Terrorist Attacks in London’, tabled by John McDonnell MP, has now been signed by 84 MPs.
The EDM commends “the bravery and professionalism of those London Underground, national rail network and London bus service workers who were on hand to provide support and assistance in the immediate aftermath of the attacks”. The full text and list of signatory MPs can be viewed in Annex 1.
15 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
MARITIME
Irish Ferries dispute
On 8th December 2005, the Group wrote to Dr Stephen Ladyman MP (Transport Minister with responsibility for maritime issues) to set out its concerns about the dispute and the European Directive. The full text of the letter can be found in Annex 2. The Minister replied in January stating that he had been in touch with the Irish authorities, and that the dispute was now resolved. He also stated that “it should be borne in mind that both the UK and Ireland are members of the EU, and that we are bound by its rules on the single market and non- discrimination”.
John McDonnell MP (Group Chair) tabled EDM 1222 ‘Treatment of Seafarers’ to highlight the dispute, and the EDM has been signed by nearly 50 MPs. For a full list of signatories and the text of the EDM, see Annex 1.
Tonnage Tax
The Group will also shortly meet with Transport Minister (maritime) Dr Stephen Ladyman MP to discuss the review of the Tonnage Tax. At the previous meeting with the Minister in October 2005, the Minister agreed to meet with the Group on a quarterly basis.
The Minister replied in mid-December to say that he would soon be receiving the final proposals from the Employment Sub Group, and that he would be happy to meet again with the Group, once he had considered the proposals. It is hoped that a new meeting will take place before the Easter recess.
In advance of Treasury questions on Thursday 2nd March, Gwyn Prosser MP tabled an oral question on behalf of the Group on the review of the tonnage tax regime. The question was drawn at No.22, and this meant that it was not reached in the Treasury questions session.
EDM 200 ‘Tonnage Tax and UK Seafarers’ Employment’, tabled by John McDonnell MP, has now been signed by over 90 MPs. You can view the full text of the EDM and the list of supporter MPs in Annex 1.
Thames Boatmasters’ Licences
On 13th December 2005, John McDonnell MP (Group Chair) met with a small delegation of RMT members to discuss the implications of an EU Directive about standards on waterways that would result in a lowering of standards on the Thames, following the 1989 Marchioness disaster.
16 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS
In October 2005, John McDonnell MP (Group Chair) tabled EDM 724 ‘Working Conditions for Road Transport Workers’ to urge the Government “to sign and implement ILO Convention 153 at the earliest possible opportunity”. The EDM has gained the support of nearly 60 MPs – the full text and signatory MPs can be viewed in Annex 1.
CAMPAIGN FOR A TRADE UNION FREEDOM BILL
At the TUC Conference in September, the RMT and TGWU passed a resolution in favour of a campaign for a Trade Union Freedom Bill, following the dispute at Gate Gourmet. The institute of Employment Rights in consultation with the TUC, a number of unions, and John McDonnell MP have been involved in extensive consultations on the content of such a Bill which would initially be published by the House of Commons as a Presentation Bill, and then promoted as a ‘private’ Bill.
From October onwards, MP signatures have been solicited to table an EDM in support of this campaign. The EDM was tabled at the end of November 2005 with over 50 MPs signed up in advance, and now has the support of 117 MPs, of whom 108 are Labour MPs.
The next stages of this campaign will involve coordinated parliamentary activity, and the preliminary drafting of the Bill by parliamentary draughts-people for further consultation, before a National march and lobby of Parliament, coordinated by the TUC. This will take place on 1st May 2006 to coincide with the May Day bank holiday.
JOINT PUBLIC SERVICES CAMPAIGN
The RMT is one of ten unions co-sponsoring a campaign to promote public service against private profit. Bob Crow, RMT General Secretary will be speaking at a rally held in Committee Room 10 of the House of Commons on Wednesday 29th March 2006 at 7pm.
The rally is a prelude to a larger rally and lobby of Parliament which will take place on Tuesday 27th June 2006. The rally will be held in Methodist Central Hall, and it is hoped that over 1,000 trade unionists will lobby their MPs to emphasise the benefits of public service over private profit.
17 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Annex 1 - EDMs
Listed below are all Early Day Motions tabled or supported by the RMT Parliamentary Group in this session of Parliament (since the May 2005 General Election). Note the signatures are at the time of writing. As the EDMs will run until November 2006 the signatures are likely to increase substantially for some EDM’s
EDM 200 TONNAGE TAX AND UK SEAFARERS’ EMPLOYMENT 93 signatures
That this House is deeply concerned that the total number of UK seafaring ratings has declined from 30,000 ratings in 1980 to less than 10,000 in 2004; notes that the proportion of British officers is also declining and has fallen by more than 27 per cent. in the last three years; regrets that the decline has continued despite the Government's tonnage tax regime and the millions of pounds of public subsidy to ship owners; believes that the decline in UK seafarers cannot be allowed to continue if this country is to retain a core of essential maritime skills; welcomes the Transport Committee report which seeks more ambition from Government in ensuring wider benefits to the UK from the tonnage tax; believes that the UK Government must take responsibility for ensuring the tax delivers UK seafarers' skills; further welcomes the fact that the Government has set up a special working party to formulate measures to increase training and employment opportunities for UK ratings and officers; and urges the Government to ensure that this review leads to a tonnage tax employment and training link for ratings and officers.
John McDonnell Abbott, Diane Bailey, Adrian Bellingham, Henry Bottomley, Peter Brazier, Julian Brokenshire, James Campbell, Gregory Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Cohen, Harry Connarty, Michael Conway, Derek Corbyn, Jeremy Crausby, David Cryer, Ann Cummings, John Dean, Janet Dismore, Andrew Donohoe, Brian H Drew, David Dunwoody, Gwyneth Eagle, Angela Efford, Clive Ellman, Louise Etherington, Bill Fabricant, Michael Francis, Hywel Fraser, Christopher Garnier, Edward George, Andrew Gibson, Ian Gillan, Cheryl Gove, Michael Hamilton, David Hammond, Philip Hancock, Mike Harper, Mark Harris, Evan Hayes, John Heald, Oliver Hemming, John Hendry, Charles Hepburn, Stephen Holloway, Adam Hopkins, Kelvin Horam, John Hoyle, Lindsay Iddon, Brian Jackson, Glenda Jones, David Jones, Lynne Law, Peter Lazarowicz, Mark Lewis, Julian Marshall, David McDonnell, John Meale, Alan Mercer, Patrick Miller, Andrew Mitchell, Austin Morgan, Julie Mundell, David Murrison, Andrew O'Hara, Edward Owen, Albert Paice, James Pound, Stephen Prentice, Gordon Price, Adam Prosser, Gwyn Riordan, Linda Robertson, Angus Salmond, Alex Sarwar, Mohammad Selous, Andrew
Simpson, Alan Smith, John P Spelman, Caroline Spink, Bob Swire, Hugo Taylor, David 18 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Teather, Sarah Thornberry, Emily Truswell, Paul Turner, Desmond Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Watkinson, Angela Weir, Mike Wiggin, Bill Williams, Betty Williams, Hywel Wyatt, Derek
EDM 230 BRITTANY FERRIES 33 signatures
That this House is deeply concerned at the recent announcement by Brittany Ferries that it is to withdraw from the proposed acquisition of two P & O Ferries vessels on the Western Channel; notes that P & O Ferries has stated that it intends to discontinue services on the Portsmouth to Le-Havre route from September; believes that the decision of the Office of Fair Trading not to approve the acquisition of these ships by Brittany Ferries, and the consequent lengthy referral to the Competition Commission, damaged the UK ferry industry and led to the potential dismissal of 270 UK seafarers; further notes that if neither operator continues services there will be no ferry service from the United Kingdom to Caen, Cherbourg or Le Havre and that these dismissals are in addition to a further 900 redundancies for United Kingdom seafarers who have also been dismissed as part of the same exercise within the P & O Ferries Group; and therefore calls on the Secretary of State for Transport to intervene in this matter with the companies concerned and to ensure that the United Kingdom ferry industry retains a core of United Kingdom seafaring skills.
John McDonnell Burden, Richard Clark, Katy Cohen, Harry Corbyn, Jeremy Crausby, David Cryer, Ann Dean, Janet Dobbin, Jim Dodds, Nigel Donaldson, Jeffrey Donohoe, Brian H Drew, David Etherington, Bill Francis, Hywel Hamilton, David Hancock, Mike Hepburn, Stephen Hopkins, Kelvin Hoyle, Lindsay Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne Law, Peter Llwyd, Elfyn McGovern, Jim Meale, Alan Pound, Stephen Price, Adam Prosser, Gwyn Riordan, Linda Robinson, Iris Skinner, Dennis Wareing, Robert N
EDM 351 NORTHERN RAIL SERVICES 57 signatures
That this House notes that under the terms of the Railways Act 2005 the Government will assume responsibility for the Strategic Rail Authority's review of service and fare levels on the Northern Rail franchise; is concerned at previous press reports that the review could lead to higher fares, replacing off-peak rail services with buses, line closures and job losses; and therefore urges the Government to use its powers under the Railways Bill to oppose any line or station closures, job cuts and substitution of rail services with buses on Northern Rail services.
Graham Stringer Anderson, David Anderson, Janet Beith, AJ Blackman-Woods, Roberta Borrow, David S Burgon, Colin
Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Corbyn, Jeremy Cousins, Jim Crausby, David Cryer, Ann Dean, Janet Dismore, Andrew Efford, Clive Ellman, Louise Etherington, Bill Farron, Timothy
19 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Galloway, George Goodman, Helen Grogan, John Hancock, Mike Henderson, Doug Hendrick, Mark Hepburn, Stephen Heyes, David Hodgson, Sharon Holmes, Paul Hopkins, Kelvin Howarth, George Hoyle, Lindsay Humble, Joan Jenkins, Brian Jones, Kevan Jones, Lynne Kemp, Fraser Marsden, Gordon Martlew, Eric McCafferty, Chris McDonnell, John Mitchell, Austin Moore, Michael Murphy, Denis Simpson, Alan Singh, Marsha Skinner, Dennis Smith, Geraldine Stunell, Andrew Trickett, Jon Truswell, Paul Ussher, Kitty Vis, Rudi Walley, Joan Wareing, Robert N Willis, Phil Wright, Iain
EDM 352 NETWORK RAIL 36 signatures
That this House welcomes the significant reductions in delays attributable to infrastructure failure and improved efficiency since Network Rail brought maintenance back in-house on a not-for-dividend basis; is concerned that this progress will be undermined by proposals to break up Network Rail by transferring sections of its infrastructure and operations to Merseyrail and that these assets will then be sub-let to the private sector; is further concerned that this proposal could be a prelude to transferring all signalling operations and maintenance work back to the private sector; and therefore urges the Government to retain Network Rail as a unified and not-for-dividend organisation.
Robert Wareing Abbott, Diane Caton, Martin Clapham, Michael Clark, Katy Cook, Frank Corbyn, Jeremy Cryer, Ann Dean, Janet Dobbin, Jim Drew, David Efford, Clive Etherington, Bill Galloway, George Gibson, Ian Hancock, Mike Hemming, John Hepburn, Stephen Hopkins, Kelvin Hoyle, Lindsay Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne Lloyd, Tony Llwyd, Elfyn McDonnell, John McGovern, Jim Meacher, Michael Mitchell, Austin Owen, Albert Price, Adam Riordan, Linda Simpson, Alan Skinner, Dennis Strang, Gavin Taylor, David Vis, Rudi
EDM 395 SOUTH EASTERN TRAINS 34 signatures
That this House remains deeply concerned that, despite public subsidy being more than three times the amount received by British Rail, passengers continue to endure far worse punctuality rates than under public ownership; welcomes the improvement in reliability and punctuality of South Eastern Train services since the decision of the Strategic Rail Authority in November 2003 to return the service to public ownership; notes the report by the Catalyst think-tank that public ownership of the railway would save a minimum of £500 million a year; is further deeply concerned that the Government intends to re-privatise South Eastern Trains; regrets that South Eastern Trains was not allowed to tender for this franchise, removing any public sector comparator; and therefore calls upon the Government to allow South Eastern Trains to submit a public sector bid to ensure improvement and value for money on the United Kingdom's rail network. 20 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Clive Efford Abbott, Diane Anderson, David Austin, John Brake, Tom Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Cook, Frank Corbyn, Jeremy Cruddas, Jon Cryer, Ann Dean, Janet Drew, David Flynn, Paul Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Hancock, Mike Hopkins, Kelvin Hoyle, Lindsay Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne Marshall, David Marshall-Andrews, Robert McDonnell, John Mitchell, Austin Prosser, Gwyn Riordan, Linda Simpson, Alan Skinner, Dennis Stringer, Graham Turner, Desmond Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty
EDM 447 SOUTH EASTERN TRAINS’ TICKET OFFICES CUTS 36 signatures
That this House notes South Eastern Trains' proposals to close and reduce the opening times of ticket offices at their stations; believes that any closures or reductions in ticket office opening times will lead to a lower level of service to the travelling public in general and to disabled people in particular, 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 and is opposed to any loss in jobs which could result from the proposals; and therefore calls on South Eastern Trains to withdraw their plans.
Gwyn Prosser Abbott, Diane Austin, John Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Cohen, Harry Cook, Frank Corbyn, Jeremy Cryer, Ann Cummings, John Dowd, Jim Drew, David Dunwoody, Gwyneth Fallon, Michael Flynn, Paul Hancock, Mike Hopkins, Kelvin Hoyle, Lindsay Jones, Lynne Law, Peter Marshall-Andrews, Robert McDonnell, John McGovern, Jim Morgan, Julie Pelling, Andrew Prentice, Gordon Riordan, Linda Robinson, Iris Rosindell, Andrew Simpson, Alan Stoate, Howard Turner, Neil Vis, Rudi Widdecombe, Ann Wyatt, Derek
EDM 532 PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF THAMESLINK/GREAT NORTHERN FRANCHISE 29 signatures
That this House remains deeply concerned that despite public subsidy being more than three times the amount received by British Rail, passengers continue to endure far worse punctuality rates than under public ownership; notes proposals to create a new Thameslink/Great Northern franchise by combining existing operations at the Thameslink and Great Northern (currently WAGN) franchises to take effect from April 2006; welcomes the improvements in performance and reliability on South Eastern Trains since this service returned to the public sector, and the report by Catalyst think-tank stating that public ownership of the railway would save a minimum of £500 million a year; and therefore calls upon the Government to integrate passenger services on the current Thameslink and Great Northern routes into the public sector as the existing franchises expire. 21 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Kelvin Hopkins Abbott, Diane Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Cohen, Harry Corbyn, Jeremy Cousins, Jim Cryer, Ann Dean, Janet Dismore, Andrew Dobbin, Jim Drew, David Etherington, Bill Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Hancock, Mike Hemming, John Hepburn, Stephen Illsley, Eric Jones, Lynne McDonnell, John McGovern, Jim Mitchell, Austin Riordan, Linda Simpson, Alan Taylor, David Turner, Desmond Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N
EDM 534 PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF GREATER WESTERN FRANCHISE 36 signatures
That this House remains deeply concerned that, despite public subsidy being more than three times the amount received by British Rail, passengers continue to endure far worse punctuality rates than under public ownership; notes proposals to create a new Greater Western franchise from April 2006 by combining existing operations at the Great Western, Great Western Link and Wessex Trains franchises; welcomes the improvements in performance and reliability on South Eastern Trains since this service returned to the public sector, and the report by the Catalyst think-tank stating that public ownership of the railway would save a minimum of £500 million a year; and therefore calls upon the Government to integrate passenger services in the Greater Western area into the public sector as existing franchises expire.
David Drew Abbott, Diane Berry, Roger Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Cohen, Harry Corbyn, Jeremy Cousins, Jim Cryer, Ann Dean, Janet Dobbin, Jim Etherington, Bill Flynn, Paul Gibson, Ian Hancock, Mike Hemming, John Hood, Jimmy Hopkins, Kelvin Illsley, Eric James, Sian C Jones, Lynne Llwyd, Elfyn Marshall, David McDonnell, John McGovern, Jim Mitchell, Austin Morgan, Julie Osborne, Sandra Owen, Albert Price, Adam Riordan, Linda Simpson, Alan Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty Williams, Hywel
EDM 549 FIRE PRECAUTIONS REGULATIONS 64 signatures
That this House condemns the terrorist attacks on London's public transport network and commends the bravery and professionalism of the emergency services, London Underground, national rail network and London bus service workers who were on hand to provide assistance and support in the immediate aftermath of the attacks; notes that the Government is set to review 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 the 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; believes that these minimum standards are
22 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP even more essential in light of the recent terrorist attacks; and calls on the Government to retain in full the 1989 Regulations.
John McDonnell Abbott, Diane Barlow, Celia Betts, Clive Bottomley, Peter Brooke, Annette Campbell, Gregory Caton, Martin Clapham, Michael Clark, Katy Cohen, Harry Conway, Derek Corbyn, Jeremy Cryer, Ann Dean, Janet Devine, Jim Dismore, Andrew Drew, David Durkan, Mark Etherington, Bill Evans, Nigel Featherstone, Lynne Fisher, Mark Francis, Hywel Galloway, George Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Hamilton, David Hancock, Mike Hemming, John Hepburn, Stephen Hillier, Meg Hopkins, Kelvin Jackson, Glenda Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne Kaufman, Gerald Law, Peter Lepper, David Lloyd, Tony Love, Andrew Marshall, David McGovern, Jim Mitchell, Austin Morgan, Julie Penning, Mike Price, Adam Prosser, Gwyn Pugh, John Riordan, Linda Robinson, Iris Rowen, Paul Russell, Bob Scott, Lee Short, Clare Simpson, Alan Skinner, Dennis Taylor, David Thornberry, Emily Truswell, Paul Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Whittingdale, John Williams, Hywel
EDM 575 PUBLIC SERVICE WORKERS AND THE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON LONDON 84 signatures
That this House congratulates all the emergency service workers who came to the assistance of tube and bus passengers who were injured and trapped as a result of the terrorist attacks on London's public transport network; commends the bravery and professionalism of those London Underground, national rail network and London bus service workers who were on hand to provide support and assistance in the immediate aftermath of the attacks; and believes they were a credit to their profession.
