RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

RMT

Parliamentary

Group

Report

July 2006 – 1st December 2006 (Inclusive of the Summer and party conference season recess)

1 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Contents Executive Summary 3

Parliamentary Group 5

Rail 8

· Public Ownership of Rail

· Rail Workers’ Pensions

· Expanding the Rail Network

· Rail Franchises

· GNER franchise

· Greater Western Rail Franchise

· Crossrail

· Environmental Case for Rail

· Anti- Social Behaviour on Northern Rail

London Underground 18

· Fire Safety Regulations

· East London Line

Maritime 21

· Tonnage Tax

· Thames Boatmaster licensing

· Race Relations Act

· Work Permits

· Irish Ferries

Other Campaigns 24

· Trade Union Freedom Bill

· Public Service Not Private Profit

· Hope Not Hate Tour

· John 4 Leader Campaign

Annex 1 – EDMs 26

Annex 2 – Letters 47

Annex 3 – Hansard and Group Members 53 2 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Executive Summary

This report covers the activities of the Group from 24th July to 1st December 2006, which has included the summer recess and party conference recess. The 2005-06 parliamentary session ended on 8th November 2006 and following the Queen’s Speech, the 2006-07 parliamentary session began on 15th November 2006.

In this period, we have held one Group meeting on 31st October. The next meeting of the Group is scheduled for 12th December 2006 – and will be the final meeting of 2006. The House returns from the Christmas recess on Monday 8th January 2007.

The Group meeting on 12th December will be attended by the new Rail Minister Tom Harris MP (who replaced Derek Twigg), and the Group is presently seeking further ministerial meetings on a number of issues including:

· Gillian Merron (Transport Minister) re: Bus policy · Stephen Ladyman (Transport Minister) maritime policy

The Group has also written to the London Mayor on the East London Line and fire safety regulations – following a meeting earlier in the year.

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

· 7th November – Expanding the Rail Network · 29th November – Rail Franchises · 30th November – Rail Performance

Written parliamentary questions have been tabled on the following issues:

· East London Line · Thames Boatmaster licensing · Fire safety regulations on the London Underground · Government subsidy to passenger rail franchises · Reopening of railway lines · Greater Western franchise · Crossrail · Transfer of Network Rail powers to Transport for London

In the 2005-06 parliamentary session, the Group tabled 29 EDMs (see below for summary, and Annex 1 for full details of EDM text and a list of all signatory MPs)

No. Title Tabling MP Sigs 200 Tonnage Tax and UK Seafarers' Employment John McDonnell 92 230 Brittany Ferries John McDonnell 32 351 Northern Rail Services Graham Stringer 59 352 Network Rail Bob Wareing 36 395 South Eastern Trains Clive Efford 35 447 South Eastern Trains' Ticket Office Cuts Gwyn Prosser 35 532 Public Ownership of Thameslink/Greater Northern franchise Kelvin Hopkins 29 534 Public Ownership of Greater Western franchise David Drew 36 549 Fire Precautions Regulations John McDonnell 65 575 Public Service Workers and the Terrorist Attacks on London John McDonnell 84 724 Working Conditions for Road Transport Workers John McDonnell 57

3 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

794 London Underground Public Private Partnership and Train Maintenance John McDonnell 31 982 Construction of Crossrail Harry Cohen 32 1093 Indemnification of Train Operating Companies during Industrial Action John McDonnell 43 1222 Treatment of Seafarers John McDonnell 51 1278 Wages of London Underground Cleaners John McDonnell 40 1561 Tenth Anniversary of Rail Privatisation John McDonnell 41 1574 Virgin Cross Country Jeremy Corbyn 29 1678 Environmental case for Rail John McDonnell 69 1680 Delivering Safer Rail Stations Kelvin Hopkins 55 1681 Rail Workers' Pensions John McDonnell 62 1920 Hope Not Hate Tour Jon Cruddas 95 1923 South Eastern Trains (No2) John McDonnell 24 1956 Regulatory Reform (S.I., 2006, No.484) John McDonnell 8 2191 Race Relations Act and the Minimum Wage Gwyn Prosser 69 2266 Safety on the River Thames John McDonnell 55 2398 East London Line John McDonnell 26 2511 Reform of Rail Fares John McDonnell 44 2910 Anti-Social Behaviour on Northern Rail services Jim Cousins 16

In addition four EDMs have been tabled on behalf of the Group since the start of the 2006- 07 parliamentary session:

133 Fire Precautions Regulations John McDonnell 42 134 Anti-Social Behaviour on Northern Rail Services Jim Cousins 42 286 Future of London Underground Passenger Services Jeremy Corbyn 21 3xx GNER Jim Cousins 6

Briefings circulated

Since the end of July 2006, briefings have been circulated on the following issues:

Rail · Anti-Social behaviour on Northern Rail services · East Coast Mainline / GNER franchise · Expanding the Rail Network · Rail franchising (RMT submission to Transport Select Committee)

Underground · East London Line privatisation · Fire Safety regulations on the London Underground

Maritime · Thames Boatmaster licensing

Other · Bus reregulation · Climate Change debate · Trade Union Freedom Bill · Corporate Manslaughter

4 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Parliamentary Group

The Group met just prior to the summer recess on Tuesday 19th July. The House returned, following party conference season, on Monday 9th October 2006, and the first Group meeting was held on 31st October.