John McDonnell Abbott, Diane Anderson, Janet Barrett, John
Bottomley, Peter Brake, Tom Brooke, Annette Cable, Vincent Campbell, Gregory Caton, Martin Clapham, Michael Clark, Katy Clelland, David Cohen, Harry Conway, Derek Corbyn, Jeremy Cryer, Ann Dean, Janet Dismore, Andrew Donaldson, Jeffrey Drew, David Durkan, Mark Efford, Clive Ennis, Jeff Etherington, Bill Galloway, George George, Andrew Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Hamilton, David Hancock, Mike Hemming, John Hepburn, Stephen Holmes, Paul Hopkins, Kelvin Hosie, Stewart Hughes, Simon Iddon, Brian Illsley, Eric Jackson, Glenda Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne Keetch, Paul Kidney, David Lazarowicz, Mark Leech, John Lepper, David Lloyd, Tony Llwyd, Elfyn
23 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
MacNeil, Angus Marris, Rob Marshall, David McDonagh, Siobhain Meale, Alan Mitchell, Austin Morgan, Julie Osborne, Sandra Owen, Albert Pelling, Andrew Price, Adam Pugh, John Riordan, Linda Robertson, Angus Rosindell, Andrew Salmond, Alex Seabeck, Alison Simpson, Alan Slaughter, Andrew Smith, John P Spink, Bob Swinson, Jo Taylor, David Teather, Sarah Thornberry, Emily Todd, Mark Truswell, Paul Turner, Desmond Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Weir, Mike Williams, Betty Williams, Hywel Wishart, Pete Wyatt, Derek
EDM 724 WORKING CONDITIONS FOR ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS 57 signatures
That this House pays tribute to the vital role road transport workers in both the bus and road haulage industries play in the UK economy; believes it is essential that these workers are treated fairly and have the right to work in a safe working environment; is deeply concerned that the UK Government has yet to ratify ILO Convention 153, which regulates rest periods, driving times and the working week; welcomes the International Transport Workers Federation Campaign in support of road transport workers worldwide; and urges the UK Government to sign and implement ILO Convention 153 at the earliest possible opportunity.
John McDonnell Abbott, Diane Anderson, David Austin, John Berry, Roger Betts, Clive Brown, Russell Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Clapham, Michael Clark, Katy Corbyn, Jeremy Crausby, David Cruddas, Jon Cryer, Ann Dismore, Andrew Dobbin, Jim Drew, David Durkan, Mark Efford, Clive Etherington, Bill Francis, Hywel Gapes, Mike Gibson, Ian Hamilton, David Hancock, Mike Hepburn, Stephen Hermon, Sylvia Hillier, Meg Hopkins, Kelvin Hoyle, Lindsay Illsley, Eric Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne
Lazarowicz, Mark Llwyd, Elfyn Love, Andrew Marris, Rob Marshall, David McCafferty, Chris McGovern, Jim Meale, Alan Mitchell, Austin Moffat, Anne Osborne, Sandra Owen, Albert Riordan, Linda Russell, Bob Sheridan, Jim Simpson, Alan Strang, Gavin Trickett, Jon Truswell, Paul Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty Williams, Hywel
EDM 794 LONDON UNDERGROUND PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP AND TRAIN MAINTENANCE 32 signatures
That this House expresses its concern at the severe delays on the London Underground Northern Line services caused by faulty train design; congratulates London Underground 24 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP drivers for protecting the travelling public by refusing to work for safety reasons; believes that identifying and fixing the fault has been made more difficult by the fragmentation of train maintenance resulting from the ill-conceived part privatisation of the Underground; is alarmed that the largest public private partnership Infraco Metronet, is pressing ahead with proposals to outsource its train maintenance from 2007; and therefore calls on the Government to ensure that the necessary powers are made available to allow all London Underground maintenance to be brought back in-house.
John McDonnell Abbott, Diane Anderson, David Austin, John Caton, Martin Clapham, Michael Clark, Katy Cohen, Harry Cook, Frank Corbyn, Jeremy Cryer, Ann Cummings, John Drew, David Etherington, Bill Flynn, Paul Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Hemming, John Hopkins, Kelvin Law, Peter Llwyd, Elfyn Marshall-Andrews, Bob McCafferty, Chris Mitchell, Austin Owen, Albert Price, Adam Riordan, Linda Simpson, Alan Skinner, Dennis Stringer, Graham Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N
EDM 982 CONSTRUCTION OF CROSSRAIL 32 signatures
That this House notes that the Department for Transport's economic appraisal of the Crossrail project forecasts a net benefit to the UK economy of £14 billion; urges the Government to ensure that this major piece of infrastructure is built as soon as possible; and calls for the highest standards of health and safety and terms and conditions for those working on it which is almost certainly best achieved by the workforce being fully trade unionised.
Harry Cohen Abbott, Diane Brake, Tom Brown, Lyn Burstow, Paul Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Connarty, Michael Corbyn, Jeremy Cryer, Ann
Cruddas, Jon Devine, Jim Dismore, Andrew Etherington, Bill Gapes, Mike Gibson, Ian Hopkins, Kelvin Jackson, Glenda Jenkins, Brian Khabra, Piara S Lepper, David McDonnell, John McGovern, Jim Mitchell, Austin Owen, Albert Prentice, Gordon Prosser, Gwyn Riordan, Linda Robinson, Iris Simpson, Alan Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N
EDM 1093 INDEMNIFICATION OF TRAIN OPERATING COMPANIES DURING INDUSTRIAL ACTION 41 signatures
That this House notes with concern the Government's continuation of a scheme, started by the Strategic Rail Authority, which indemnifies train operating companies against operating losses caused by strike action; declares the scheme to be a very clear intervention in industrial relations by a Government which consistently claims to be opposed to such interventions; further notes that £23 million has been paid to train operating companies in
25 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP compensation for industrial action; and therefore calls on the Government to abandon this ill-conceived scheme immediately.
John McDonnell Austin, John Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Clapham, Michael Clark, Katy Cohen, Harry Connarty, Michael Corbyn, Jeremy Cousins, Jim Cryer, Ann Cummings, John Dean, Janet Devine, Jim Dismore, Andrew Dobbin, Jim Drew, David Etherington, Bill Gibson, Ian Hamilton, David Hepburn, Stephen Hopkins, Kelvin Illsley, Eric Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne Lloyd, Tony Llwyd, Elfyn Marris, Rob Marshall-Andrews, Robert Meale, Alan Mitchell, Austin Price, Adam Pugh, John Riordan, Linda Rowen, Paul Simpson, Alan Skinner, Dennis Stringer, Graham Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Williams, Hywel
EDM 1170 CAMPAIGN FOR A TRADE UNION FREEDOM BILL 116 signatures
That this House recognises that free and independent trade unions are a force for good in our society and around the world, and are vital to our 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 Trades Disputes Act; notes the overwhelming support at both the TUC and Labour Party Conference for the Gate Gourmet Workers and for improvements in union rights, including measures to simplify ballot procedures and to allow limited supportive action, following a ballot, in specific circumstances; further notes that these conferences called for legislation which conformed to ILO Conventions ratified by the UK and therefore welcomes the decision of the 2005 TUC Congress to campaign for a Trade Union Freedom Bill to mark the 100 year anniversary of the 1906 Trades Disputes Act.
Tony Lloyd John McDonnell Alan Keen Frank Doran Jon Cruddas Frank Dobson
Abbott, Diane Anderson, David Austin, Ian Austin, John Banks, Gordon Berry, Roger Betts, Clive Borrow, David S Brown, Lyn Burden, Richard Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Challen, Colin Chaytor, David Clapham, Michael Clark, Katy Clelland, David Cohen, Harry Connarty, Michael Cook, Frank Corbyn, Jeremy Cousins, Jim Crausby, David Cruddas, Jon Cryer, Ann Cummings, John Cunningham, Jim Davidson, Ian Dean, Janet Devine, Jim Dismore, Andrew Dobbin, Jim Dobson, Frank Donohoe, Brian H Doran, Frank Drew, David
26 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Dunwoody, Gwyneth Durkan, Mark Eagle, Angela Engel, Natascha Ennis, Jeff Etherington, Bill Farrelly, Paul Flynn, Paul Francis, Hywel Galloway, George Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Godsiff, Roger Griffith, Nia Hamilton, David Hancock, Mike Havard, Dai Hemming, John Hepburn, Stephen Heyes, David Hoey, Kate Hopkins, Kelvin Howarth, George Hoyle, Lindsay Humble, Joan Iddon, Brian Illsley, Eric Jackson, Glenda James, Sian C Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne Keen, Alan Kilfoyle, Peter Law, Peter Lepper, David Llwyd, Elfyn Love, Andrew Mackinlay, Andrew Mallaber, Judy Marris, Rob Marsden, Gordon Marshall, David McCafferty, Chris McCarthy-Fry, Sarah McDonnell, John McGovern, Jim McKechin, Ann Meacher, Michael Meale, Alan Miller, Andrew Mitchell, Austin Moffatt, Laura Morgan, Julie Mudie, George O'Hara, Edward Prentice, Gordon Price, Adam Prosser, Gwyn Purchase, Ken Riordan, Linda Ruddock, Joan Sarwar, Mohammad Sheridan, Jim Short, Clare Simpson, Alan Singh, Marsha Skinner, Dennis Stoate, Howard Strang, Gavin Taylor, David Thornberry, Emily Trickett, Jon Turner, Desmond Vis, Rudi Walley, Joan Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty Williams, Hywel Wood, Mike
EDM 1222 TREATMENT OF SEAFARERS 49 signatures
That this House is deeply concerned at the recent actions of Irish Ferries in seeking forcibly to dismiss Irish seafarers; notes that the company employed security guards at Pembroke and Holyhead in an attempt to replace the Irish crew with seafarers from Eastern Europe on exploitative pay and conditions; further notes that if the company succeeds in its actions it will severely undermine United Kingdom seafarers' jobs, particularly those in the Irish Sea sector; believes such actions are indefensible; further notes the continued discrimination against foreign national seafarers in United Kingdom waters; and therefore calls on the United Kingdom Government to work with the Irish government to prevent such abuses and to ensure that United Kingdom and Irish seafarers have a future in the United Kingdom ferry industry.
John McDonnell Abbott, Diane Anderson, David Bottomley, Peter Caton, Martin Clapham, Michael Clark, Katy Cohen, Harry Corbyn, Jeremy Cryer, Ann Cummings, John Dean, Janet Devine, Jim Dismore, Andrew Dobbin, Jim Drew, David Ennis, Jeff Etherington, Bill Flynn, Paul Galloway, George Goodman, Helen Hamilton, David Hancock, Mike Hemming, John Hepburn, Stephen
27 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Hopkins, Kelvin Hoyle, Lindsay Iddon, Brian Illsley, Eric Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne Kemp, Fraser Kilfoyle, Peter Lazarowicz, Mark MacNeil, Angus Marris, Rob McCafferty, Chris McGovern, Jim Meale, Alan O'Hara, Edward Owen, Albert Price, Adam Prosser, Gwyn Simpson, Alan Skinner, Dennis Vis, Rudi Walley, Joan Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty
EDM 1278 WAGES OF LONDON UNDERGROUND CLEANERS 40 signatures
That this House believes the 2012 Olympic Games should allow London to demonstrate that it is a city for social justice; is therefore concerned at the recent Queen Mary, University of London report which found that cleaners working on London Underground exist on poverty wages, do not receive annual pay rises and are often required to pay for their own training; condemns cleaning sub-contractors such as ISS and Blue Diamond for employing staff on such shameful conditions; and supports the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union campaign for social justice for London Underground cleaners which includes a minimum rate of £6.70 an hour.
John McDonnell Abbott, Diane Anderson, Janet Bottomley, Peter Brown, Lyn Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Cohen, Harry Corbyn, Jeremy Cruddas, Jon Cryer, Ann Dean, Janet Devine, Jim Dismore, Andrew Dobbin, Jim Drew, David Etherington, Bill Farrelly, Paul Galloway, George
Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Hamilton, David Hoey, Kate Hopkins, Kelvin Jackson, Glenda Jones, Lynne Leech, John Marshall, David McCafferty, Chris Meale, Alan Pope, Greg Price, Adam Pugh, John Riordan, Linda Robinson, Iris Russell, Bob Skinner, Dennis Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty
EDM 1561 TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF RAIL PRIVATISATION 41 signatures
That this House notes 4th February marks the 10th anniversary of private rail passenger franchises coming onto the railways under the disastrous Tory privatisation; is concerned that since that time rail fares have increased in real terms and punctuality remains worse than under public ownership; further notes the Catalyst think-tank report showing that the private sector has drained over £6 billion from the public sector since privatisation; welcomes the conclusion of the Catalyst report that renationalising the rail network would save £500 million a year; and therefore urges the Government to take early steps to implement Labour Party policy of an integrated, accountable and publicly owned railway.
John McDonnell Abbott, Diane Anderson, David Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Clapham, Michael Clark, Katy Corbyn, Jeremy Cryer, Ann Dean, Janet 28 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Dobbin, Jim Drew, David Ennis, Jeff Etherington, Bill Flynn, Paul Francis, Hywel Galloway, George Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Hamilton, David Hancock, Mike Heyes, David Hodgson, Sharon Hopkins, Kelvin Hoyle, Lindsay Iddon, Brian Illsley, Eric Jones, Lynne Lloyd, Tony Meacher, Michael Mitchell, Austin Morgan, Julie Prosser, Gwyn Riordan, Linda Rowen, Paul Simpson, Alan Taylor, David Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Williams, Hywel Wood, Mike
EDM 1574 VIRGIN CROSS COUNTRY 25 signatures
That this House is deeply concerned at the ongoing dispute between Virgin Cross Country and the Rail Maritime and Transport Union (RMT); is further concerned at reports that Virgin may be compromising the safety of passengers by the use of untrained and medically restricted personnel on strike days; regrets that Virgin has refused to return to the negotiating table; and therefore calls on Richard Branson to urge his company immediately to re-open negotiations with the RMT.
Jeremy Corbyn Abbott, Diane Anderson, David Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Cryer, Ann Drew, David Etherington, Bill Goodman, Helen Hamilton, David
Hancock, Mike Hopkins, Kelvin Jones, Lynne Law, Peter Marris, Rob McDonnell, John Meale, Alan Morgan, Julie Riordan, Linda Rowen, Paul Skinner, Dennis Stringer, Graham Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Wood, Mike
EDM 1678 ENVIRONMENTAL CASE FOR RAIL 49 signatures
That this House notes that transport accounts for more than a third of total UK carbon dioxide emissions; is concerned that carbon dioxide emissions from transport are predicted to rise by almost 10 per cent. between 2000 and 2010; supports an integrated transport system in which different transport modes complement rather than compete with each other; further notes that the railways produce substantially less carbon dioxide emissions than cars, road freight or aviation; and therefore urges the Government to ensure that the protection and expansion of the rail network is central to its policy of reducing carbon emissions.
John McDonnell Abbott, Diane Austin, John Barlow, Celia Breed, Colin Cable, Vincent Campbell, Gregory Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Cohen, Harry Corbyn, Jeremy Cryer, Ann Cummings, John Davidson, Ian Dean, Janet Dobbin, Jim Dodds, Nigel Drew, David Durkan, Mark Ennis, Jeff Fisher, Mark Galloway, George George, Andrew Gibson, Ian Hancock, Mike Hemming, John Heyes, David Hoey, Kate Hopkins, Kelvin Horwood, Martin
29 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Hoyle, Lindsay Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne Leech, John Lepper, David Marris, Rob McCafferty, Chris Meale, Alan Pugh, John Riordan, Linda Spink, Bob Strang, Gavin Stringer, Graham Taylor, David Vis, Rudi Walley, Joan Wareing, Robert N Wilson, Sammy
EDM 1680 DELIVERING SAFER RAIL STATIONS 37 signatures
That this House notes the Public Accounts Committee Report `Maintaining and Improving Britain's Railway Stations'; welcomes the Committee's findings that passengers would like stations to be safe and secure with staff and good quality information available; notes that research for the Department for Transport found that improvements in station safety would increase rail use by up to 11 per cent.; further notes the need for safer stations has been demonstrated by the British Transport Police report that violent crime on trains has risen by 43 per cent. in the last five years; therefore welcomes the RMT study which concluded that the £200 million saved by bringing train operating companies back into public ownership would pay for more than 1600 extra station staff and double the stations' improvements budget; and therefore calls on the Government to return the train operating companies to public ownership to help finance properly staffed, safer stations.
Kelvin Hopkins
Abbott, Diane Breed, Colin Campbell, Gregory Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Clelland, David Corbyn, Jeremy Cryer, Ann Cummings, John Davidson, Ian Dean, Janet Dobbin, Jim Dodds, Nigel Durkan, Mark Galloway, George George, Andrew Gibson, Ian Heyes, David Hoyle, Lindsay Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne McDonnell, John Meale, Alan Moon, Madeleine Owen, Albert Prentice, Gordon Riordan, Linda Sanders, Adrian Simpson, Alan Simpson, David Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Wilson, Sammy Wyatt, Derek Younger-Ross, Richard
EDM 1681 RAIL WORKERS’ PENSIONS 25 signatures
That this House is deeply alarmed at the attempts by railways employers to substantially increase employee pension contributions; notes this will not only be detrimental to rail workers' earnings but will threaten the future viability of the Railways Pension Scheme by forcing existing members to opt out, and deterring new members from joining; is also concerned rail employers are considering closing scheme sections, raising retirement ages and reducing benefits; believes the threat to rail workers' pensions is a direct result of the fragmentation of the Railways Pension Scheme and of employers taking pension holidays; strongly supports the rail unions' campaign to cap employees' contributions, maintain existing benefit rates, simplify the Railways Pension Scheme's structure and open the Scheme to all staff; and therefore urges the Government to do all within its power to protect the pensions of rail workers.
John McDonnell Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Clark, Katy
30 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Corbyn, Jeremy Cryer, Ann Cummings, John Davidson, Ian Dean, Janet Drew, David Ennis, Jeff Galloway, George Gibson, Ian Hancock, Mike Heyes, David Hopkins, Kelvin Hoyle, Lindsay Meale, Alan Owen, Albert Prentice, Gordon Riordan, Linda Simpson, Alan Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Wyatt, Derek
31 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Annex 2 – Group Letters
Please find below all letters sent by the RMT Parliamentary Group between July and December 2004:
Rt Hon Stephen Ladyman MP Minister of State for Transport Department of Transport Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street LONDON SW1P 4DR
Thursday 8th December 2005
Dear Stephen,
RE: Irish Ferries Dispute
I am writing to you, as Convenor of the RMT Parliamentary Group, with regard to the current dispute involving Irish Ferries and the implications for UK seafarers’ employment in the ferry industry.
In light of these developments I am writing to seek your agreement to pursue the implementation of measures with the Irish Government to tackle this growing scandal within the shipping industry.
The RMT Parliamentary Group understands that the Irish Government was supportive of a Crewing Directive and do not wish to see the end of the social partnership model. Could we therefore suggest that it might be appropriate to discuss measures that can be taken on a bilateral basis with the Government of Ireland?
In respect of the European Directive agreement this will obviously be more difficult to achieve. However recent developments in Ireland, including the crude attempts to forcibly dismiss over 500 Irish seafarers, could have an impact upon how other previously hostile member states view such legislation. I would therefore encourage you to support initiatives to enforce minimum standards on ships around the UK and Irish coast.
We would be grateful for your response on this matter at your earliest convenience. In addition I also look forward to receiving your response regarding the outstanding items as discussed at the RMT Parliamentary Group meeting in October.
Many thanks for your continued assistance, and 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.
Yours Sincerely
John McDonnell MP 32 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Convenor, RMT Parliamentary Group
Jim Fitzpatrick MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 26 Whitehall London SW1A 2WH
Friday 9th December 2005
Dear Jim,
We are writing to you to request an urgent meeting to discuss how the current controversy over the Fire Safety (sub surface) 1989 Regulations can be resolved.
We are conscious that proposals to remove the regulations have been strongly opposed by the rail unions, the FBU and TUC – and it is a matter of concern that there could be significant public disquiet over this issue, especially in light of safety concerns raised by the July terrorist attacks on London.
We are aware of your strong commitment to fire safety and we do feel that there would be some mileage in looking at this issue afresh and finding a way forward that will satisfy all concerned.
We hope we can arrange a meeting as quickly as possible and look forward to hearing from you. We would be most grateful if your office could liaise with Simeon Andrews (details below) who can make the necessary arrangements for a meeting
Yours sincerely
John McDonnell MP Michael Clapham MP Frank Dobson MP Chair, RMT Parliamentary Group Chair, Fire Safety & Rescue APPG Holborn & St Pancras
Elliot Morley MP Minister of State Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
26th January 2006
Dear Elliot,
I am writing to thank you for meeting with members of the RMT Parliamentary Group, and other colleagues keen to emphasise the environmental case for rail on 18th January.
As you are aware, the meeting covered a wide range of issues and we requested some specific information, which you kindly agreed to provide. Firstly we would welcome a note of 33 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP clarification on the EU directives that apply for the production of Environmental Impact Assessments, and what assessment criteria these require.
I would also like to thank you for your commitment to participate in a joint seminar or conference in the spring, hosted by DEFRA and the DfT, in conjunction with the TUC and rail unions. The purpose of this would be to discuss how to further promote the environmental benefits of rail and to showcase the improvements made by the Government – involving all the relevant stakeholders.
We also raised the Trade Union and Sustainable Development Advisory Committee (TUSDAC). As Chair of TUSDAC we believe it would be very useful if you could invite the Department of Transport to either attend a meeting of this committee to discuss the environment and transport policy, or indeed to have a permanent representative.
I would be most grateful if your office could address all correspondence to Simeon Andrews (details below), who is the co-ordinator of the RMT Parliamentary Group. We look forward to maintaining a positive dialogue with you and the Department over the coming year.
Yours sincerely,
John McDonnell MP Convenor, RMT Parliamentary Group
Derek Twigg MP Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Department for Transport
26th January 2006
Dear Derek,
I am writing to thank you for meeting with members of the RMT Parliamentary Group, and other colleagues keen to emphasise the environmental case for rail on 18th January.
As you are aware, the meeting covered a wide range of issues and we requested some specific information, which you kindly agreed to provide. Firstly, the Group would welcome a note on process and criteria of the internal Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) carried out by your Department.
I would also like to thank you for your commitment to participate in a joint seminar or conference in the spring, hosted by the DfT and DEFRA, in conjunction with the TUC and rail unions. The purpose of this would be to discuss how to further promote the environmental benefits of rail and to showcase the improvements made by the Government – involving all the relevant stakeholders.
We also raised the Trade Union and Sustainable Development Advisory Committee (TUSDAC). As you will be aware, TUSDAC is a joint DEFRA / trade union body discussing sustainable development and chaired by Elliot Morley. It would be very useful if Department of Transport could either attend a session of this meeting to discuss the Environment and Transport policy, or indeed to have a permanent representative on this committee
34 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
I would be most grateful if your office could address all correspondence to Simeon Andrews (details below), who is the co-ordinator of the RMT Parliamentary Group. We look forward to maintaining a positive dialogue with you and the Department over the coming year.
Yours sincerely,
John McDonnell MP Convenor, RMT Parliamentary Group
35 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Annex 3 – Excerpts from Hansard
1. Adjournment Debate: Fire Safety Regulations 2. Adjournment Debate: Industrial Relations in the Railway Industry
Fire Safety Regulations Wednesday 25th January 2006
John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. First, I welcome you to the Chair. Secondly, may I raise with you the problem that we have this morning and the reasons why my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Ms Barlow), whose debate this is, is not present? The change of venue from Westminster Hall to this room has somewhat confused hon. Members— indeed, several of us went to Westminster Hall this morning and arrived here out of breath because we had been trying to find the alternative venue. May I suggest through you that hon. Members are again given notice of the change of venue so that we do not have a problem with misunderstandings and with hon. Members going to Westminster Hall, which is no longer available?
Roger Gale (in the Chair): I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. It is a matter of fact and record, and has been for a considerable time, that sittings are being held in Committee Room 10, not Westminster Hall. That information appears regularly on the Order Paper, and it is up to hon. Members to make sure that they are present and correct when required.
Celia Barlow: Thank you, Mr. Gale. I am here to ask for consideration to be given to the regulations that were put in place after the inquiry into the King's Cross fire. As we know, 31 people were killed in that tragic event. Following the investigation, the regulations were amended. The changes were not completely implemented until after 1991, but during that period action was taken to make the railways far safer. The rail network is not my favourite organisation at the moment, given that I spent some considerable time on the Brighton to London train this morning. That explains my somewhat dishevelled appearance, for which I apologise to hon. Members. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important issue on behalf of hon. Members who have expressed concern about proposals to remove essential fire safety regulations.
Philip Hollobone: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. To enable her to get her breath back, may I draw her attention and yours, Mr. Gale, to the debate that took place in this very room yesterday? It was about rail services in the south-east and probably highlighted some of the experiences that she suffered this morning?
Celia Barlow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I hope that there will be many more in the early part of my speech.
Roger Gale: Order. There will not be. I appreciate the courtesy that the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) has shown in seeking to assist the hon. Lady, but I have made it abundantly plain that it is up to hon. Members to be here on time. Although I understand that the hon. Lady needs to get her breath back, and I am sure that everybody will have some sympathy with her, given her experience of the public transport system, I do not propose to entertain any more interventions on the subject.
Celia Barlow : Thank you, Mr. Gale. I stand corrected. My concerns are shared by many constituents—not my concerns about the slight slowness, on occasion, of trains between Brighton and Hove and London, but the concerns of those 36 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
who travel through the underground system every day. The concerns raised by my constituents have also been raised by the TUC, the rail unions and the Fire Brigades Union. As a former firefighter and member of the FBU, the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), has a strong interest in and knowledge of these topics. He takes them very seriously and perhaps he will be able to provide reassurances today about the future of fire safety on the underground and on our railways.
David Taylor: The Minister has a distinguished record in the fire service, but will he not argue that the 1989 regulations are too prescriptive and bureaucratic for the modern world? Is not the key problem the fact that the proposed guidance, which will accompany the fire safety order, will have no legal force? Will that not worry my hon. Friend's constituents in Hove, as well as other travellers in the underground system, particularly those who pass through King's Cross, where the disaster took place and through which I travel several times a week?
Celia Barlow: I agree that there are concerns, although I would not say that they are as desperate as my hon. Friend suggests. In the present climate, however, every rail and underground safety issue is of desperate interest. Perhaps it would be useful at this point to remind ourselves of the history of the debate. The Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) Regulations 1989, to which I shall simply refer as "the regulations" for the purposes of this debate, were introduced under section 12 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971. The regulations were added on the recommendation of the Fennell report into the 1987 King's Cross fire, which claimed 31 lives. I was on the BBC TV news desk that day, watching the terrible video rushes as they were fed in by satellite, and assessing the risks to camera crews and reporters at the scene. It is believed that the blaze began when a match was dropped through a wooden escalator— such escalators have, of course, now been banned—in a non-smoking area during the evening rush hour. An accumulation of grease and other debris under the tracks led to a fireball, which scorched up the escalator, trapping many people underground. Years later, one survivor, who ran from the upper concourse, said: "If Hell existed it was on display that night." Following the fire, the Fennell report called for changes, including minimum staffing standards and means of detecting, warning of and fighting fires. It also called for standards of fire-resistant construction, training and other precautions. There was a scandal in 1991, when a report found that only eight of the 26 safety recommendations made after the inquiry had been fully implemented. They were later complied with and provided a cushion of safety around staff, firefighters and customers. It is important to remember that the regulations apply not only to London underground stations, but to sub-surface stations throughout Britain, including underground systems in Tyne and Wear and several national rail stations with sub-surface stations, such as New Street station in Birmingham. The regulations were introduced to help to prevent a repeat of the terrible events at King's Cross, and I think that all hon. Members would agree that they have stood the test of time. They set down essential minimum statutory requirements for safety, covering issues such as means of escape, means of fighting fire, means of detection and giving warning, fire- resistant construction, instruction and training, and the keeping of records. Additional precautions covered in the regulations include practicable steps to prevent smoking and minimum staffing requirements, which are almost invariably exceeded in the railway network. No one doubts the Minister's strong commitment to fire safety. I hope that he will agree that the Government must not replace the current regulations lightly, and that they should do so only if they can guarantee at least the same statutory—I stress, statutory—level of safety for the public, rail staff and emergency services. As I understand it—he will correct me if I am wrong—the Government's view is that the current regulations and the protection that they
37 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
provide will be adequately replaced by the provisions of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, associated guidance, and the proposed Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations. For the purposes of this debate and for my hon. Friends' sake, I shall refer to the legislation simply as "the order". When the order comes into force, it will cover general fire precautions in different categories of workplace and public place and abolish the use of fire certificates. It will signal a move to a risk assessment-based approach to fire safety—that is one of the key issues. In addition, a series of guides will be produced to assist those preparing risk assessments. Although my hon. Friends, the trade unions and I do not necessarily have difficulty with the principles of the order, we are concerned about the proposition that it will remove the regulations for sub- surface stations. That is a really important point. We feel that sub-surface rail stations are a special case and require an assured minimum standard of protection, which cannot be afforded by risk assessment and guidance alone.
Philip Hollobone: I have the privilege of being a member of the all-party group on lighting, which discussed that very issue at a meeting earlier this week. Making third-party approval for personal safety equipment mandatory is an important issue for the lighting and security industry, which favours a proper system of accreditation for those conducting the inspections.
Celia Barlow: I thank the hon. Gentleman. The issue was also considered by the Regulatory Reform Committee in July 2004, following representations by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who had a strong interest as secretary of the FBU parliamentary group. The Committee also had strong reservations about the Government's proposals. It argued that given the nature of sub-surface railway stations and the substantial number of people who use them every day, there was a strong public interest in ensuring their safety from fire. I am sure that the Minister agrees with that. Importantly, the Committee did not accept the Government's view that the regulations placed a disproportionate burden on the management of sub-surface railway stations. It also argued that it had not been demonstrated that fire safety in such stations would be improved by the removal of the regulations in favour of the risk-based approach contemplated in the order.
David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the enforcement activity of fire authorities when the new approach is in place will be crucial to the success of the order? Does she hope that the Minister will announce that the Deputy Prime Minister will have powers to direct fire authorities in their enforcement activity to provide information and to report to him on particularly sensitive installations or networks?
Celia Barlow: That is certainly an interesting idea that I hope the Minister will take on board. The Committee concluded that sub-surface railway stations were indeed a special case and that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister had not yet made a convincing case for removing the regulations. The Committee recommended that the regulations should remain, but that if they were removed, any guidance issued could include all elements of the protection prescribed in the regulations. I understand that the Minister's predecessor considered the report following the recommendations, along with representations from other interested parties. Stakeholders were then informed that the Government accepted the need not only for protections to continue, but for them to be clearly seen to continue. The Department advised that it intended to retain the regulations until substantive guidance on fire precautions for sub- surface railway stations had been published. Stakeholders are now being consulted on the guidance. I welcome that move, but it remains my view and that of many others that the guidance and the order will not offer the same level of protection as the regulations. There are a number of compelling reasons for a rethink. First, it is self-evident that the protections will be lessened, because nowhere does the order specify minimum standards that equate to the current regulations. Furthermore, unlike the
38 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP regulations, the proposed guidance to accompany the order will have no legal force. There is also concern that the guidance being developed could be too general in respect of transport premises and not specific enough to take account of the unique needs and dangers of sub-surface stations. Secondly, removing the regulations will change the burden of proof and might make it easier for unscrupulous rail operators to reduce the current standards below those specified in the regulations. Now, the fire authority must be satisfied with a specific requirement at a particular location, or unhappy that the standard is inappropriate, unnecessary or not reasonably practical. However, I believe that under the Government's proposal it will be for the fire authority to show that the rail industry has failed to carry out a sufficient risk assessment. Thirdly, there is the question of whether the regulations are too prescriptive and bureaucratic. However, the current arrangements are flexible enough to allow rail operators to seek exemptions from the regulations if they can satisfy the fire authority that a minimum standard at a particular location is inappropriate, unnecessary or not reasonably practical. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the fact that the regulations are not necessarily a blunt instrument, as they have been described, that imposes disproportionate requirements on the rail industry. I note from an answer to a written question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that the Department does not keep records of requests for exemptions to regulations and does not require fire and rescue authorities to supply them. Whatever the reasons for that—I will not go into whether it is the correct approach or not—I hope that the Minister will forgive my bluntness in saying that it is difficult to see how we can conclude that the regulations are too prescriptive and bureaucratic if the Department has no record of when requests for exemptions are made or even whether any ever have been made. Fourthly, I hope that the Minister accepts that the need for minimum standards is arguably greater now than at the time of the King's Cross fire. One reason is that the number of passengers using the railways has increased significantly since then, in line with the Department's policy and for many other, ecological reasons. Also, management of the various systems has unfortunately been fragmented. Finally, I know that the Minister will agree that the need for the public to have confidence in railway fire safety is greater than ever following the appalling terrorist attacks on London in July. The views of rail workers and those in the emergency services, who performed so honourably, professionally and bravely, need to be taken very seriously indeed. Anyone who was a passenger on the underground on the morning of 7 July, as I and many of my constituents were, must be grateful to the emergency services for their prompt and heroic response, and we must listen to their undoubted expertise. Owing to the implementation of the Fennell report, passengers travel with greater regulatory safety than ever before. I urge the Minister to retain the system. The Minister has sought to address some of the concerns that I have raised by stating that when the order is introduced its provisions and associated guidance will run concurrently with those of the regulations for six to 12 months. It is argued that that will allow the Department to compare the effectiveness of the new arrangements with the regulations. At the end of that period the need to remove the regulations can be assessed. I welcome that as a sign that the Government take our representations seriously, but I am not sure how that process will be the most effective way of informing the Department's thinking, because it is not clear whether the regulations or the order will take priority during that six to 12-month period. In any event, will there not be a temptation for the rail operators not to act so as to test the new arrangements during that period, thereby leaving the Department none the wiser about the order's effectiveness? The Government have stated that they will allow more time for business and fire safety experts to get ready for the order, which would probably not be implemented until later this year or even in 2007. I hope that the Minister will use that time to reflect on the arguments for retaining the regulations and positively consider the representations that he receives from hon. Members and stakeholders, as he has been doing.
39 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
I am hopeful that a solution can be found that will allay our concerns. Perhaps the basis of such a solution is an acceptance that the regulations should be modified to take into account the need for any changes that has arisen since their introduction, coupled with support for the principle that sub-surface stations are a special case and that that fact needs to be reflected in a statutory approach. I sincerely hope that, at a time when the threats have never been greater, we can all work together to find the right solution and ensure that the terrible events at King's Cross are never repeated.