Attendance at the Group was affected by the parliamentary debate on the proposal for an Inquiry into the Iraq war.

Group Meeting – 31st October 2006

Apologies: John Austin, Katy Clark, Jeremy Corbyn, Kelvin Hopkins, Jim McGovern

Group Meeting Tuesday 31st October 2006 4pm Room P, Portcullis House

Agenda

1. Apologies

2. Railways & Underground

· Future National Rail Strategy and Comprehensive Spending Review · Public Ownership – Future of GNER · Privatisation of London Underground East London Line · Fire Safety Regulations

3. Maritime

· Tonnage Tax, Race Relations Act, Minimum Wage · Thames Boatmaster Licence

4. Road Transport

· Government Review of Bus industry

5. Corporate Manslaughter

6. Trade Union Freedom Bill

7. Other Political and Industrial issues

8. Diary Dates (Next meeting: Tue 12 Dec, 4pm, Room P)

9. Any other Business

The next Group meeting takes place on Tuesday 12th December and will be attended by the new Rail Minister Tom Harris MP, who replaced Derek Twigg in September 2006. The main issues that the Group will raise will with the Minister will be future rail policy and the Eddington Review

5 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Briefings circulated

Since July 2006, briefings have been circulated on the following issues:

Rail · Anti-Social behaviour on Northern Rail services · East Coast Mainline / GNER franchise · Expanding the Rail Network · Rail franchising (RMT submission to Transport Select Committee)

Underground · East London Line privatisation · Fire Safety regulations on the London Underground

Maritime · Thames Boatmaster licensing

Other · Bus deregulation · Climate Change debate · Trade Union Freedom Bill

Press releases

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

· 35-hour week on GNER franchise · Balfour Beatty and Victoria Line · Bus deregulation · Canary Wharf group Tube staff · Discrimination on UK ships · East London Line privatisation · Exploitative pay on the Irish Sea · GNER franchise · Heathrow Express industrial action · Israeli attack on Lebanon · Jubilee Line dispute · Ladbroke Grove · London Underground PPP · Metronet and the London Underground · North Sea Divers · OCS cleaners on Eurostar · Patrick Harrington · Pay on London Underground · Piccadilly Line safety · Privatisation of Gourock-Dunoon Ferries · Public Ownership on the Railways · Rail fares · Rail franchising and Transport Select Committee report · TfL Pension fund · Thames Boatmaster licensing · Track renewals 6 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

· Virgin Cross Country industrial action · West Coast Mainline upgrade · West Midlands signalling ballot · Wrexham-London rail service

Queen’s Speech 2006

The Queen’s Speech on 15th November 2006 ushered in the 2006-07 parliamentary session, and also contained a number of new bills that will be of interest to the Group:

· Climate Change Bill · Concessionary Bus Travel Bill · Greater London Authority Bill

A draft bill on Road Transport was also announced that may pave the way for road pricing and the reregulation of local bus services. There were also some bills carried over from the previous 2005-06 parliamentary session:

· Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill · Crossrail Bill

Private Member’s Bill ballot

At the beginning of each parliamentary session, there is a ballot for backbench MPs to introduce private legislation that is timetabled for debate on Fridays. The RMT Group sent a note to all Group members encouraging them to enter the ballot and, if selected, to adopt the Trade Union Freedom Bill as their Bill.

The ballot was held on Tuesday 21st and Wednesday 22nd November 2006, and the result was announced on Thursday 23rd November. The top 20 MPs out of the ballot will have their bills drawn up, although it is unlikely that more than the top 5 (or 10 at most) will actually have their Bill debated on the floor of the House – due to time constraints.

John McDonnell MP, Chair of the RMT Parliamentary Group, was drawn at No.16 in the ballot – meaning that his Bill will be published, but is very unlikely to be debated or voted upon. The first four MPs drawn were all Conservative MPs, but discussions are underway with Labour MPs selected in the top 10 to see if they will move the Trade Union Freedom Bill.

7 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

RAIL

In September 2006, Derek Twigg was moved to the Ministry of Defence, and replaced by Tom Harris as Rail Minister. The Group wrote to Tom Harris on 13th November 2006 congratulating him on his appointment and inviting him to the next Group meeting.

A reply was received on 23rd November and the Minister will attend the next Group meeting on 5th December. The full text of the letter can be viewed in Annex 2.