Andrew Dismore: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Ms Barlow) on making it here today and commiserate with her on her rather rushed introduction; I was pleased that she got into her stride. Her presentation was excellent. I must declare an interest as the chairman of the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group. Perhaps more importantly, before coming to this place I was the FBU's solicitor for 17 years. I would like to bring that experience to today's debate, although not by a legal analysis; my hon. Friend gave a good analysis of the regulations, the order and the interrelationship between them, and gave a detailed argument regarding the problems that they cause. I also bring a more direct experience through my involvement with the inquiry into the King's Cross fire. At that time, I represented the family of the fire officer who was killed at the fire, who was later posthumously awarded the George medal for bravery, other firefighters who were physically and mentally injured by the fire, and railway workers. I sat through most of the 93 days of the public inquiry into the fire held by Sir Desmond Fennell, as I was representing those victims, the FBU, ASLEF and their members. Indeed, I gave evidence to the inquiry on various aspects of fire safety. I remember dealing with my hon. Friend the Minister at that time in his then capacity as an FBU official representing London, so I know that he has a lot of experience of the issues relating to King's Cross. I visited King's Cross station on the Sunday after the fire, three days later. The sights that I saw then will haunt me for ever. The blackened debris and wreckage and the utter destruction caused by the flashover were indescribable. A flashover is terrible at any time, but particularly so in the circumstances at that station. It is not just the physical things that one sees; the horrible smell stays in one's nostrils for days afterwards and remains in the memory. The smells of fire are appalling, particularly when one knows what happened. I still get a shiver when I use the Northern line escalator in King's Cross station, which I have to do from time to time as the Northern line serves my constituency, because I know that that is where the fire started; I know the point on the escalator where it started. I still get a shiver when I use the underpass toward St. Pancras, where many people died so tragically and horrifically, including Station Officer Townsley, who tried—in vain, unfortunately—to rescue members of the public who faced such a horrible death, and when I walk past the memorial to the 31 victims who died in one of the underpasses under Euston road. The statements that I took from firefighters and railway workers after the fire were some of the easiest that I ever took. All I had to do, more or less, was to switch on my dictating machine and let them talk. The tales they told of what happened and what they saw and experienced were some of the most horrific I have heard. When those statements were presented at the inquiry, little cross-examination was necessary because it was all there. Everybody used those statements as the primary evidence of what happened. I never want such a thing to happen again. That is the stage at which I became a lawyer who campaigned on issues such as fire safety and corporate manslaughter, on which I hope my Government will deliver in the not-too- distant future. The young, campaigning lawyer of 20 years ago has ended up being the now rather more cynical, but still campaigning, Member of Parliament for Hendon you see before you today, Mr. Gale. I never thought that I would see the day when my Government would consider watering down fire safety protection as the regulations will. The recommendations made by Sir Desmond Fennell in his report are still valid, if not more so given the current situation with London Underground.
40 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
David Taylor: The fire certification system that has been in place since 1972, I think, has widely been seen by travellers in London and elsewhere as a public safety net in which they broadly have confidence. The order that might replace it would mean that the safety net will have a rather wider mesh through which people might fall. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need more detail on how it will be enforced before there is a switchover? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hove said, running the changes in parallel for six or 12 months is fine, but let us have the detail on how the order will be enforced.
Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The difficulty with guidance notes is that they are not legally enforceable. They do not even have the force of a code of practice, which would be rather more useful than mere guidance notes. I have nothing particular against safety assessments, but they should go hand in hand with the underpinning of the detailed regulations that we are debating. It is not either/or; let us have both. I am concerned that there will be a watering down. There have been many improvements on the tube since the King's Cross fire. The fact that we now have steel escalators rather than the old wooden ones that caught fire is the most visible and obvious example, which everyone can see. However many other underpinnings are important. The tube is used so much; there are, on average, 3 million passengers a day—far more than at the time of the King's Cross fire—and use is growing. That puts greater pressure on the underground system and staff and means that there are greater safety risks. A key element of the Fennell report was his criticism of the fragmentation of the management, which was then operating under one company, London Underground Ltd. He also criticised the inability of the management to communicate within itself and the lack of clear lines of responsibility. Through the public-private partnership, of which I was not a great advocate—although I recognise that it is bringing investment to the tube—there is fragmentation within London Underground. Although residual responsibilities lie ultimately, I suppose, with the Mayor of London, several companies are now involved. For the Northern line, the infrastructure company responsible for the track, tunnels and signalling is Tube Lines; a separate company, Alstom, runs the train maintenance contract; and London Underground has overarching responsibilities. That fragmentation has the potential to create the sort of gaps that the Fennell inquiry identified, and the situation could be made worse if the proposed safety regime is introduced. We must be sure that there is seamless management of safety. The recent problems on the Northern line in particular with the failure of brake systems that was identified in autumn, are an example of where such gaps arise—obviously not in the context of fire, but with train maintenance. That highlights some of the potential problems with gaps. It is a case not of "Mind the gap between the platform and the train", but of mind the gap within the management. That is one of the key criticisms in the Fennell report, and it is not answered by the proposals. There was also some criticism of the lack of record-keeping. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove identified that as a problem when she so ably opened the debate. We must recognise that one product of the PPP is the huge investment that there will be in the underground to modernise tracks, signalling and stations. Huge, large-scale engineering works will affect the network for years to come. They are welcome and long overdue, but engineering works are hazardous and might give rise to fire risks. That is an inevitable consequence of major engineering works, but, in those circumstances, now is not the time to start downgrading fire protection. Those engineering works are necessary because of the long-term neglect of the underground over many years and successive Governments. Until those works are complete, the underground will remain subject to various safety risks or problems, such as the problem with the signalling system that was identified at Camden Town last year. Therefore, until the underground is running properly and modernised, and until we deal with some of the core management problems, we should not start messing around with safety regulations.
41 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
I end my remarks by reminding people of what happened on 7 July and the work that the emergency services did then. Their ability to function through the correct levels of staffing, skill and co-ordination enabled them to deal so effectively with the consequences of that day. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner warned us of the inevitability of further terrorist attacks; we must be prepared for the risk of further attacks on the underground. In those circumstances, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to think again. Would my hon. Friend the Minister like to be responsible were there to be another terrorist attack and the London underground system was not able to cope because of the effect of the changes that he is proposing? I ask the Government to postpone their move to bring in the new arrangements, at least until the modernisation works to the tube are completed. We can then review safety in the round with a new modernised tube until we have seen some progress towards dealing with the appalling terrorist threat that bedevils our country in general, and our capital city in particular, which is served so well by our transport workers.
John McDonnell: Let me declare an interest as the chair of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers parliamentary group and the secretary of the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group, as noted in the Register of Members' Interests. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Ms Barlow) not only on securing the debate, but on her superb detailed exposition of the argument. I shall not go over the ground that she covered, but I just want to make a few comments. As has been explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), we all bring to the debate our personal experiences as does the Minister. In my earlier career, I was chief executive of the then Association of London Authorities and on the evening of the King's Cross fire I had a meeting at Camden town hall. Instead of travelling by tube as I usually would do to King's Cross, alighting and going to the town hall, I walked and missed the fire. I would have been on the train at the time. I was attending the social services committee at Camden town hall and that night we had to suspend the committee to enable officers and members to prepare emergency morgues for the bodies coming from King's Cross. The debate is of personal concern to several hon. Members, especially those who represent London constituencies and had any experience of the King's Cross tragedy. That concern has now been replicated on several occasions by accidents on the tube, of which Chancery Lane is an example. We come to the debate as a result of the King's Cross fire on the basis of a strict precautionary principle; that we do not do anything that undermines or may undermine the safety of the travelling public; that we will not take any measure that may enhance the risk and that we will do everything we possibly can to reduce the risk. The Fennell inquiry was a model of an inquiry. It took evidence in detail from front-line workers. It arrived at several conclusions, which, on a consensual basis, were accepted by those on all sides of industry; management, front-line workers on the London underground, firefighters and the Fire Brigades Union. On the basis of a precautionary principle and the combined consensual wisdom of the various authorities at the time, the inquiry behoves the Government to have a strong justification for moving forward or moving away from the Fennell recommendations. Many arguments have been advanced this morning, but when the proposals were brought forward, they were reviewed by the Regulatory Reform Committee. Although I was not a member of that Committee, I spoke at the meeting. It is important to remind ourselves that a Select Committee said to the Government at the time—clearly it did not endorse the introduction of the order—that "On the evidence presently before us, we are not convinced that the provisions will be adequately carried forward under the general provisions of the draft Order . . . We consider that the provisions . . . should remain in force." The Minister responded by saying, "Having considered the Committee reports, together with other representations received . . . we do accept that there is a need not only for this protection to continue but also that it can be clearly seen to be continued."
42 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
The Committee expressed its worries about any change and the Minister responded accordingly. At the time, I thought that we would have a more fundamental review of the order itself. Instead, all we have experienced is delay and the order's reintroduction with virtually no amendment to the original proposals. The debate is taking place today on that basis. There is confusion about the Government's real intentions. As a result of the delays, some consultation has commenced on guidance but, as has already been said, it will have no legal basis or any firm use whereby it can be used to secure safety on the London underground. Instead of having more detailed consultation of the order and considering a fundamental amendment, all we have had is limited consultation on the guidance. That goes against the spirit of what the Regulatory Reform Committee was arguing for at the time. The Committee had firm views. At paragraph 126 of its report, it said: "In our view the Department has not yet made a convincing case for the revocation" of the existing regulations. Since then, the Government have not put forward a subsequent case. They have certainly not reported back to the Regulatory Reform Committee with a case that could change the Committee's mind. The first step that the Government should have undertaken—it is not too late to undertake it now—is to have gone back first to the Regulatory Reform Committee to see whether it could be convinced of the need for change. The Committee set out its arguments as to why the order should not go ahead in one of the strongest reports that it has produced. Such matters should be considered by the Government and there should be a proper debate. As my hon. Friends the Members for Hove and for Hendon have said, time has moved on in respect of the practices of the London underground. More than 700 million people use the underground each year. There has been a 20 per cent. increase in passenger traffic. Management systems are now dramatically different; even within the past two years because of the fragmentation of London Underground's management. The proposals need to be reviewed in the light of the day-to-day practices of the London underground now as against two years ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hove said, the Government should go back to all the stakeholders about the detail of the order, not only the guidance. People are becoming confused by the different orders that have been issued. The latest statement made by the Government on 12 January advised us that they had put back the date of the implementation of the order. I believe that there is an attempt to coincide that with regulations in Scotland, too. We are told that the change is to allow businesses and fire safety experts more time to get ready for the new regulations, not to consult on the detail of them or to secure amendments to them. We are now in a state of absolute confusion about when the regulations will come into effect. A carry-over period between six and 12 months when both systems will run in tandem will cause even greater confusion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hove said, it will hardly be a realistic trial of the new order because companies will fail to act on it and will put off any changes until the 12 months are over to avoid the onus being placed on increased investment or any change of practice design under the new system. The Government need to give us clarity on where we are going. What is the status of the order? What is the time scale for its introduction? What consultations will take place? In the light of discussions that have taken place so far, we need to step back again and have a more fundamental consultation with the stakeholders. We need to go back to the Regulatory Reform Committee and discuss matters to see whether it would be satisfied with any new proposals coming forward after that consultation. In addition, we must recognise that things have moved on within the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon mentioned the fact that, as a result of the Government's significant investment via the public-private partnership—although some of the investment has been diverted—we are now seeing major infrastructure projects on the system. I am not talking about the result of the PPP, as that is a waste of resources. Is now the time to confuse matters with the establishment of new orders, new systems and new regulatory principles in such a sensitive part of the system itself?
43 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
This is a special case. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove has it exactly right. As experts will tell us, underground fires and underground risks are so much more difficult and hazardous than they are on the surface, purely because of access and other arrangements. That is a key lesson of Fennell. If the access arrangements and the problems of underground working will be made worse as a result of the current significant investment and works, the last thing that we will want to do is to interfere with existing practices that have served us well over the past 20 years or so. The Government have delayed again, so it is not too late to think again, to put the matter out to consultation again, to take on board the expert advice or to take into account changes. I dread us introducing such measures as a result of what is almost a stubborn belligerence about not taking other views into account. Sometimes there is almost a sense of bloody- mindedness, and a sense that Governments will not change their mind once the wheels of Government mechanisms start in motion. I just thank God for the Regulatory Reform Committee, which halted that process over a year ago. I hope that this debate will contribute towards our telling the Government that just because an element of momentum has built up around the order, they do not inevitably have to proceed to make a mistake that we will live to regret, and that some people may not live to regret. The key element is consultation and involvement. The process involves a step change; there is a change in the onus of responsibility. At the moment, it is clear in law where responsibility lies; we rely on those providing the service to ensure that they meet the regulation requirements. The proposal will mean that the onus shifts to the fire authorities, who will have to prove that the providers are not meeting the requirements. That is a significant principle change and, in practice, will be a dramatic change to what went before. It would undermine the practices of the fire authorities, which will have to cope in that way. In addition, it would undermine the confidence of the travelling public and those who work on the system. There is an element of trust involved in this issue, too. Why are the Government making the proposals at this point in time, and what pressures are on the Government to move in this way? What reason is there for the haste with which the Government tried to introduce the regulations previously, with, we believe, inadequate consultation? I am at a loss to see why that change in principle needs to take place at this moment. Finally, I ask the Minister to clarify where we are and where we are going. More importantly, I appeal to the Government to step back from this hazardous measure, which will put lives at risk and undermine the confidence of the travelling public.
Mark Hunter (LD): I appreciate this opportunity to make a brief contribution. First, I compliment the hon. Member for Hove (Ms Barlow) on securing the debate and thank the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) for rightly reminding us of the appalling tragedy of the King's Cross fire. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Hove made clear the wider relevance of this debate; I am one of many Members from the Greater Manchester and north-west area who have pressed for an extension to the Metrolink system. As a regular rail user myself, I share concerns about fire safety issues on the railway network. As others have said, I shall be interested to hear the Minister's views on whether the delay, announced a couple of weeks ago, in implementing the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 means that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will reconsider what many think is at best a discretionary approach to, and at worse a relaxation of, regulations on the facilities concerned. Of course, the proposals come at a time when Members do not need reminding of possible threats in the places concerned. The regulations made under section 12 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971, which were inspired by the Fennell report, have been a key part of safety on the underground for a number of years, so I would appreciate any assurances that can be given today on those regulations, and indeed on the wider issue of fire safety on the underground and on subterranean railway stations. Also, can we assume from the delay that the Government are in the mood to compromise on the wider issue of fire safety regulations? Will the Minister tell
44 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP us this morning whether that mood extends to the specific regulations to which I, and others, have referred? On the new fire safety order, I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister's statement of 12 January that we should not seek to impose new regulations on stakeholders without giving them the necessary time to implement them, so I suppose that the announcement is to be welcomed. However, I should be grateful if Minister told us why the guidance documents are apparently not yet available. As I said, I did not intend to make a long contribution. It is obvious that I am not alone in seeking assurances not just on the future of fire safety on the underground, but on the future of the wider regulations.
Robert Syms: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Hove (Ms Barlow) on securing this debate, which is a useful opportunity to air a number of issues and concerns felt by hon. Members. We have had a short but good debate. It is important that we get this matter right. On occasions, I felt that I was more in sympathy with the Minister than some of his own Back-Benchers were; I do not get the impression that the Government are rushing the proposal. They have put the decision off and they seem to be consulting. We do not know exactly what the final package will be, but it seems to me that they have taken a very sensible approach to complex regulations. Broadly speaking, Her Majesty's Opposition support the review of fire safety regulations. Moving a system to risk assessment is sensible. Clearly, one has to look at the guidance, and some sensible points were made about the force of that guidance in determining how successful the system will be when implemented. Earlier, the matter of the accreditation of inspectors was raised, and that, too, was a sensible point. I know that the private sector, in particular, has raised the issue of cost. There have been some concerns on that point, so we have to keep an eye on whether there is to be a transfer of resources. The difficulty with such regulations, particularly on subjects such as fire, is that things can be very much set in stone, and there can always be arguments for no change. There is an argument for change, but it is a question of getting it right. This is a useful opportunity for the Minister to stand up and give some assurances. I noticed earlier in the week that the Government have announced further fire prevention grants, another £11.4 million. Under the Housing Act 1996, we dealt with houses in multiple occupation and aspects of their rating to do with fire. Quite a lot has been happening across the piece in terms of fire prevention and fire reform. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said and was interested to hear his comments about the King's Cross disaster. Clearly, if one had to encapsulate the matter and say which one area gave concern, it would be sub-surface regulations. I hope that the Minister can give reassurances on that subject today. When the hon. Gentleman was a young, thrusting, campaigning lawyer, I was perhaps not quite so young, but I was certainly on Wiltshire county council's public protection committee, which dealt with the fire brigade. Our concern, post-King's Cross, was that there were major underground workings underneath Corsham and Box in Wiltshire, where the Ministry of Defence has major stores. Although the principal people dealing with the fire would have been the MOD fire service, the Wiltshire fire brigade would have been asked to support it. The key problem that the chief fire officer found was the issue of command and control underground, because radio equipment does not work as effectively there. So there are certainly special issues to do with sub-surface working and disasters; I hope that the Minister can give some reassurances on that subject. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked some very challenging questions, in his customary way. He pointed out the Regulatory Reform Committee's concerns about that aspect of the regulations. I hope that, at the end of the debate, we will have a little bit more sketched in about Government proposals on this subject. We need to know a little more about the time scale—that is one issue that has come out today—and when the order will be implemented. We have already heard that both systems will run in tandem. What will be the cost of that? One hon. Member asked whether it would
45 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP be fair to run the new system with the old regulations still, effectively, in force. We need to hear a little bit more about time scales. Certainly, if the private sector and public corporations are going to have to take on a larger role, it is right and proper that we should at least give them a reasonable warning and a reasonable opportunity to adjust their working practices to carry out the new regulations. The key issue, which was raised by the hon. Member for Hendon, is management—including line management and joined-up management—particularly when it comes to major organisations, such as the tube. We need a somewhat clearer view than we have had from the Government over recent weeks. I hope that the Minister is able to reassure us today about the time scale and the sub-surface regulations, about which there is general concern and that he will, perhaps, say a little bit more about the guidance, and the force of the guidance, and how it will effectively underpin the new system that the Government wish to implement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Jim Fitzpatrick): Mr. Gale, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, sir. We have had an interesting, useful debate and many points have been raised. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Ms Barlow) on successfully securing this debate, and I congratulate all hon. Members on their contributions. I will try to address as many of the points raised as I can, but it is important to say clearly, from the outset, that we have a fundamental disagreement about the impact of the new orders. I hope to reassure hon. Members that we are not weakening the degree of public protection, but are doing the opposite and strengthening it. My hon. Friend opened the debate by asking about the use of guidance to demonstrate necessary protections for sub-surface railway stations. I particularly want to set the record straight on that, but if you will allow me, Mr. Gale, I should first like to place two important references on the record. On the fire safety order, the Regulatory Reform Committee said in its 11th report of the 2003–04 Session: "We consider that the provisions of the Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) Regulations 1989 constitute necessary protections. On the evidence presently before us, we are not convinced that the provisions will be adequately carried forward under the general provisions of the draft Order and the Railway (Safety Case) Regulations 2000, as amended. We consider that the provisions of the Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) Regulations 1989 should remain in force. We therefore recommend that Schedule 5 to the draft Order be amended to remove the references to the Fire Precautions (Subsurface Railway Stations) Regulations 1989, the Fire Precautions (Sub- surface Railway Stations) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 and the Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) (Amendment) Regulations 1994. We note that once the Order is in force the Secretary of State may make regulations under article 24 which would revoke the 1989 Regulations. Any decision to keep the 1989 Regulations, as amended, in force beyond the entry into force of the draft Order is therefore by no means irrevocable. Another solution might be the provision of guidance by the Secretary of State on the operation of fire safety requirements in sub-surface railway stations. We note that London Underground Limited, in its response to the consultation on the proposal, stressed the need for guidance on implementation of the proposed Order. Such guidance could include all the elements of protection prescribed in the 1989 Regulations." That last point is particularly important in relation to what has been said today and to the comments that I am about to make.