Public Ownership

The 4th February 2006 marked the 10th Anniversary of private rail passenger franchises coming onto the railways under the Tory privatisation. To commemorate this anniversary, the Group tabled EDM 1561 ‘Tenth Anniversary of Rail Privatisation’, which was signed by 41 MPs before the end of the 2005-06 parliamentary session (see Annex 1 for a full list of signatory MPs and the EDM text). Diane Abbott MP also tabled the following question on behalf of the Group:

Diane Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what Government spending on British Rail was in the last full year before privatisation; and what the most recent full year's subsidy was of (a) the privatised rail companies and (b) Network Rail or its predecessor.

Tom Harris: Details of historic Government expenditure on rail are contained in National Rail Trends (NRT) copies of which are in the Library of the House. NRT is also available on the Office of Rail Regulation's website at http://www.rail- reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.129

The RMT has also continued to play an active role within the Public Services Not Private Profit campaign, which has united 16 public sector trade unions with numerous campaigning organisations (for more details see separate section on p.24)

The Group also tabled EDM 2511 ‘Reform of Rail Fares’, just before the summer recess, welcoming the report by the Transport Select Committee highlighting the extortion by TOCs, and calling on the Government to “address this situation by incorporating a coherent policy on fares and ticketing structures into the forthcoming White Paper on Rail”. By the end of the session, the EDM has been supported by 44 MPs. The Group has also circulated to MPs RMT press releases on this issue.

Rail Workers’ Pensions

As RMT members will be aware the rail industry pension scheme was splintered into over one hundred units by privatisation. Following proposals to close existing pension schemes and introduce inferior arrangements – including increasing retirement ages and contribution, loss of protection against inflation and removal of ill health benefits, the Group tabled EDM 1681. By the end of the 2005-06 parliamentary session, it had gained the support of 62 MPs.

Following RMT members’ 74% vote in favour of strike action, and intensified political and industrial campaigning, the employers finally agreed to participate in a commission to resolve the long term future of railway pensions. Group members have been kept updated of developments.

8 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

The Group has also looked up some background information on behalf of the RMT on the pensions issue, by examining Railways Acts and statutory instruments, and ministerial commitments during debates. British Rail had in its pension scheme a surplus of £1.2 billion prior to privatisation1.

Expanding the Rail Network

An adjournment debate ‘Expanding the Rail Network’ was secured by Liberal Democrat MP Jim Pugh on 7th November 2006. In advance of the debate, detailed briefings were circulated to Group MPs, and the following members were able to intervene in the debate: Katy Clark, Jeremy Corbyn, David Drew, and Kelvin Hopkins. The full text of the debate can be viewed in Annex 3.

In addition, following a written ministerial statement on 24th October 2006 which announced guidance for the closure of railway lines, Jeremy Corbyn MP tabled the following question:

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which railway lines in England and Wales are under consideration for reopening; and what his policy is on the reopening of railway lines.

Derek Twigg: In July next year [2007] we will publish our High Level Output Specification. This will set out the railway outputs the Government wish to buy in terms of capacity, safety and reliability and the funding to support this for the next five years. It is for the industry to determine what inputs are needed to deliver this.

Rail franchises

A report by the Transport Select Committee into passenger rail franchising, published in November 2006, stated that rail franchising was “a complex, fragmented and costly muddle”. The Group issued a press release copied below:

PRESS NOTICE . . .

Embargoed until 00:01 on Sunday November 5, 2006

Railway privatisation has failed . . . MPs welcome Transport Select Committee report on rail franchising

The Transport Select Committee today (Sunday 5th November) released its report into 'Passenger Rail Franchising', damning privatisation as "a complex, fragmented and costly muddle".

John McDonnell MP, Chair of the RMT Parliamentary Group, welcomed the report and said:

"This damning report leads to the inevitable conclusion that only public ownership of the railways can ensure the necessary long-term planning and efficient running of the rail network.

"The railways have an important role to play in the UK meeting its environmental obligations and in reducing social exclusion - it cannot be left to

1 The Guardian. 05/02/88 9 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

the market, which has only led to massive profits for a few and fare rises for the many.

"Labour Party conference has voted to bring the railways back into public ownership - in line with public opinion. The Government must listen to Party members, rail unions, the travelling public and the Transport Select Committee and end this failed Tory experiment with privatisation".

-Ends-

On 29th November, Vincent Cable secured an adjournment debate on ‘Rail franchises’ at which Kelvin Hopkins and John McDonnell intervened on behalf of the Group. The edited text is copied below:

Kelvin Hopkins: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on raising this important issue. I have taken a long and close interest in the railway system, not least because I have been a commuter for 27 years on First Capital Connect, which was Thameslink and, before that, British Rail.

I study the railways with interest and read about the subject, and I have many friends and colleagues in the railway industry who tell me on a daily basis what is actually going on. My comments are based on some background of knowledge and are not just made from a position of prejudice, even though it is probably well known to everyone here that I do not think that privatisation was a good idea and that I strongly believe that the railways should be reintegrated into a publicly owned system.

I have recently heard surprising comments from private enterprise members of the railway industry, who said that they had overheard a Treasury official saying that the reason why we privatised the railway system was “to promote its decline”—those were the words that were used. Before that, apparently, another Treasury official, who was put on the board of BR, said, “I have come on to the board to oversee the decline of the railway industry.”

There was a profound disbelief in the railways among Governments and among politicians in general. We believed collectively—I am not talking about us personally—that the railways were a system of the past and that the future would be the roads. I understand, although this might be apocryphal, that Mrs. Thatcher believed that railways were inherently socialist because they were collective and people travelled together, whereas the true freedom-lover, the individual, would always drive by car.

That story might not be true, but apparently it was true that there were plans at one point possibly to close Midland Mainline and the line that goes through my constituency. That was at the extreme of the mania for road travel. I think that the world has realised that a terrible mistake was made and that we can never all get on to the roads. They are now incredibly crowded. Setting aside any concerns about carbon dioxide, we need our railways. The fact that millions more people are travelling on the railways every year demonstrates that the population—our constituents—believe in railways, which will be more important in future as we deal with environmental problems and the population density of this country. It is possible that the population of this country will rise to 70 million and we will need more transport, so the narrow, fast corridors that rail provides will be vital.

The franchise that serves my constituents is First Capital Connect, and before that it was Thameslink. One of the features of privatisation was vertical disintegration: the rolling stock is owned by rolling stock leasing companies or ROSCOs—essentially 10 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP the banks—who lease them to the train operating companies, who buy time on the track owned initially by Railtrack and now by Network Rail. Even Conservative Members realise that that vertical disintegration was a terrible mistake and that vertical integration is the way forward. If we have vertical integration, the franchises will disappear and will be integrated into another sort of railway organisation, be it public or private. Over time, it might even start to look a little like British Rail. At a meeting at Westminster, the former regulator, Tom Windsor, said that the only thing that was wrong with British Rail was that it handed over the railway network to Railtrack “in good order” but that the problem was that there was desperate under-investment. The network had been starved of investment for decades.

If one compares the level of investment in railways in Britain with that in railways on the continent, one can see the difference. We are now trying to make up lost ground. Unfortunately, we are doing that in the private sector instead of the public sector and that costs a lot more. My friends in the railway industry suggest that, for example, the cost of laying a mile of railway track is now between four and five times what it was under British Rail when costs were held down by cash limits and work was carried out by directly employed staff who did a superb job and, as Tom Windsor said, “worked miracles on a pittance.”

Had we had more foresight, we would not be in our present position. We would have a much better, modern railway system with better investment and the work would be done much more cheaply.

The franchises are relatively short term, so there is not much incentive to invest, and we are going to integrate them and make them longer term. If all the risk is held by the Government, who pay the bill and are responsible to the electorate, what is the point of having the system in the private sector if it is inherently subsidised and non- profit-making? The system is not sensible and we shall look back on it as a period of political madness.

John McDonnell: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests and my relationship with the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers.

I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to parliamentary questions that I and others put down about the rationality of the process by which the franchises operated, particularly the bidding process. The Government confirmed that more than £60 million was spent on franchising passenger services just in terms of the bidding processes and the assessment of the franchises alone.

Kelvin Hopkins: The bidding process and all the contracting across the former public sector, now the private sector, are expensive, as I know from managers in my local hospitals. The bidding process and subsequent management costs money. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Let us look at how the franchisees operate. First, they must lease their rolling stock from the ROSCOs and the charges have been horrendous. I know that the Government have focused on that and no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister had some influence is bringing down those charges, but they were sometimes of the order of 30 per cent. and more for rolling stock that might last 20 years. It was a rip- off, and the banks were coining public money and pocketing it by charging vast amounts for leasing rolling stock.

Turning to the relationship with Railtrack and now Network Rail, I travel on trains on a daily basis and every now and again there is a rash of what are called “wheel flats”. When wheels skid, particularly at this time of year, they form a flat and bang the rails as they go round. That happens daily at the moment and almost every carriage that I 11 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

have been in during the past week has had wheel flats. One of the problems with that is that stock must be taken out of action for the wheels to be taken off and the profiles to be reground, but I understand that Network Rail still owns the wheel-grinding machines, so wheels must be taken to another organisation to have that done by the ROSCOs. The ROSCOs are not too bothered because, as long as the rent is paid, they are not concerned about when the wheels are repaired. The problem is that the wheel flats hit the track and damage it. They do not do much good to the trains and certainly make an uncomfortable ride, but there is not much incentive to deal with wheel flats because that is always someone else’s responsibility.