Andrew Dismore: The key difference, of course, is that guidance is not in any way, shape, or form binding, as regulations are. If there were a code of practice, at least that could be taken into account, if that were necessary, before a court if the issue ever arose—I hope that
46 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP it would not. Will my hon. Friend consider providing at least a code of practice instead of guidance? That would have greater force in supporting the new regime.
Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend effectively made that point in his contribution, and I shall try to respond to it in due course. I am about to develop my point about why we believe the provision that we have put in place is adequate.
John McDonnell: Just so that we have it clear for the record, and as the Regulatory Reform Committee did not address the difference between guidance and codes of practice in the existing regulations, or their potential use in law, can we clarify that?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I will certainly try to do so in my comments. We agreed with the Committees involved and made a statement on bringing the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 before the House for scrutiny the second time: "However, to ensure public certainty and confidence, the Department accepts the view expressed by both Committees that if the highly prescriptive 1989 regulations are to be revoked then substantive guidance must be in place so that the protection can clearly seen to be maintained. Consequently, the regulations will be retained on a temporary basis and only removed once guidance has been produced in consultation with all parties. We have therefore removed reference to the regulations from Schedule 5."
John McDonnell: Just to clarify the process, does that mean that at this point in time the Government's proposals will be going back to the Regulatory Reform Committee for consideration and report?
Jim Fitzpatrick: If my hon. Friends will allow me to develop my answer we will get to an explanation, at least partly, if not in full. Some confusion seems to have arisen about what was meant by the statement that I have just quoted. It is our view that the fire safety order maintains all necessary protections, particularly when taken with other safety legislation, which will continue to apply. However, it is essential not only that these protections should exist, but that they can clearly be seen to exist. We are producing guidance to do that. I want to make it absolutely clear that we have no intention of using guidance instead of legislation. We are using guidance to show how the law—the 2005 order—provides, and in our view enhances, the necessary protections currently provided by the Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) Regulations 1989. For example, the 1989 regulations do not cover the protection of firefighters, contractors or modern suppression systems. The new regulations enhance the old regulations. We think that doing that is more straightforward, simpler and more in keeping with all the legislation that we have passed recently than having a choice between the new regulations or upgrading the old ones. I will try to emphasise that later. The law, not the guidance, provides the protections. The guidance will just explain the protections, so that they can be clearly seen.
Andrew Dismore: I am sorry to keep badgering the Minister on this point, but there is a significant difference in law between the effect of guidance as opposed to a code of practice. Whatever he may say about the guidance referring to how the law will be enforced or taken into account, guidance notes do not have legal force. Codes of practice have some legal force. Will he consider ensuring that guidance notes are issued in the form of a code of practice, to give effect to what he has said he wants to achieve?
Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) also raised the point about the guidance not being statutory. We consulted on making the guidance statutory, but there was no clear majority in favour of that. We consider that statutory guidance that could effectively impose a list of requirements does not fit with the
47 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP risk-based regime that we are trying to introduce.
John McDonnell: It would be useful if the Minister could comment today, at least in a note, on the views expressed by the individual parties consulted on whether there should be guidance.
Jim Fitzpatrick: I shall be happy to write to my hon. Friend, if I do not cover the point in due course. I shall deal with his question on consultation a few pages further on in my speech. The secondary point about the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 is that it requires a fire and rescue service to have due regard to the national framework that we have set up, which includes producing integrated risk management plans for the protection of the community and encompasses enforcement of fire safety. The 2004 Act also provides powers for the Secretary of State to intervene, where the integrated risk management plan that has been prepared does not come up to scratch. As I was explaining, we are using the guidance to show how the law and the fire safety order provides, and in our view enhances, the existing provisions. I have said before, and I am happy to repeat now, that we will not remove the 1989 regulations until and unless it can be clearly shown that all necessary protections are continued under the new regime. I will come in a few moments to the points about the timing and how we will demonstrate why running the two systems in tandem will improve on safety.
John McDonnell: I just want to put this matter on the record so we are not confused in any future debates, because this one might run and run. The Minister talked about areas where the existing orders did not apply, or where the Government thought that they did not cover things adequately in terms of the consultation that has taken place. That is why the consultation with the Fire Brigades Union and others has been on the basis of strengthening the existing orders rather than relating things to guidance. The issues could be addressed under the existing system without that being transformed into something based simply on guidance that has no statutory effect.
Jim Fitzpatrick: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but the guidance being drafted will cover other transport premises and facilities as well as sub-surface stations. The stakeholders working with us on that include representatives of the operators, through London Underground, of the enforcers, through the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, and—most importantly for my hon. Friends—of the trade unions, through the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. The guidance needs to be, and will be, clear about the protections and how they apply. In response to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the thoroughness of the consultation in the previous instance, I should say that the regulatory reform order was developed with stakeholders after a lengthy period. Subsequently, we consulted formally for four months, sending out more than 10,000 consultation documents. We received 257 responses, and the final order was developed on the basis of that consultation. On the guidance, a working party including London Underground, the RMT—
John McDonnell: I should like to be clear for the sake of the record. There is consultation, and there is consultation and listening. The RMT position was set out clearly yet again on 20 January. It clearly stated: "The Section 12 regulations lay down fire-safety measures that are simply not specified in the new Fire Safety Order, and RMT, alongside the Fire Brigades Union and Aslef, has been campaigning hard to keep them in place. We hope the government will now use the delay to think again about the wisdom of abolishing specific fire-safety measures in favour of what amounts to a discretionary approach. Relying on employers not to cut corners is simply not good enough, as far too many people—transport workers and passengers—already know only too well."
48 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
I would not want the Minister's statement about consultation with the RMT to be construed in any way as meaning that the RMT had supported the Government's approach on this matter.
Jim Fitzpatrick: I was not trying to mislead the Committee in any way. During my last meeting with the RMT only a couple of months ago, we discussed and decided to run the new reform order in tandem with the 1989 sub-surface regulations. The RMT put its points clearly across the table and we responded clearly with the details of why there will be enhanced protection for subcontractors on the underground and for firefighters, who may have to attend emergency incidents; neither group is covered at the moment. We also gave details on the two other issues that I mentioned and several others that we put across the table at the same time.
Andrew Dismore: Nobody is suggesting that the groups to which the Minister has referred—firefighters and others—should not be protected. Personally, I would have no problem if the two regulations ran in parallel and indefinitely. My concern is that once the regime is set up, the original regulations will quickly fall by the wayside and we will be left with the subsequent regime, which in our view will weaken protection for people who work and travel on the underground.
Jim Fitzpatrick: If I make some progress, I shall be able to answer some of the other points made. Looking at the clock, I am sure that we shall have time towards the end of my contribution for colleagues to make further interventions. On the point about the burden of proof, I believe, with the greatest respect, that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has the position wrong. Under the fire safety order, it is not for the enforcer to prove that the requirements have not been met, but for the person responsible to prove that they have been met. Article 34 of the fire safety order is clear on that; it is what is known as the reversal of the burden of proof, and changes the position established under the Fire Precautions Act 1971. With regard to the point about flexibility, the enforcer currently has the power to allow a lesser standard if the case is made by the person running the sub-surface railway station concerned. The case that needs to be made is an assessment of the risk, and there is no reason to suppose that a case could be made under the fire safety order if it cannot be made under the 1989 regulations. In any event, the body that has to be satisfied that the premises are safe under either regime is the local fire and rescue authority, and the lead enforcer for that sector—the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority—has already confirmed that the fire safety order provides it with adequate powers to ensure safety at least of the level provided now.
John McDonnell: With the greatest respect, there is a role for the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove pointed out clearly that even under the existing system, when there is potential for the use of discretion with exemptions so that the system can operate flexibly on the ground, there is a role for the Government in monitoring how that should operate. When, to clarify the Government's role in monitoring the existing system, I asked the Minister how many exemptions had been applied for, I got the response that the Government did not know. How can we be confident that the Government will have a leading role in monitoring the new system when the new regulations come in? So far, they have not involved themselves even in the basic monitoring of the existing system.
Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend is anticipating a later section of my speech, when I shall talk about exemptions. I was saying that the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority had already confirmed that it considered that the fire safety order provided it with adequate powers to ensure safety at least at the level provided now. I must add that the LFEPA view remains current following
49 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP a review that it conducted after the appalling events of 7 July, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hove referred. Hon. Members will have noticed that the underground station officer will have to convince the same enforcing authority—the fire and rescue authority—about the adequacy of the fire precautions, regardless of whether the 1989 regulations or the fire safety order are being used. In addition, the lead authority for the enforcement of fire safety in sub-surface stations has already informed us that it expects to serve alteration notices on all sub-surface stations under article 29 of the fire safety order. That means that the station operator will have to tell the enforcer if it proposes to make any changes to the premises or the use of them, or to the services, fixtures, fittings or dangerous substances used or stored. That extra protection will allow the enforcer to consider any changes proposed and the ongoing adequacy of the fire precautions, including the availability of staff to put into effect the emergency plan that the fire safety order requires in respect of action to be taken in the case of fire. In common with the other requirements of the order, failure to comply with an alterations notice is an offence. The penalties are a fine up to the statutory maximum—currently, £5,000 on summary conviction—up to two years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine or both on conviction or indictment.
John McDonnell: It would be useful if the Minister described the layers of management, the number of companies and the tiers of operation in which that line of communication will have to take effect. As my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon and for Hove have said, times have moved on. With the PPP system and the infraco management systems, we now have an immensely complicated structure and line of communication. Will the Minister describe what that line of communication would look like?
Jim Fitzpatrick: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall write to him on that point as well, rather than go into the detail this morning. I should like to get through the rest of my contribution. I am sure that we can clarify that for him in due course. I hope that what I have said clarifies the position, but we are always open to further discussions about safety and we are maintaining an open dialogue on the issue with the RMT and hon. Members. I shall take away with me the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove as well as other points made by hon. Members today. The fire safety order is perhaps the last significant piece of the legislative jigsaw that makes up a much broader reform. When, as a new junior Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, I was asked to sign the regulatory reform order that involved the technical withdrawal of the Fire Precautions Act 1971, which had been the fire services' bible for some decades, I assure hon. Members that I took—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is being very flippant. I took considerable time to make sure that the order would not in any way reduce public safety, but would enhance it, before being persuaded and convinced by the experts to whom I spoke. In the cut and thrust of debate, the suggestion that one is signing a reduction in public safety could be taken as mildly offensive.
John McDonnell: I just want to reassure the Minister that none of us taking part in the debate has in any way impugned his intent. We understand his commitment to safety, particularly bearing in mind his background as a firefighter. What we are concerned about is his judgment, which we believe is incorrect in this instance.
Jim Fitzpatrick: I am not sure whether that was a compliment or not, but I will accept the reassurance offered by my hon. Friend. The fire safety order underpins the move of the fire and rescue services to prevention-based services, but, in turn, that move underpins the order. I can assure hon. Members that that is a solid foundation. The Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 created a new statutory duty on fire and rescue authorities to promote fire safety, which places fire prevention at the heart of fire and rescue services activity. That is a cultural change for the service and we are working
50 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP with the service to achieve it. It has been long in the arrival. In future, the fire and rescue service will be focused on prevention. The Government are committed to helping the fire and rescue service prevent fires: for example, we are introducing a new system of fire and rescue cover based on risk to life. Historically, the system was based on the density of buildings in an area. We are delegating responsibility to the local fire and rescue authority, its elected members, the communities and chief fire officers to ensure that things are decided in the most effective way at a local level. The fire safety order is a key element in the move to a prevention-based service. It provides prevention-based tools for business and promotes prevention-based enforcement. In turn, the Fire and Rescue Services Act promotes and provides a prevention-based service to enforce the law.
Andrew Dismore: The Minister seems to be suggesting that there is an either/or situation, but that is not the case. If one considers recent developments in health and safety law more generally, one can see the trend, particularly in Europe, towards risk assessments and so forth. Risk assessments are more general and are aimed at prevention, but in certain key industries, such as construction, they are underpinned by basic regulations, which set out the detail. The case that we are putting to the Minister is quite simple: let us have both. Let us have the preventive approach and the more general duties, but, in this particular case, let us also have the underpinning of detailed regulations.
Jim Fitzpatrick: I have been trying to reassure my hon. Friends that we are trying to have the best of both worlds, that we have a solid basis of law and that the guidance is enhancing the protection. I will come on to the points made by Opposition Members about the guidance, its implementation and the delay. The two regimes are part of one and the same thing and they will benefit our society whether taken together—as they should be—or separately. During the passage of the order, the House was concerned that business and enforcers should have adequate time to familiarise themselves with the new regime and the guidance that will accompany it and that the coming-into-force date should, as far as practicable, be timed to coincide as closely as possible with reform of the fire safety law in Scotland. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) asked why the guidance was not yet available. When we took the regulatory reform order through the House, we said that it might not be possible to get the guidance drafted for 1 April 2006—the coming-into-force date. It has turned out that the task of producing a suite of 11 sets of guidance documents could not be completed in that time. If we are to get the application right—and it will be right—we need to ensure that there is adequate time for business and organisations to gain that familiarity. Despite extensive work with stakeholders, it is clear that all the guidance documents will not be ready in time to have a full 12-week gap between publication and coming into force on 1 April 2006, as was hoped.
Andrew Dismore: I am sorry to keep nipping at the Minister's ankles about this, but he is still talking about guidance. It is quite clear that the Government are talking about producing a suite of guidance notes. I return to the basic question about a code of practice. Will he give us a clear answer today? Will he say whether the Government will consider turning the guidance notes into a code of practice, which would have a much greater legal effect?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I am not in a position today to give my hon. Friend that assurance, but I undertake to take his request away and write to him in due course about the point that he has just raised.
John McDonnell: I wonder whether the Minister will help us by enhancing that response. It would be invaluable if he would meet Members to discuss this point in more detail, and possibly meet an element of the stakeholders as well, to talk about the transference of the guidance into a code of practice.
51 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Jim Fitzpatrick: I think that my hon. Friend knows that, when it comes to safety issues, my door is generally open. As I have indicated, I have accepted requests from the RMT for meetings and I have met with the Fire Brigades Union on a number occasions. I think that I have already written this week accepting a request to meet with officers of the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group and that I have acceded to a request to meet members of the all- party fire safety and rescue group.
John McDonnell: Is that a yes?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I would be slightly hurt if my hon. Friend thought that my door was closed to any request from Members in respect of fire safety, given the changes that are being undertaken, which are fundamental to the fire service and to the way in which we try to protect the public. We want to ensure that we have given the best possible reassurances to ensure that people understand what we are trying to achieve. In the light of the commitments that we have given to the House and our commitment to ensuring that the reform is properly backed, I announced on 12 January that the coming into force of the substantive provisions of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 should be put back, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cheadle. Recently, as he also mentioned, the Scottish authorities announced that more time should be allowed for reform north of the border, and the new rules in Scotland are now expected to come into force in October 2006 at the earliest. There will be further discussion with colleagues in Scotland and I hope, following that, to announce the revised coming-into-force date very shortly. However, as the point of delaying is to give more time, the publicity campaign to promote the regulatory reform order has started, with seminars taking place around England and Wales between January and March. They have been well attended so far and all sectors of business and the enforcing authorities have been well represented. The feedback from the seminars so far has been positive. Many share the general opinion that more time is needed for stakeholders to familiarise themselves with the new fire safety regime and accompanying guidance. We are agreed that it is important that the guidance is not rushed and that we must get it right.
John McDonnell: I can see that the Minister may be running out of notes. Before he concludes, I would like him to clarify the parliamentary process from here on in. Will the Regulatory Reform Committee be consulted again? Will there be some reference back to it and will there be any engagement with its members, given the significance that they have attached to this matter in the past and their recommendations? In addition, are there any elements that will require a parliamentary process to be employed—using either the affirmative or negative procedure—in relation to the order, which Members may be able to come to a view on? Are there any further elements in the parliamentary process?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I will have to research that and respond to my hon. Friend in due course. My understanding at this point is that we have concluded the parliamentary procedures, but that we have obviously not announced the date for the implementation of the guidance notes. I am advised that the order to change the coming-into-force date will go to the Regulatory Reform Committee, so there will be additional scope. I have given a commitment to my hon. Friend that we can certainly have a meeting. I have done exactly the same to representatives from the RMT. Hopefully, I have demonstrated to their satisfaction that by running the two procedures in tandem, we will be able to demonstrate that improvements and enhancements are being used under the new system that could not have been used under the old system. In that instance, they remain to be convinced. I understand that scepticism; I do not underestimate it or regard it as offensive. I take the point that my hon. Friend made earlier; I was not suggesting that he was being offensive. There is some way to go before we fully convince all partners. We may not get to that point, but I hope that we do.
52 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
John McDonnell: Now that the matter will be referred back to the Regulatory Reform Committee, it would be invaluable if the difference between the Government's approach to guidance and that recommended by a number of Members here today in relation to the construction and installation of a code of practice were pointed out to the Committee and addressed by it. A helpful note to the Committee on the Government's arguments would be invaluable.