Another problem is that if track is not maintained, trains must operate slowly. That happens frequently and sometimes the cause is not dealt with for weeks. The complexities of the way in which fines are paid between one group and another in the industry does not seem to work because, time and again, there is slow running for several weeks as, for example, near the Elstree tunnel recently. There seems to be nothing in the system to deal with that in the short term.

I am not necessarily blaming Network Rail, but for some reason, especially under Railtrack, drainage was not dealt with, so there was a problem but no incentive to deal with it. In the end, two groups of people pay and they are the same people. First, passengers pay with high fares—they are much higher in Britain than in Italy and other countries that still have an integrated, nationalised system. We pay some of the highest railway fares in the world. The other great payer into the system is the Treasury. God knows why the Treasury is so interested in maintaining a system that soaks up so much of its money every year when it could do things much more cheaply in the public sector, thereby saving public money and making it easier to balance the Chancellor’s Budget.

Tim Farron: It is in the Treasury’s interest and that of all rail operators to have more bums on seats—more passengers paying their way on the trains. Is he aware that Passenger Focus’s recent research shows that the aspirations of the Cross Country franchise would lead to 2.8 million fewer passenger journeys a year, predominantly because everyone travelling to the south coast or the south-west from north of Crewe—and from Oxenholme in my constituency—would have to change at Birmingham New Street station? Will he acknowledge that research and say whether it is a matter for concern?

Kelvin Hopkins: I have not seen that research, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for the information. My view is that if the system were integrated, we could have much better integration of cross-country routes. A couple of years ago, I travelled to my party conference from my constituency and used three different train operators to get there. One problem was the fares. I was initially told that the return fare was a vast sum of around £190. I asked the person behind the desk whether they were sure about that and they said that they would make a few phone calls. Apparently, certain phone calls can be made to find out about integration of fares so that they come right down. Instead of paying £190 return, I got it down to £120 after a bit of questioning, but ordinary people, such as pensioners, might not be as assertive as an over- confident MP so they might not have challenged the fare and might have paid the higher amount.

John McDonnell: They have introduced bartering into the system.

Kelvin Hopkins: Indeed.

Julian Brazier: The hon. Gentleman is making a strong case for integration, and rightly said that those on the Conservative Front Bench are very much in favour of

12 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP integration. However, will he think again about what he just said about the overwhelming merits of the public sector? My constituency did not see a single new train in 40 years under the old system.

Kelvin Hopkins: I accept entirely what the hon. Gentleman said. Indeed, I made the point earlier that the railway system was under-invested in for decades by successive Governments of both parties. As Tom Windsor said, people “worked miracles on a pittance”.

We did not have the investment then, and one has only to go to foreign countries to see what such investment can achieve. I recently went from Cologne to Frankfurt on a fantastic high-speed line, 30 per cent. of which was in tunnels. Those involved had spent a very large sum on it, but we are nervous about spending money. The private sector, however, spends three or four times what we need to spend, because it is so inefficient at building. However, I understand, Mr. Weir, that we are talking about franchises and train operators, rather than the track.

John McDonnell: On the principle, however, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, the Government are slowly recreating British Rail—that is what the Network Rail operation is all about. The figures for the past two years show that delays have dropped by 28 per cent. since Network Rail took control of the track. That has to be an indication of the trajectory that the Government must pursue in bringing back rail into public ownership.

Kelvin Hopkins: Indeed. That is absolutely right. I went to yesterday’s briefing by Network Rail’s chief executive, who said how much improvement there had been. One great advantage of the franchise system, of course, is that when the franchises come to an end, they can simply be handed over to the national railway operator, which might be Network Rail plus operators. There is no problem about buying the franchises, because they are just handed over when they come to an end. If we bought them in beforehand, of course, things would be more difficult.

My hon. Friend is right that we are moving progressively towards the reintegration of our rail industry and something like a modern version of British Rail, although it would, I hope, have a lot more investment. It would be easy to move in that direction and it would not be costly: we could just hand the franchises over to John Armitt and his chums and we would be moving back towards a publicly owned railway.

I should add that if the ROSCOs are going to rip off the purse in the way that they have in the past, we should say, “Right, we are a monopoly buyer. We will pay this amount for your trains. If you don’t like it, sell them to us at a knock-down price, and we’ll buy them back in.” There would be a cost, but it would not be prohibitive. At the same time, we could possibly do a deal to reduce the leasing charges and lease operations until such time as, bit by bit, they all come back into public ownership.

My hon. Friend is right to suggest that we are moving back towards a publicly owned, integrated national railway system. Unfortunately, Front Benchers on both sides do not want to be seen to be allowing something to be recreated in the public sector, because that goes against the zeitgeist—the spirit of the times—which is all for privatisation, and the slightest step back from that might persuade some people that there is a case for public ownership, not just in the railways, but perhaps elsewhere. However, we are talking about how the franchises could be quickly integrated with the rail network operators to recreate a national railway system.