Jim Fitzpatrick: I am sure that that will form part of the course. Given the nature of the business and the fact that this debate has taken place and even if we were not to produce such documentation, members of the Regulatory Reform Committee may well have done their own research and identified that issues have been raised which it would be appropriate for them to consider, prior to the order being laid before them.
John McDonnell: I apologise to the Minister for continuing to intervene. Will he clarify the timetable? It is an issue that we have all raised. Will he provide an indicative timetable for the process, including if and when matters will be referred back to the Regulatory Reform Committee; whether any further orders will lie before us; whether there will be any conclusion on the points about consultation on guidance and implementation; and when the contiguous six-month and 12-month periods will take place?
Jim Fitzpatrick: We are not in a position today to identify a definitive date. As I mentioned, the Scottish Executive expect the new regulations to come into force in Scotland from 1 October. We have undertaken to try to ensure that the timing is parallel. I cannot give a commitment to that now, but we will make an announcement shortly. The parallel running cannot take place until the guidance notes are produced. I have no problem with hon. Members intervening as they have, given that we have had the opportunity to respond to the serious points that have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove asked that the necessary regulations be updated from 1989. I have said that we believe we have done more than that: we have not only updated but reinforced them. We are monitoring carefully and listening to representations. I have given several commitments about taking further representations. I hope that when the new guidance notes are published and implemented, colleagues in the House and the wider community will be reassured that the changes that we are introducing not only in this narrow regard but generally, in respect of the fire community and the public's protection from fire and other risks, will be enhanced by the cultural changes being made through the modernisation process that the fire service is going through as a result of the Bain inquiry and the 2004 Act. Those modernisation proposals go back to the 1960s and '70s, as hon. Friends on the Government Benches and, I am sure, hon. Members on the Opposition Benches know. I hope that we have offered some assurance this morning, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to put it on record.
53 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Industrial Relations in the Railway Industry Wednesday 28th February 2006
John McDonnell: First, I declare my interest as chair of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers parliamentary group as set out in the Register of Members' Interests. I am grateful to be able to raise the important issue of industrial relations within the railways industry. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), will agree that the men and women who work on our railways perform a magnificent job in helping to keep Britain moving. It is a 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week, 365-days-a-year task. Railway workers know better than anyone that for the railways to work effectively, there has to be co-operation from all involved: the cleaners, railway workshop grades, train maintenance staff, track workers, catering staff, signal technicians, office staff, call-centre operatives, station revenue protection staff, signal operators, guards and drivers. They all work together in all hours and, sometimes, appalling conditions, to ensure that our trains keep running. In fact, prior to privatisation, British Rail's work force was judged the most productive of any rail service in Europe. A recent Catalyst study confirmed the efficiency of the service and the contribution that the work force makes to that. Railway workers continue to do a brilliant job, despite having to pick up the pieces of the disastrous privatisation undertaken by the previous Conservative Government. Privatisation not only crippled our railway system, but saw the privateers make huge redundancies and attack wages and conditions so that the income of the vast majority of railway workers even fell behind average earnings during the period of privatisation. Although our rail staff remain in the private sector, they are magnificent examples of public servants. They retain the ethos and commitment of the public service, and often have to work in severe conditions; for example, there has been a huge increase in staff assaults, and they now find themselves on the front line of a risk of terrorist attacks. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister—indeed, all Members of the House—will agree that our rail staff should be treated fairly and with respect, and that they deserve a fair framework for industrial relations. I hope that he will reassure them today that the Government share those aspirations and are willing to act to achieve a fair framework for industrial relations in the modern railway industry. I shall highlight three areas of concern: the role of the Association of Train Operating Companies in industrial relations; the role of the Government in industrial relations; and the industrial relations problem of the future of the railways pension scheme. The purpose of ATOC, as it is known in the industry, is a mystery to me and many of my colleagues. What is it? I checked its website, and it is not a statutory body but a voluntary organisation whose role is to serve as "the voice of the passenger railway". The website goes on to say that the association "represents train companies to the government, regulatory bodies, the media and other opinion formers on transport policy issues." That sounds exceptionally good. Members of ATOC—the TOCs, or train operating companies—are paid handsomely for their work. Indeed, according to a recent study by Professor Jean Shaoul of the university of Manchester, the combined total income of TOCs rose by 26 per cent. from £4.8 billion in 1997 to £5.8 billion in 2003.
David Taylor: My hon. Friend describes an organisation, ATOC, that seems to have worthy aims. Will he tell the House how frequently ATOC has met the railway trade unions to discuss issues of common concern, such as those that he has mentioned: training, pensions, and staff assaults? Would not that be a worthwhile forum with which to resolve some of these problems?
54 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
John McDonnell: The answer is never. That is the principal point that I wish to make about the role of the association, because train operators have been subsidised with never less than £1 billion a year—indeed, in 2003–04 the amount reached £1.8 billion—all of which is funded by the taxpayer. They have made profits of £1 billion, yet without the subsidy, train operators as a whole would have made a loss every year. With such generous public support, therefore, the Government should be keen on train operators showing a bit of commitment to social partnership by at least meeting the unions.
George Galloway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the taxpayer is subsiding private train operators between two and three times as much as the taxpayer subsidised British Rail before privatisation?
John McDonnell: I welcome that intervention, and refer back to the Catalyst report, which demonstrated the driving down of public interest from the Government and the public support for British Rail. Even in those circumstances in which there was less public subsidy being provided, the Catalyst report, for which transport experts and economists were independently consulted, judged that British Rail was one of the most productive and efficient systems in Europe. Since then, privatisation has resulted in more and more public subsidy being poured into the private sector, which has been creamed off in profits for over a decade. That is the point. With such generous public subsidies, one would expect, and the Government should expect, ATOC at least to show a bit of commitment to social partnership. ATOC regularly meets the Government and other stakeholders in the industry, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) said, it does not meet the representatives of staff— the rail unions. Indeed, it has refused to meet the unions to discuss anything, not only industrial relations. We know—there has been evidence of this in previous debates—that there has been a continued rise in staff assaults on the railways. Many Members, particularly in London, have participated in the safer stations campaign and have called for improvements to protect passengers and staff, but that does not seem to matter to ATOC. It does not see any benefit in meeting the rail unions to discuss an industry-wide approach to this problem; it simply refuses to meet the unions to address this basic issue.
David Taylor: On a point that links to the core of the debate, does my hon. Friend hope that ATOC will resist the apparent suggestions for the hiving off of the British Tranport police, who tackle staff assaults and are tooled up to improve the record in that respect?
John McDonnell: I concur with my hon. Friend's sentiments; this is another issue on which one would expect ATOC to meet the rail unions to discuss and place on an agenda. If we are to discuss the safety and security of staff and passengers on the railway system, one would expect ATOC to come to the table with the unions, but it does not meet on anything. We all agree that there is a need to plan and develop industry-wide training and skills. Does ATOC discuss that with the unions? Forget it; ATOC was not interested when an approach was made by the unions. There is a growing crisis with railway pensions, which I shall discuss later. That is a key issue for all concerned—employers and employees—but ATOC would rather not talk to the unions about that either. Members will find it astonishing that ATOC will not agree even to meet the unions to discuss what could literally be matters of life and death. After the appalling terrorist attacks on London, the Mayor, Ken Livingstone, rightly had discussions with the railway unions on future safety and security matters on London Underground. All sides thought that those talks were productive and helpful in developing our response to terrorist attack. Those discussions throw into sharp relief the fact that there is no forum for similar discussions with the train operators. The unions have sought meetings with employers through ATOC to discuss improved transport security following the terrorist attacks, but ATOC, which receives billions in public subsidy from the Government, still refuses to meet
55 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP the unions even to discuss that basic issue. That is unacceptable. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that that cannot be allowed to continue. As he knows, we have already had a meeting on this issue. The rail unions and the TUC have also had meetings with the Government to try to sort out the matter. Can he assure me that the Government will now intervene and ensure that there will at least be a dialogue between the rail unions and ATOC? The unions stand ready and willing to attend a meeting with ATOC, wherever and whenever that can be arranged, to discuss these critical issues, and we are asking the Government to intervene if ATOC refuses. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give that assurance because we know that the Government take an active interest in railway industrial relations. That takes me to my second point.
Tom Brake (LD): Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to his second point, will he clarify the extent to which he thinks dialogue should take place between ATOC and the rail unions? Does he believe it should include pay, pensions, which he mentioned, and terms and conditions?
John McDonnell: I think that there is an opportunity now to establish a framework in which all matters of common interest to employers and employees in the railway industry can be placed on the table. That should start with a discussion about conditions and the future of the industry. There is an opportunity to return to a co-operative relationship on wages negotiations to avoid the multiplicity of negotiations that take place at present. It will be for both sides to decide how they go forward. The key issue is to get people around the table. If we can get employers and unions around the table to discuss some of the basic planning of the industry's future—for example, safety, security and response to terrorist attacks—that would engender the opportunity to lead on to other matters by mutual agreement. The issue is the principle of the employer talking to employees and union representatives about these critical matters. The Government have a role to play. If we are to seek a partnership in this industry, as we seek it in every other industry, there is an onus on the Government to persuade the ATOCs to come to the table and not to have a stand-off or to be unco-operatively belligerent to basic discussions and dialogue with the industry. There is also the role of the Government. The Government's role in industrial relations in the railway industry at present is unwise, and even worse than unwise. It is unnecessary and, to put it bluntly, can be seen as unfairly interventionist on the side of employers rather than the unions. It is not a balanced approach. Many in the industry and certainly many railway workers believe that the Government in key instances are letting them down. The matter needs to be explained because most people find the Government's role unbelievable. I presume that the Government, following heavy lobbying from the private train operators and our mysterious friends in the ATOCs, have decided in their wisdom to retain powers used by the now defunct Strategic Rail Authority. Those powers allow the Secretary of State for Transport to intervene directly in industrial relations within the industry. First, the Government can veto pay and conditions agreements between the rail unions and private train operating companies. Secondly, the Government can waive penalty payments incurred by private train operating companies involved in industrial disputes. Thirdly, the Government can provide compensation—this is staggering, and I do not know of any other example in any other industry, public or privatised—to private train operating companies that have lost revenue through involvement in industrial disputes. In other words, on top of the billions of pounds of subsidy and profit already paid to private train operators, it is now Government policy to bankroll private train operating companies in their disputes with the rail unions. That is subsidising a subsidy. It is subsidising industrial relations failure on behalf of employers.
56 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
George Galloway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene again in his admirable speech. I congratulate him on obtaining this debate because it is timely and important. The first time that I met the Secretary of State for Transport, 31 years ago, he was pressing Trotskyite tracts on bewildered railwaymen at Waverley station in Edinburgh. He metamorphosed, as have so many new Labour Ministers, into a man applying the lash to militant trade unionists, as he now sees them, in the railway industry. That was unbelievable enough, but my hon. Friend has just told the Chamber that despite taxpayers providing subsidies of between two and three times the amount of those previously provided to British Rail, the Association of Train Operating Companies has now resuscitated a power that would allow it to compensate maverick employers who will not meet their employees for the failure of their industrial relations strategy. Perhaps he will repeat what he said so that the Chamber can be sure of what he said. Can it really be true, even of this Government?
John McDonnell: There is a Trotskyist analysis of how we have arrived here, but we can talk about that later. If the left were demanding a Labour Government to subsidise unions in disputes, my hon. Friend and I would describe it as a transitional demand. That is the ludicrousness of what is going on. If we told the Government that we expected them to subsidise unions and to pay them so that there is no loss to the work force when they go on strike, there would uproar in the Daily Mail and The Sun would run pictures of my hon. Friend the Minister—
David Taylor: Rightly so.
John McDonnell: Rightly so for its readership. My hon. Friend would be called Red—
David Taylor: Red Twigg.
John McDonnell: When the issue is explained to people, they feel disbelief that a Labour Government should subsidise employers in dispute so that they lose nothing in that dispute. Many of us were shop stewards before coming to the House and it beggars believe that that is happening. In practical terms, the reality is that that provokes and prolongs disputes because there is no loss to the employer.
Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman clearly objects to subsidies, but does he believe that there are cases—for example, 7/7, when I understand that train operating companies received a subsidy—when the use of Government money is appropriate?
John McDonnell: What I resent is not subsidies to the railway industry, but subsidies being creamed off into profit by the private sector. In addition, I resent subsidies being used in industrial disputes to strengthen the hand of employers to achieve their objectives in those disputes. If there is to be a level playing field, it should be level for industrial relations. Otherwise, industrial relations in the railway industry are soured rather than having a proper climate and framework. I shall give some examples. Richard Branson of Virgin Trains and Brian Souter of Stagecoach can expect payouts from a Labour Government whenever they take on a rail union. That is beyond belief. Not only is it obviously wrong, it is an unprecedented and dangerous departure from existing policy on private sector industrial relations. It could have widespread implications beyond the confines of the railway industry. Where will the Government next intervene to prop up multi-million-pound private companies in their battles against the unions? What about the cost of that ill-conceived policy? In answer to a parliamentary question on 14 March 2005, I was told that the Strategic Rail Authority has paid a staggering £23 million to compensate private operating companies for revenue losses during strike action between
57 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
March 2003 and November 2004. That £23 million could have provided investment in the rail service.
David Taylor: Can my hon. Friend give any examples of how using taxpayers' money in this way has prevented emerging disputes or has improved industrial relations in the transport sector?
John McDonnell: I would welcome the Minister giving an example, if he can find one, of where else this policy operates in Government or elsewhere. I know of no other example. The sum of £23 million may not sound a great deal, but it could be used, for example, to build a new secondary school or refurbish a primary school, or it could be used to invest in a medical centre, but it goes straight into the profits of private operating companies to enable them to defeat a union that possibly has a legitimate case for industrial action—one would have to judge each case individually—that, in normal circumstances, would have been resolved through negotiation but is prolonged as a result of Government intervention.
David Taylor: It would pay for a thousand graduate teachers.
John McDonnell :My hon. Friend says from a sedentary position that the money would pay for a thousand graduate teachers. Instead, it is pocketed by Branson, Souter and others in ATOC. During the same period, according to a study by Professor Shaoul of the university of Manchester, private train operators received more than £1.5 billion in public subsidy and made profits of £200 million. That is incredible, and it is important that we get it on the record, as the average person in the street would not believe what the Government do to prop up the industry and employers who want to provoke industrial relations disputes. This is an astonishing abuse of public funds, and there must be further proper scrutiny of the policy.
Ian Davidson: In the interest of putting things on the record, does my hon. Friend have any additional information about how the £23 million was distributed among the companies that received it?
John McDonnell: That is one of the questions that I would like to ask the Minister. The answer should be placed on the record, as it is important that when the travelling public step on their train they know how much the train operating company receives from the Government to prop up any industrial action that it may wish to provoke.
George Galloway: I do not know when such payments began—I missed that part of my hon. Friend's comments—but I wonder whether they helped subsidise Brian Souter's vicious, fascistic, anti-Government campaign on clause 28, which may have had a different number in Scotland. Using money from his business, this Brian Souter launched a blistering, homophobic, bigoted and prejudiced campaign against the Government who gave him millions of pounds.
John McDonnell: Strange bedfellows on the overnight sleeper to Scotland—that is all that I can say. On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson), I have some information in respect of Scotland. A written reply to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) in May 2003—that was during the period of the Strategic Rail Authority—states that: "the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) has made payments of £12.65 million to National Express in respect of revenue loss by ScotRail arising from industrial action."—[Official Report, 15 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 340W.] That is a matter for the Scottish Executive, of course, but that is how much was paid out to one company under the SRA.
58 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
What bewildered Members of this House is that, on the demise of the SRA, the Government took those powers to themselves, when they could so easily have stepped back at that stage, and declined to receive such powers or to engage in the continued subsidy of industrial relations provocations by employers. I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister some questions so that we can put the matter on the record. I hope that today's debate will prompt further public and parliamentary scrutiny of the whole process. First, how long have the Government—and, before them, the SRA— pursued this policy? That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway) made. How long has this been going on? I ask the question because some confusion has been created by some of the responses to the Transport Committee. The issue was briefly raised in that Committee on 26 November 2002 as part of its inquiry into the SRA. In an exchange at that meeting, the Chairman asked Richard Bowker of the SRA: "Is it true that you volunteered to underwrite any problem that should arise for any company in relation to a strike?" Mr. Bowker replied: "No, not at all. We remain of the view that the companies who are the most appropriate people to negotiate and to manage industrial relations are the Train Operating Companies." Yet we know from subsequent parliamentary questions that four months after that Select Committee hearing, the Government, through the SRA, were already paying National Express compensation to the tune of millions of pounds for revenue lost in a dispute involving ScotRail. Was the Select Committee misled? Did Mr. Bowker not know that that was the intention? We need clarification on that. Will my hon. Friend also clarify when the Government and the SRA started the policy? Precisely when did it start, and who took the decision? Do the Government use taxpayers' money to provide direct or indirect financial support to private companies during industrial disputes, or to veto private sector pay-and-condition agreements, in any industry other than the rail industry? Is this industry unique, or are hidden subsidies provided to other employers by the Government? Under what statutory arrangements do the Government believe that they can use such powers? It would be useful to clarify exactly the statutory arrangements, as several hon. Members would seek to amend the legislation. Did the Government or the SRA take legal advice on the issue? What legal advice was provided, by whom, and can it be made publicly available? Hon. Members would, at the least, want to clarify whether this is a legitimate role for the Government and whether legally the Secretary of State has such powers.
David Drew: Will my hon. Friend ask an additional question? He will know that new franchises are about to come into operation. I have been told by union activists that the companies that are taking on those franchises may use the opportunity further to reduce trade union rights and activities. Should not the Government insist that the franchises include right and proper processes for trade union officials and members to engage in industrial relations? It would be an absolute disgrace if such activities were to be reduced.