At present, there are too few incentives in the system to provide a good service, keep trains in good order, make rides comfortable and provide enough stock. Another problem that has resulted on my line as a result of the franchise system is that there is a shortage of stock. Those who know the Thameslink network will know that there 13 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

has to be a dual-voltage operation, because there is AC on the north side and DC on the south side. There have to be special trains with both types of motor, but there is a limited number of them. Some are actually held by another franchisee, but it will not let them be transferred to our franchisee, which needs them.

At peak times, as I have experienced myself, there is a four-car operation instead of an eight-car operation, even as far out as Luton. We are so short of sets that if one set goes out of operation, it becomes a scrum to get to work. Even I have occasionally had to stand, even though I travel in from as far out as Luton, and people will certainly have to stand by the time that the trains reach St. Albans. That is unacceptable. We need more trains and more stock. Even now, there is stock that could be transferred to Thameslink, but it is not being transferred. The reasons are complicated reasons, and the franchisees cannot agree on the issue. With an integrated national system, however, that stock could simply be transferred, and we could have optimal use of all stock in all regions. That would make for a much better railway and much more comfort for my constituents and for all those who travel on lines such as mine.

I think that I have made my point. I did not expect to have quite this much time and I am surprised that many more Members do not wish to speak on this subject. My speech has therefore been rather longer than I thought that it would be, but my basic point is that the franchise system is nonsense. It should be wound up quickly by integrating the train operating companies with Network Rail and by beginning to recreate a sensible national integrated railway system. Thank you.

In response to the debate, the Minister replied:

Tom Harris (Rail Minster): I turn to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North. Neither I nor the Government approach the structure of the railways ideologically. We do not look at the privatised railways and conclude that, because they are private, they are good.

John McDonnell: When Connex was taken over, it was run by the public sector for two years and was one of the most successful operations in the whole network. It was then privatised again. On what basis was that decision made? If what worked mattered, it would have remained in the public sector.

Mr. Harris: I disagree. I should point out that since the new franchisee took over that franchise, performance has been at least maintained or, as the hon. Member for Canterbury says, improved.

What would be the point of renationalising the rail industry unless we could show benefits for the travelling passenger? We have the highest safety record in history and performance that, although not at an all-time high, has certainly improved greatly since the Hatfield incident in 2000. Record investment is going into the network. In the context of the more than 1 billion passenger journeys being made—the highest level since 1946, I believe—what would be gained?

I say with all respect to my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Luton, North that the only thing to be gained would be the ticking of an ideological box to say, “We are on the left; we are a socialist party”. I am not convinced that moving into the public sector would achieve anything except the wearing of a left-wing conscience on our shoulders.

Kelvin Hopkins: I shall be brief. On a number of occasions, I raised the problem of costs with the previous Secretary of State for Transport. Costs have been massively increased under privatisation. That is the key.

14 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Mr. Harris: Costs have increased, but standards have also increased. It is clear that, even if British Rail were still in the public domain, the money to be spent on the infrastructure would also be increased, not only because of higher standards but because, as my hon. Friend rightly says, the railway network was deprived and starved of investment for many decades. For the first time, the Government are putting record investment into the railways, which is why—

Mike Weir (in the Chair): Order. We must move on to the next debate.

GNER franchise

The parent company of GNER, Sea Containers, has filed for bankruptcy in the United States. It has since been reported that the DfT has decided to re-let the East Coast mainline franchise and place the operator GNER on a fixed management contract.

At Transport questions on 17th October 2006, Jim Cousins raised the issue with a supplementary question:

Jim Cousins: Sunderland, a city of 300,000 people, was given a direct rail service to London. Great North Eastern Railway then had a hissy fit and has sought chapter 11 protection in the United States. Will my hon. Friend assure us that none of the other towns and cities that GNER serves will suffer any resultant harm, and that the Government will continue to get their full franchise agreement money from GNER?

Mr. Harris: The House would not expect me to comment on what is a matter for the private company, Sea Containers, which owns the GNER service. The Sunderland to London service, which is planned to commence on 10 December this year, is with the Office of Rail Regulation, and we expect an announcement soon.

The Group tabled an EDM at the end of November 2006, expressing its concern and calling for the operation of the East Coast Mainline to be brought back into the public sector. The full EDM text and signatory MPs can be viewed in Annex 1.

Greater Western franchise

The Greater Western rail franchise came to an end in late 2005. In advance of this, the Group tabled EDM 534 ‘Public Ownership of the Greater Western rail franchise’ calling for the franchise to be brought back into public ownership in line with Labour Party conference policy. By the end of the session it had been signed by 36 MPs.