John McDonnell: It would be useful if this debate were to send a message to companies that seek to provoke industrial relations breakdowns, or to reform, change or cut pay and conditions, and are willing to take on the unions on the basis that their activities will be subsidised by the Government. We must send out the message that Members of this House will examine and scrutinise every penny of taxpayers' money that is used to subsidise industrial relations provocations. At this key stage of the tenders being transferred, we run into danger by feather-bedding employers and train operating companies that are willing to risk industrial relations in the industry to enhance their profits.
David Taylor: Is there not a myth about industrial relations in the rail industry? Even in the peak years—if we can call them that—of Thatcherism between 1979 and 1996, there were
59 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP just a handful of industrial disputes. They were regrettable, but there were just a handful. The number quintupled between 1997 and 2004, not least because the negotiations involve 73 different bodies, including 25 train operating companies, 10 infrastructure companies and so on.
John McDonnell: That leads back to the original point, which is that there should be some discussions between the Association of Train Operating Companies and the unions. That might enhance the industrial relations climate by overcoming the dog's breakfast of negotiating structures that exist. I shall finish off with a couple of questions to the Minister. Will he tell me when the powers were taken and when the decision was made to provide the SRA and the Government with those powers? At what level of Government was that decision made? It smacks of a decision centred on No. 10. It astounds me that No. 11 and the Treasury would agree to such a scale of subsidy to the private sector being made in such an unaccountable way. This leads me to my final question on the matter. Will the Minister explain the formula or the criteria used to determine whether a private train operating company can receive support in this way? Is there a checklist of actions that the company has to have undertaken? Is an assessment undertaken by the Secretary of State of whether the company has acted reasonably in seeking to settle the dispute? I have another example of where the Government intervene in industrial relations; it is happening at the moment in the Prison Service. The Home Secretary has the opportunity in law to intervene to prevent industrial action in the Prison Service. However, he has that power only on the basis of making an assessment of whether it is reasonable to do so, and he assesses the behaviour and the activities of the partners within that industrial relations framework. Do similar procedures exist in the decision-making process through which the Secretary of State for Transport awards significant sums of money to the companies? Does the Secretary of State consider the behaviour of and actions taken by employers in seeking to resolve the dispute, or in seeking to prolong or provoke it? Will the Minister tell me which companies have received such financial support, and how much support have they received? It would be very useful to get on the record, down to the last penny, how much Branson and others have been trousering from Government on the basis of disputes that they have provoked.
Katy Clark: My hon. Friend has already mentioned that substantial subsidy has been given to First ScotRail in respect of an industrial dispute in Scotland. Recently, powers relating to railways have been transferred to the Scottish Executive. It would be helpful if the Minister told us what discussions had taken place with the Scottish Executive on the issue, and if he confirmed that it was within the Scottish Executive's powers to decide not to continue with the policy and not to provide subsidy to private companies in this way.
John McDonnell: That is an important question. My understanding is that the Scottish Executive have a role in the matter, but we need clarity on that. Are the Scottish Executive being hamstrung and controlled by the Secretary of State for Transport in their operations to facilitate improvement of the industrial relations climate? It would be useful to get on the record the specific roles that each of the partners within Government play. In the current dispute between the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and Virgin Trains, more than 300 guards have been striking on Sundays since 1 January, after the Virgin board vetoed a settlement of the dispute over the erosion of Sunday pay rates. In that dispute, we have the barmy situation of Virgin bosses blocking a settlement that would have cost them no more than £6 per guard per Sunday to settle. In an answer to a written parliamentary question, my hon. Friend the Minister confirmed that Virgin Trains was in discussion with its franchise manager—the Government—on the current dispute. With regard to this dispute, will he assure me that the Government are not providing the train company of our multi-billionaire friend Richard Branson with any financial support? I hope
60 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
that the Minister can provide answers to these questions, and I hope that he will also reassure us on the threat to railway pensions.
Tom Brake: I want to put a hypothetical situation to the hon. Gentleman. It is possible that one of the train operating companies—probably not Richard Branson's—will risk bankruptcy as a result of an industrial action. What does he think the appropriate Government response should be in such circumstances?
John McDonnell: To bring it back into public ownership. It is as simple as that. That would solve the problem overnight and be a shining example of the Government's actions for the future.
Ian Davidson: My hon. Friend has asked a large number of very detailed questions of the Minister, who is a fine man and will want to be as helpful as he possibly can. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Minister is unable to answer all the questions in detail today—I see that he is here unprotected by a Parliamentary Private Secretary—it would be reasonable for him to give a clear undertaking to provide in writing an answer to any questions that he is unable to answer?
John McDonnell: I do not say this as a quotation from Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar", but the Minister is an honest man. Therefore, I am sure that he will provide us with all the detailed responses that we have asked for. I do not expect him to do that in sufficient detail today, but I would welcome it in writing. We would then have the opportunity to place that matter on the record in a further debate. The debate does not end here: the issue will come back time and time again, every time there is a dispute in the railway industry and every time we identify a single penny going from the taxpayer to the employer to subsidise disputes. This is the first part of the campaign to get some sort of fair and just industrial relations framework in the railways industry.
Ian Davidson: And the answers will come up at his trial.
John McDonnell: From a sedentary position, there was a reference to trials. We no longer shoot people in our movement for betrayals. [Laughter.] Some regret that. I move on to address the issue that is souring the industrial relations climate at the moment, which is that of the railway pension scheme. As the Minister will be aware, the scheme is under threat due to significant deficits in a number of different sections of the scheme. A number of sections are okay and can manage the deficits, but a number are not. The deficits have been caused by factors similar to those facing other industry pension schemes, including poor financial returns—I accept that—but also irresponsible employers exploiting pension holidays during the early years and the actuary's change to mortality assumptions on the basis that pensioners are living for longer. However, the threat to the railway pension scheme has been significantly compounded by the fragmentation and privatisation of the railways, specifically by railway employers enjoying surpluses built up during the latter years of British Rail when thousands of railway staff left the industry in preparation for privatisation. The rail employers have not been prepared to use those surpluses or the billions of pounds profit made from privatisation to fund the schemes adequately. The structure of the railways means that train operating and infrastructure companies' contracts cover only a number of years before they are re-tendered, which introduces instability into the system. The Minister will be aware that that has acted as a disincentive for train operating companies and other rail contractors to take on the liability of additional contributions now, or to recoup any overpayments from surpluses in the future. It is a structural problem in the industry. The problem has been compounded by the fact that, following privatisation, the unified railway pension scheme was fragmented into more than 100 different sections, which has
61 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP meant the loss of the economies of scale and financial stability provided by the unified scheme. As a whole, the private train operating companies, Network Rail and its contractors are entirely dependent on public subsidy for their continued survival. Does the Minister agree that the Government have a clear responsibility to assist in resolving this problem? There is plenty of scope for the Government to act. In the immediate term, they could use their position as the primary funder of the railway industry to provide comfort letters to the actuary to allow for deficits to be repaid over a longer period than the five years currently proposed. That would add some security to the system, which is increasingly in disarray. I understand that there may be plans to provide such comfort letters to cover the train operating companies, and if that is the case, it is most welcome. I hope that it will apply to all railway companies whose pension schemes are suffering from severe deficits. Even if comfort letters are provided, they will not address the fundamental problem of the fragmentation of the railway pension scheme, nor the tendency of various railway operators and employers to act in their own short-term interests. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the pension system could be made more efficient and secure if the railway pension scheme reverted to a unified fund, rather than the array of individual sections? Does he agree also that it would introduce immediate economies of scale and facilitate stability, long-term planning and more prudent management—essential prerequisites of a healthy pension scheme? There could be strong financial incentives for the Government to move towards a unified pension scheme. The Minister knows that every time a train operating franchise changes hands or splits, the pension scheme is restructured to take account of the change of franchise, with pensioners, deferred pensioners and contributing members allocated or re-allocated to various sections of the railway pension or to new sections that are being set up. Pensions are complicated enough, and that adds only complication upon complication. Furthermore, all those changes require the input of actuaries, lawyers and other professionals, and there must be an enormous administrative burden. The costs associated with the changes to pensions are borne not by the private companies but by the Department for Transport. Will the Minister tell us how much money the Government have spent in that way since the railways were privatised? Do the Government believe that it represents value for money? Does he agree that it would be far better value for the Government and a better deal for railway workers if there were a unified pension scheme again? I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for taking the time to listen to my concerns, and I hope that he will be able to answer my questions, if not today then in writing to us, so that we can read those responses into the record. Our railway workers need their concerns raised in this place. When the Government were elected, they went out of their way to impress upon the media and all who would listen to them that their relationship with the trade unions would mean fairness not favours. When it comes to industrial relations within the railway industry, the sense is that the whole process has been reversed. The privatised companies are getting the favours, and the rail staff are not getting any fairness. I hope that the Minister will tell us today how he intends to change that, and I hope that he will at least provide us with a commitment that the Government will consider the matter again. As I said earlier, this is the start of a campaign that will not go away. This is the first debate in a long campaign that we hope will not only secure a fair industrial relations framework for the railway industry but create an effective climate for railway workers, passengers, the Government and taxpayers.
Tom Brake (LD): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing a rare debate on the subject of industrial relations in the railways. He said that he will seek to pursue the matter further and to secure a further debate, and I would welcome that. I commend him for following the matter attentively. The trail of parliamentary questions included in our pack demonstrate how assiduous he is in following
62 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP the issues, whether they are industrial relations, pensions or the relationship between the Association of Train Operating Companies and the unions. On that point, I am as surprised as the hon. Gentleman is about the unwillingness of ATOC to enter into discussions. We might have a difference of opinion about the areas it should be willing to discuss, but I support the general principle that it should be willing to enter into discussions. I agree with his comments about the role that the workers in the rail industry have to play in keeping the country moving, and about the very important role that they played in keeping us on the move during the recent terrorist incident. Prior to the debate, I sought feedback from several sources, including the unions, individual staff and the industry on the state of industrial relations in the railway industry. I was not overwhelmed by representations from those different sources. Perhaps the unions direct their attentions to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that that is not the case, and I encourage them to share their concerns more widely than appears to have been the case in this instance. It confirms the anecdotal evidence of my recent travel experiences, which is that, generally, industrial relations on the railways are good. I received some information from Network Rail about the level of industrial action within its organisation. According to the company, there has been only one incident of industrial action since it took control in October 2002. It has been a period of relative calm. That is in contrast with past years. I have been commuting in and around London on the trains for the past 23 years, and during that time, there have been some very bad periods when many travellers have had to seek other ways of getting to and from work, whether walking, cycling, using the tube instead of the train or vice versa. That is not to say that there are no areas of dispute or disagreement, as the hon. Gentleman highlighted. Sometimes, they are resolved quickly, and I am sure that he welcomes the swift action that Metronet Rail took in relation to Blue Diamond. The cleaning contract was quickly terminated after it was revealed that the cleaning contractor was not paying workers the agreed rate. It had its contract withdrawn—a substantial contract that was worth £20 million over three years. I hazard to say that there are some examples of quite good relations between some of the main players and the unions. However, the hon. Gentleman, through his series of parliamentary questions, has rightly drawn attention to the dispute between the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and Virgin. He referred to the essence of the dispute—an issue about Sunday pay rates, involving 300 guards—and revealed that one of the more surprising aspects of the dispute was the role that the Government have played in providing subsidies to train operating companies involved in disputes. As he stated, and parliamentary answers reveal, Virgin is in discussion with the franchise manager—the Government—about that issue. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman answered my question in an intervention about whether it is appropriate to pay subsidies to compensate the train operating companies in relation, for instance, to a terrorist incident. There are perhaps circumstances in which it is perfectly legitimate for those companies to receive support. However, in relation to industrial disputes, we need much reassurance from the Government that such support does not feed the dispute, rather than seek to resolve it. At £23 million, the sums of money involved are not insubstantial, and I hope that the Minister will be able to provide more detail about which train operating companies have received that subsidy, so that we can consider whether some of the smaller companies would have gone out of business if they had not received it. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said that there is a clear way forward: the Government should take control and bring the companies back into the public sector. However, it would be useful for Members to know whether some companies might have gone out of business without some of the subsidies.
Ian Davidson: Having listened with some interest to the hon. Gentleman, I am not clear whether he supports the Government being able to indemnify companies for their losses. Can we have a clear statement of the Liberal position on that matter?
63 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I hope to be able to give him a clearer picture in the next few minutes. I believe that there may well be circumstances in which what has been described is appropriate but, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said, we need to hear from the Minister what criteria the train operating companies have to satisfy to qualify for the subsidies. We also need to hear whether there is anything on the other side of the argument. In other words, are the Government actively providing incentives to ensure that industrial disputes are resolved amicably? Is everything on one side of the argument? I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
Ian Davidson: Do I take it that the answer about the Liberal policy is, "Don't know"? I ask the question because the issue is not solely of academic interest, as the Liberals are in a coalition in Scotland and there is a potential impact on the position of ScotRail. It would be helpful to me as a Scottish Member to know unequivocally whether the Liberals are in favour of the procedure. If the hon. Gentleman cannot tell me today, perhaps he could write to me, as the Minister does, after the debate in order to make me aware of the position.
Tom Brake: It is a departure to request that Opposition Members write to Government Members to explain their position, but the intervention from the hon. Gentleman was legitimate, his point was valid, and I will pursue it and give him a detailed response. The Minister for Transport and Telecommunications in Scotland is a Liberal Democrat Member of the Scottish Parliament, so clearly the hon. Gentleman is entitled to a response, which he will receive soon, I hope.
John McDonnell: The hon. Gentleman is right. If there is to be subsidy in an industrial relations dispute, what criteria do the Government use? At the moment, if there are criteria, they are used to judge whether the money goes to the employer. If there is to be that Government intervention, we might as well have criteria whereby the Government decide who they will back. They might well be sending a cheque to Bob Crow and saying, "You've got it right this time, Bob; we'll give you the dosh." That is the ludicrous situation that we are getting into if the Government are going to intervene in industrial relations.
Tom Brake: I am happy to let the Minister respond to that point and say whether he will seek to make a financial contribution to Bob Crow's funds—I am sure that he will have clear views on that. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington rightly highlighted the concerns of the unions.
Stephen Hammond (Con): On the point about funds to Bob Crow, let us consider what Nick Wright, head of communications for ASLEF, has said, which is that it is easier to negotiate with the TOCs and the franchise operators in the run-up to the renewal of the franchise. So in fact the Government are giving money to Bob Crow and his friends, because they have the power in the balance of negotiations at that time. That is the countervailing argument to the one advanced by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) earlier.
John McDonnell rose—
Tom Brake: I give way again.
John McDonnell: We can overcome that by ending the franchise process altogether and bringing rail back into public ownership.
Tom Brake: Clearly, we need a further debate on this subject because we could pursue it for a number of hours hence, but to return to what I was saying, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington rightly highlighted the concern of the unions that the subsidy process is feeding disputes. I hope that, as he said, the Minister will put clearly on record the criteria that have
64 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
to be met for the subsidy to be provided and what the counterbalance is in terms of the encouragement that the Government give to ensure that disputes are settled amicably without the need for an industrial dispute. Has the Minister considered whether there are circumstances in which compulsory arbitration might be needed to resolve such an issue? I am referring to binding arbitration whereby the cases of both parties would be assessed independently and they would agree to sign up to the outcome of such a process. Alternatively, has the Minister considered the idea proposed by the transport committee of the London assembly, which is voluntary no- strike agreements in advance of key dates in the calendar when disputes traditionally come to a head, such as Christmas and new year? I am also thinking of the period in advance of the Olympics in 2012. I hope that the Minister will comment on that point. He may also want to provide clarity on what reasonable steps the franchise operators have to take to prevent industrial action. I understand that the Government require operators to do that before any subsidy can be made available. I have not dwelt on pensions, to which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington rightly referred. The Government are in a bit of a mess in that area. Certainly there is not much clarity or consistency from the Government on public sector pensions. The issue of pensions will increasingly grab the headlines, whether in the public sector or in the rail industry, as the hon. Gentleman outlined. I hope that the Minister will be more convincing on that issue in relation to the railways industry than the Government have been in respect of other sectors. I hope that hon. Members agree that, so far, this has been an informative debate, attempting to clarify Government policy. That is what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is seeking to do, and I thank his office for clarifying for me before the debate the areas on which he was to focus. The debate has not been about scoring political points, so I hope that the Minister will respond in a similar vein.
Stephen Hammond (Con): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing the debate and on putting his case so clearly, eloquently and forcefully. I support him in praising the staff of the railways for the job that they do. I represent a London constituency that benefits from both surface and underground rail, and the staff work very hard. Unfortunately, all too often in the eyes of the travelling public and perhaps in the eyes of some of the workers, they are represented by union leaders to whom the old adage of the first world war might apply. I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's history lesson. We have heard from several Government Members, both Front and Back Benchers, the history lesson of the railways, which always seems to start around 1988, when British Rail started to be a productive and efficient body, and which ignores conveniently the history of the 70 years before that, when Governments of both hues failed to invest. I guide anyone who wants to read a succinct history of the railways to the two articles by Professor Huxley in The Railway Magazine last year, which give a rather more clear, fair and balanced view of railway history. There has been quite a lot of talk today about the improvement in industrial relations on the railways and, indeed, throughout the country generally. It is true that industrial relations have improved such that, in 2003, we recorded the lowest number of labour disputes for 25 years, but it is true also that one third of those were recorded on our transport system in some way, shape or form, and that transport still accounted for 25 per cent. of the almost 500,000 days lost. The debate is therefore important in allowing us to consider why some of these disputes still arise. I shall refer to some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.
Tom Brake: I understand that today is a big day for the Conservatives—they have published a new glossy brochure. Will the hon. Gentleman set out what it contains about railways policy?