However, almost one year ago, the Government announced that the franchise was re-let to First Group. Since then David Drew MP, who tabled EDM 534, asked a series of written questions about the franchise:

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

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

15 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

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

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

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 three RMT Group MPs: Katy Clark, Kelvin Hopkins and Linda Riordan. The Committee had its first meeting in December 2005 and is continuing to meet. Briefings and press releases continue to update MPs by the Group.

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”. The Group has supported this EDM, and it has received 32 signatures.

The Greater London Authority Bill, announced in the 2006 Queen’s Speech, will grant extra powers to the London Mayor. Jeremy Corbyn asked the following question regarding the railways:

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to authorise the transfer of railway interchange stations in London from Network Rail to Transport for London; and if he will make a statement.

Derek Twigg: The Department for Transport is currently involved in discussions with Transport for London regarding the manner in which rail interchange stations within London are operated in the future. As these stations are Network Rail's assets, the final arrangements for any transfer would be a matter for Transport for London and Network Rail.

Environmental case for Rail

EDM 1678 ‘Environmental Case for Rail’ had been signed by 69 MPs by the end of the parliamentary session. 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).

In advance of the Climate Change debate following the Queen’s Speech, the Group circulated a detailed briefing, emphasising the role that public transport can play in reducing carbon emissions.

The Group will also be responding to the publication of the Eddington Review, which is expected with the next week.

16 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Anti-Social Behaviour on Northern Rail

Just prior to the end of the 2005-06 parliamentary session, the Group tabled EDM 2910 ‘Anti-Social Behaviour on Northern Rail services’, which was signed by 16 MPs within two days before the session ended.

The EDM was immediately re-tabled following the new 2006-07 parliamentary session, and has so far been signed by 42 MPs. A press release on the issue has been circulated to all MPs.

17 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

LONDON UNDERGROUND

In the 2005-06 parliamentary session, the Group tabled a number of EDMs on issues relating to the London Underground to highlight particular concerns of RMT members – the full text and signatory MPs can be viewed in Annex 1:

EDM 575 ‘Public Service Workers and the Terrorist Attacks in London’ was tabled by John McDonnell following the terrorist attacks on London on 7th July 2005. By the end of the session it had been signed by 84 MPs.

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“; received support from 32 MPs.

EDM 1278 ‘Wages of London Underground Cleaners’ drew attention to appallingly low levels of pay provided by contract cleaning companies on the London Underground – and was supported by 40 MPs.

Fire Safety Regulations

Following our meeting on 9th May at City Hall to convey our concerns with regard to the implications for safety on the underground, the Mayor agreed to approach the Department to request mayoral participation in any working party that was subsequently set up. A letter was sent to the Mayor on 25th July 2006 (see Annex 2) to ask that he contact the DCLG to request a meeting of the working party, with input from TfL. The London Mayor stated in his letter of 16th September 2006 that:

“in accordance with our discussion, I have sent a letter to the Secretary of State requesting that London Underground be represented on the working party”

In advance of the Group meeting on 31st October, the DCLG was contacted by the Group to see if there was any progress towards the establishment of a working party on the regulations – which the Group first raised with Jim Fitzpatrick in March 2006.

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

In theory an application could be made to reduce the staffing level below two, but a risk assessment would need to prove that this would be safe – and the DCLG thought this would be very unlikely. The guidance is expected to recommend 4 or 5 staff members. In London this would also require an alteration notice.

We also understand that the Minister will approve the Group’s proposal for a working party , once the guidance is sorted. The regulations are due to run in tandem for 6 months, although this may be closer to 12 months in reality.

EDM 549, calling on the Government to retain the 1989 minimum standards, was signed by 65 MPs by the end of the 2005-06 parliamentary session. In the new session EDM 133 has been tabled by John McDonnell MP, and has already been signed by over 40 MPs, including the following London MPs: Karen Buck, Jeremy Corbyn, Andrew Dismore, George Galloway, 18 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Neil Gerrard, Glenda Jackson, John McDonnell, and Rudi Vis. The full text and signatory MPs of both EDMs can be viewed in Annex 1.

East London line

A delegation of London MPs (Diane Abbott, Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell) from the Group met with Ken Livingstone in May to raise our concerns regarding the East London Line Extension (ELL) being run by a private operator. Following that meeting, the Group wrote to the Mayor on 25th July 2006 (just prior to the summer recess) emphasising its opposition to the de facto privatisation of the ELL, and stating that:

“we cannot see any technical or practical reason why this means that the service has to be a private franchise or concession.”

The Mayor replied on 19th September 2006, and stated:

“I very much welcome your support for the extension of the East London Line (ELL) . . . The operation of the ELL as a franchise should not be construed as ‘privatisation’, as Transport for London will retain close control of the infrastructure, own the trains and will specify the fares and timetable”.