65 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
Stephen Hammond: I shall leave that for the hon. Gentleman to read later in the day; the brochure does not set out any policy in detail. Of course, later this week the Liberal Democrats have a bigger day, and we shall see whether it presages any change. I confirm for the hon. Gentleman that by the summer recess there will be detailed Conservative policies on a number of issues, such as transport policy—particularly rail policy. I shall be delighted to debate them with him then. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to a number of the written parliamentary questions that he has tabled about subsidies to the railways. In my earlier intervention on the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) I said that the argument could be made either way. There has been much righteous indignation about legitimate cases for industrial action being overcome by an astonishing abuse—I think those were the words of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington—of public funds. He asked a number of detailed questions of the Minister. Surely the nub of the issue is that the franchise agreements, entered into by both this Government and their Conservative predecessor, have enshrined the ability to reimburse the franchise operators for net losses due to industrial action. That is within the franchise arrangements and, presumably, subject to normal franchise arrangements and normal contract law: if one side breaches those franchise arrangements, the other can seek redress. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that that is the case. If it is not, I shall be interested to hear his argument as to why. The argument to put to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is that the franchise arrangements have sought to put such things in place so that we can improve services to passengers and investment in the railways, which has been lacking since 1918.
John McDonnell: The question for the hon. Gentleman is whether those things should be within the franchise agreements themselves. What is his party's position on that?
Stephen Hammond: I am happy to confirm that my party believes that the current franchise arrangements are suitable and appropriate. I look forward to the Minister giving a number of answers—either in the Chamber this morning or in writing later. If he cannot answer the rather large number of huge, detailed questions, perhaps he will do us the courtesy of making any written response available to everybody by placing it in the Library. That would be helpful. I picked up on the remark made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington about the Association of Train Operating Companies refusing to meet about anything. I accept that that may be right; I simply do not know. However, the quote that I gave from the head of communications at ASLEF clearly indicates that across the industry there is dialogue with the train operating companies in certain cases. Under the franchise arrangements, the train operating companies have an obligation to speak to franchise operators about industrial relations, safety and security. The hon. Gentleman tried, I think, to present a picture in which no conversation at all was taking place between the unions and the franchise operators. That is somewhat misleading.
John McDonnell: I find the word "misleading" inappropriate. I made it clear that there is no dialogue between ATOC and the unions. ATOC has refused all meetings about the strategic issues facing the railway industry, including issues of safety and so on. I did not seek to mislead the House in any way.
Stephen Hammond : I am happy to withdraw my remark. I merely point out that a huge amount of dialogue is going on between unions and franchise operators and between unions and the train operating companies, as was shown by my quote from the head of communications at ASLEF. We have talked a little about the principle of an employer and employee talking together, and I suspect that there is agreement on that across the House. Equally, there must be some
66 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
agreement across the House that when an agreed negotiation and consultation process is in place, it should be maintained through all the stages of negotiation. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has already referred to the Greater London authority transport committee report, which came out this week It refers exactly to this issue. It says that if the process could be cemented voluntarily, that could revive a great deal of trust in industrial relations in the underground. I accept that the underground is not the same as surface rail, but the point being made was that all too often in London underground negotiations, the unions break an agreed code and threaten industrial action at an early stage. We then see a breakdown into industrial action at a time that causes the height of discomfort to the travelling public. The GLA committee made and illustrated the point that that was a continual tactic. It seems sensible that the committee should have recommended that when an agreed negotiation and consultation procedure is in place, the whole of it should be followed through prior to any escalation of action. I hope that that could be agreed across the House, and would welcome the Minister's support for that recommendation. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington did not talk about a number of other industrial relations issues. I should like to mention one thing that the public find extremely difficult to understand. The discomfort of the travelling public is clearly the leverage of the unions in industrial relations. Andy Reed, another national organiser for ASLEF, said that industrial relations at the London underground varied "from hostility to anarchy". That is exactly what the travelling public see—the hostility of the unions towards them and the anarchy of the service provided to them. The travelling public have problems understanding that quite often the majority of such actions—or at least a number of them, particularly recent ones on the underground—have not been supported by a majority of the union members. For instance, various reports have stated that in the past four years, I think, the RMT has called 23 ballots in respect of the underground system. Turnout has been 48 per cent. on average, but below 40 per cent. in a number of the ballots. Those ballots have resulted in 10 strikes. Much talk this morning has been about unscrupulous employers trousering money, but there are also unscrupulous union leaders who call strikes on minority turnouts and minority support.
David Drew: I should declare my links with the RMT, which are recorded in the Register of Members' Interests. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that I have seen members of the general public hurling abuse at staff members, when, because of the total inadequacy of our network and through no fault of those staff members, connecting trains have gone? I have seen how those staff members, some of whom I am sure are union activists—I know some activists well—deal with that situation. It is a gross abuse to point the finger at the start at union activists, as the hon. Gentleman has done.
Stephen Hammond: In this case, this hon. Gentleman is genuinely being misleading. I opened my remarks by specifically praising the staff, and I would utterly condemn anyone who made such remarks to railway workers. My remarks about the unscrupulous nature of union leaders referred not to the workers, but to the tactic of calling action on a minority turnout.
John McDonnell: That was raised in the GLA transport committee debate. The Conservative members argued that industrial action should be called only if a majority of all staff—not a majority of the turnout—voted for it. However, on that basis, the GLA member, Roger Evans, for whom only 13 per cent. of the electorate voted, would never have been elected in the first place.
Stephen Hammond: I think that that is also wrong. The recommendation is that there should be a 50 per cent. turnout of the membership in the ballot; that would be the relevant
67 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
majority. All too often, action has been called on a turnout of well below 50 per cent. That is the difference.
John McDonnell: Roger Evans, the GLA Tory member, had been arguing that the tube unions should be allowed to take strike action only if a majority of those entitled to vote voted for the action.
Stephen Hammond: That is not the recommendation of the GLA transport committee, which is rather different. It is that there be at least a 50 per cent. turnout in the ballot.
John McDonnell: So the hon. Gentleman is condemning Roger Evans.
Stephen Hammond: No, I am not condemning him, because he is entitled to that view and I might support it. I was merely pointing out what the actual recommendation is. The tendency of union officials to act in their short-term interests all too often hampers industrial relations in the rail industry. We could have a debate lasting an hour and a half on the railway pension scheme.
John McDonnell: We will.
Stephen Hammond: I am glad that we will, because it will be an interesting debate. It will be extremely interesting to hear the Minister's response about previous pension fund holidays, how they will work, and how they have worked and acted against pensioners. The Minister might not wish to comment on the fact that across the public sector there is currently an unfunded liability in pensions, which the Government admit to be £460 billion. If they were to be honest and give their unfunded liability in the same way as companies must, following the obligations of financial reporting standard 17 or—perhaps to be more generous to the Government—following a discount rate more closely linked to index-linked skills, the unfunded liability of the Government pension scheme would be between £670 billion and £850 billion. I believe that the Chief Secretary has confirmed that in written responses. The rail industry scheme's problem pales into insignificance when we consider the matter across the whole public sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Derek Twigg): Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten us on current Conservative party policy in this area?
Stephen Hammond: I am merely pointing out the Government's own error. If, in the same way as they force corporate pension funds—[Interruption.]
Jimmy Hood (in the Chair): Order. I ask hon. Members to stop having conversations across the Chamber.
Stephen Hammond: I was merely pointing out that if the Government operated on the same basis as that which they force on companies, the unfunded liability of the public sector pension fund would be between £670 billion and £850 billion. The Conservative party is considering whether or not we should fund it. It would be honest to say that this Government's liabilities are 125 per cent. of gross domestic product, not the 60 per cent. that they claim in terms of debt. The issue of the pension fund will cause considerable problems both for the trustees and for the Government for some time to come.
Derek Twigg: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing this debate and providing an opportunity to discuss the important issue of industrial relations in the rail industry.
68 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
I use the railways every week, both local and national lines, and I have never driven down to London by car. It is a pleasure to use them. I am grateful to the people who work on them to ensure that a good service is provided. I want briefly to outline the situation in the railway industry, because to do so gives a context to the industrial relations issues. In debates such as this we might feel that a major problem is occurring and that the situation is not quite as good as it seems.
Tom Brake: Will the Minister give way?
Derek Twigg: I have only just started, so I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will let me continue a little before I allow him to intervene. Some good things are happening and I want to relate them to the Chamber in order to set the scene. The railways continue to be a success. The Government are spending £87 million each week on them and there have been record levels of investment in rolling stock. On average, over the past 12 months, more than 85 per cent. of trains have run on time as measured by the industry-standard public performance measure. Furthermore, there have been record levels of train patronage; more than 1 billion passengers used the railways in 2005, which is the highest number since the 1960s and makes our railways the fastest growing in Europe. Since 1996–97, rail passenger kilometres have grown by 32 per cent., so people are now travelling further by rail than ever.
Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for giving way. I was going to say that, having sat in a large number of these debates during the past nine years, I am aware that the introductory remarks about the industry generally tend to squeeze out the time for answering the serious points made by hon. Members.
Derek Twigg: The hon. Gentleman will just have to listen to what I have to say, and I think he will find that that is not the case. It is important to underline the current success of the railway industry. It has much to do with its staff, who are a vital part of the success. Whatever their particular role, their actions contribute to the increased usage of the railway and the general improvement that has taken place. On 7 July we saw the commitment and performance of railway staff during difficult and trying circumstances. I know that an issue has been made about security on the railways and the role of staff. It is also important to talk about the future, because the industry is now a vibrant one and more people want to work in it. Recently, I visited HMS Sultan, near Gosport, to see the new Network Rail apprenticeship scheme in action. It employs 200 engineering apprentices. They are the future of our railway industry. How often have we been crying out for investment in apprenticeships and in the railways? The scheme is another example of the good things that are happening. I am delighted about the growing interest in the railways and the increasing number of people using them. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington raised the point about the Association of Train Operating Companies and meetings with the unions. He will know, as do the unions that I have met, that we have raised issues with ATOC. The specific one, about which there has recently been a further discussion and which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said he would raise, was about getting together to discuss security. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, and other hon. Members, that we are in the process of dealing with that. We will host the meeting between ATOC and the trade unions to discuss security issues. The meeting will be about security and not about other issues. I will now address the specific issues that have been raised in this debate. The Government believe that industrial relations are a matter for the industry and that issues are best and most effectively dealt with between the relevant industry parties. Before the Railways Act 2005, the Strategic Rail Authority had responsibility for industrial relations. When its responsibilities transferred to the Department for Transport last year, my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), stated that the Government
69 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP intended to continue the SRA policy in this area. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington raised the matter in his speech and I will go into further detail as I continue mine. The Government have three main roles in industrial relations in the rail industry. They must approve any pay settlement agreed during the last twelve months of a franchise; they can agree to waive poor performance penalties, if that poor performance is as a result of industrial action; and they can agree to provide compensation of net losses to train operating companies for industrial action. Although the Department will not get involved in the details of pay awards and negotiations, the Government should keep an overview of what is happening in the industry, pay rates and anything unusual that is happening in terms of pay awards. A pay award in one TOC will have potential implications for all TOCs. My officials meet the industry regularly in order to provide me with such an overview. In addition, as hon. Members would expect, franchise management teams are kept regularly up to date with the current position of their TOCs in these matters. A specific point was made about Virgin Cross Country. It has regularly met its franchise management team. The meetings have included updates to the Department on the current dispute with the RMT train managers about differential pay on Sundays, which has been ongoing since 1 January 2006. That does not mean that the Government are making, or are planning, any intervention in this or any other dispute. As I have explained, industrial relations issues are for the individual company and the union to resolve. However, we would be failing in our duty if we did not seek to keep up to date on issues that might affect the satisfaction of passengers or the smooth running of the railway, or that might have a significant effect on the public purse. On the contractual position issue generally—
John McDonnell: Before the Minister discusses that, will he clarify the criteria that enable the Secretary of State to judge the intervention or the level of subsidy if there is a dispute? I am anxious to get as much on to the record as possible.
Derek Twigg: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I will address that point during my speech. I am sure that he will not be surprised to hear that we anticipated some of his questions. I will get back to hon. Members about the ones that I am unable to deal with today after the debate. The Department's position on industrial relations within the rail industry is defined in the franchise agreements. Everything that the Department does, it does because it has to contractually. There is little that it must do that is discretionary. Under the franchise agreement, the Department may at its sole discretion, agree to provide compensation to TOCs for their net losses suffered as a result of industrial action. That clause was added to the franchise agreement in 2003. The mechanism to pay compensation exists because of the relatively short-term nature of the franchises. Because of that, there were worries that TOCs might react in a way that would be to the detriment of future franchises rather than consider the causes of industrial action on their merits. Such awards might represent poor value for money for the industry as a whole and ultimately for the taxpayer when, in due course, we came to re-franchise the business. However, I emphasise that the compensation is not automatic and is paid only after consideration of all the contributing factors. For an operator to be able to receive such support, it needs to be able to demonstrate that it has taken all reasonable steps to avoid industrial action. It also needs to show that it has done all that it can to prevent any action from having a negative effect on its business. Any support covers only net losses, and that captures the savings that operators may make from the industrial action. That remains the Government's position, but no such payments have been made since the Department took over direct responsibility for franchise agreements from the SRA last year.
70 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
John McDonnell: Is the judgment on reasonable steps undertaken independently?
Derek Twigg: It is taken by the Department, but the franchise managers work with the individual TOCs to that end. I stress that, since we took over the responsibility for franchising, we have not done anything in that respect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, payments have been made under the clause. In the financial year 2003–04, the SRA made payments of £22.4 million in compensation to TOCs. In 2004– 05, that figure was £1.4 million. My hon. Friend has asked for more detail on the breakdown of payments. I shall endeavour to write to him about it in due course.
Tom Brake: Is "reasonable steps" a legal definition or is there, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington suggested, a checklist behind the phrase?
Derek Twigg: There is a relationship between a franchise manager and a TOC. "Reasonable" is something that we have to discuss and negotiate with the TOCs, but I shall be happy to give the hon. Gentleman further details after the debate. I must clarify the position of the Department during the last 12 months of a franchise. When a franchise is at that stage, the position is slightly different. While the franchising concept was being developed in the mid-1990s, it was recognised that there was a need to prevent train operating companies from agreeing above-inflation pay increases, knowing that most of the cost would fall on their successors. To prevent that from happening, a clause was added to the franchise agreements to force the TOC to agree any proposed pay increases that would be above the average earnings index with the Department. If the Department were to withhold its consent to such a pay award and that resulted in industrial action, it would be bound contractually to compensate the TOC for its net losses. That has never happened. To reiterate, the clause applies only if a franchise is in the last 12 months of operation. There are several other actions that cannot be taken by the operator in the last 12 months of a franchise without the Department's permission, which include the increase or decrease of staff numbers or total staff costs of more than 5 per cent. The Department monitors such issues carefully as part of its responsibility for managing the franchise. Reference has been made to renationalisation. I shall not go into detail, but we have set up a new structure within the rail industry. The Department has set up a rail review, with Network Rail taking responsibility for performance. The train operating companies are working with them and also on improving customer service. Working with the private sector is important to bring more investment into the rail network and bring about the improvements that I have mentioned. We are spending £87 million a week. Post-privatisation, there were many complex problems in the industry. We have now set out a much clearer way forward and a structure whereby people understand what is happening. That will bring about further improvements in the rail industry in the coming years. Reference has been made to agreements in respect of London Underground. Its operation, including industrial relations, is a matter for the Mayor, not central Government. It is for London Underground as the employer to lead in industrial relations and resolve any dispute with the trade unions. Any industrial action on the underground causes unnecessary inconvenience and disruption to the travelling public. We strongly urge all sides to continue negotiations so that the current dispute can be resolved peacefully. The strike arranged for 21 February was cancelled due to both sides engaging in constructive talks. I understand that the proposed strike on 2 March will also not go ahead. As for strikes and agreements, and certain times when strikes should not take place, there are no proposals for the Government to ban strikes on London Underground. A local agreement between the employer and the trades union could be undertaken if both sides were agreeable. However, even that could not guarantee that no further action would take place. New York has such a no-strike agreement in place, but that did not prevent strikes from taking place last autumn. It also cannot prevent unofficial action. It is far better that
71 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP industrial relations are undertaken in a constructive and positive manner from the outset so that strikes or threats of industrial action are not necessary. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that now is not the time to go into the wider issues of railways pensions and the existing challenges.
Ian Davidson: Before the Minister goes into pension details, did he accept our argument when we asked him for a full and helpful response to our detailed questions? He said that he would respond. Will his responses be helpful and constructive, and clarify matters, or will they be obscuration letters that sometimes come from Ministers?
Derek Twigg: Unless my hon. Friend has noticed something that I have not noticed in my seven months in the job, that is not generally my style. I give a commitment that I shall place the information that has been requested about issues that I have not dealt with today in the Library and I will make sure that all hon. Members are kept informed of what is happening. I shall make matters as clear as possible. I give my hon. Friend that undertaking. I understand the worries that are felt about railway pensions. It is accepted generally by all parties, including the trustees, that the operation of the railway pension scheme—the RPS— needs to be fundamentally assessed to ensure its continued good operation in the future and that members continue to receive their expected benefits, but the costs need to be contained at an acceptable level. I am aware of the potential for difficulty caused by the announcement of large deficits within sections of the RPS, but I am hopeful that a way forward will be found. Obviously, people are working together to find that way forward. The rail industry has undergone extraordinary changes in the past 10 to 15 years, beginning with privatisation and ending with the recent Railways Act 2005. I stress that the commitment and contribution of trade union members and staff who work in the rail industry has obviously been fundamental in getting over the difficulties that the industry faced post-privatisation, Railtrack and so on, and in taking forward what is now a much more successful railway, which is improving. I cannot underestimate the contribution that the staff have made to that, as have the train operating companies and Network Rail as well as the Government in the way in which we have set in place the strategy for the railway. By working together, we can further improve the railway and take it from strength to strength. As for the £87 million, it is crucial that our investment continues. Reliability has been a major factor in improving the railways. More than 85 per cent. of trains are running on time. People are voting with their feet and using the railways in greater numbers. As I said, more than 1 billion passengers used the railway last year. As any successful organisation knows, staff are its biggest asset—
Jimmy Hood (in the Chair): Order. We must now move on to the next debate.
This report was prepared by: The RMT Parliamentary Unit in association with RMT Head Office
72