The Group tabled EDM 2398 ‘East London Line’ calling “for East London line passenger services to remain in the public sector”. The EDM had been signed by 26 MPs by the end of the 2005-06 parliamentary session.

Following the commencement of the 2006-07 parliamentary session, the Group re-tabled the EDM (no.296), which has already been signed by 21 MPs. The full text and signatory MPs of both EDMs can be viewed in Annex 1. A briefing and joint RMT/TSSA/SERTUC press release has been circulated to all Labour MPs, encouraging them to sign the EDM.

At the 2006 LRC Conference Challenging for Labour’s Future held on 22nd July 2006, an RMT resolution calling for the East London Line to be retained within the public sector was passed unanimously – and at the TUC conference in September 2006, the TUC overwhelmingly backed the RMT and TSSA campaign to keep the East London Line in public ownership.

At London Labour Party Conference on Saturday 25th November 2006, the RMT and TSSA held a joint fringe meeting to highlight their concerns to London Labour Party members. Jeremy Corbyn MP, who tabled EDM 296, spoke on behalf of the Group at the meeting – alongside Bob Crow and Manuel Cortes.

Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have tabled a series of questions on behalf of the Group regarding the East London Line – the questions and answers are copied below:

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has held with Transport for London on the proposed East London line extension; whether a possible route to Finsbury Park has been raised; and if he will make a statement.

Gillian Merron: The Secretary of State has held no discussions recently with Transport for London (TfL) on the East London line extension. The delivery and route of the East London line extension are matters for TfL.

19 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his consent is required to allow Transport for London to enter into agreements with outside contractors to carry out station or train operating functions on the East London line.

Derek Twigg: The contractualisation of station and train operating functions on the East London line is a matter for Transport for London and the explicit agreement of the Secretary of State is not required.

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he has given to Transport for London in respect of the operation of services on the East London Line after the proposed extension has been completed

Derek Twigg: The operation of services on the East London Line is a matter for Transport for London

John McDonnell also used the adjournment debate on ‘Rail Franchises’ in November 2006 to ask the Minister about the process for the East London Line extension:

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

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

The Group is awaiting the Minister’s clarification.

20 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

MARITIME

Each Government department answers oral questions in the House of Commons on an approximately monthly basis when the House is sitting. In advance of Transport questions on 21st November 2006, John tabled a question on seafarers’ employment rights, which was selected at No.18. MPs table questions about a week in advance and then a ballot is held to determine which order they are asked.

Usually only the first 10-12 questions are reached (in the 40 minute time slot), and so John’s question was not reached and was therefore answered as a written question. The response is copied below:

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with trade unions on seafarers' employment rights.

Stephen Ladyman: I have regular meetings and correspondence with the maritime trade unions. Such communications frequently involve discussions about seafarers' employment rights.

Tonnage Tax

When the Group met with the Minister in May 2006, he said he was still committed to social partnership, and that the shipowners were “hostile” to the link. Following that meeting, the RMT wrote to the Minister on 28th June 2006 to suggest a “compromise proposal” to link improved training and employment to the tonnage tax in domestic sectors only. In response to the Group letter of 4th October 2006 (see Annex 2 for full text) asking for progress on this and other maritime issues, the Minister replied on 10th November to say:

“My officials are looking into the practicalities of this proposal and I hope to get back to you soon when I have fully considered the implications.”

EDM 200 ‘Tonnage Tax and UK Seafarers’ Employment’, tabled by John McDonnell MP, was signed by over 90 MPs by the end of the 2005-06 parliamentary session (full text and signatory MPs in Annex 1).

Thames Boatmasters’ Licences

At the end of July, the Group organised a letter on the Thames Boatmaster licensing from London MPs setting out the concerns about the new licensing and training proposals. The letter was signed by seven London MPs: John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington), Kate Hoey (Vauxhall), Harry Cohen (Leyton & Wanstead), Alan Keen (Feltham & Heston), Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow), John Austin (Erith & Thamesmead) and Lyn Brown (West Ham). The full text of the letter can be viewed in Annex 2.

The Group tabled EDM 2266 ‘Safety on the River Thames’, which was been signed by 55 MPs, by the end of the parliamentary session – full text and all signatory MPs can be viewed in Annex 1.

Following the summer and party conference season recess, both Kate Hoey and John McDonnell tabled questions for the oral Transport question session on 17th October. Unfortunately, neither were drawn in the first 20 MPs out of the ballot, but a Conservative MP, David Amess, was drawn at No.12. Oral questions act as a mini-debate in the Chamber 21 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP which allows other MPs to ask supplementary questions on the same topic, and so both Kate and John were hoping to intervene in the debate. However, David Amess withdrew his question in advance, and so there was no debate on the issue.

To coincide with Transport Questions, the RMT and Group organised protest on the River Thames and asked MPs to come onto the terrace to show solidarity with the RMT river safety campaign. Among the MPs who attended were: Julian Brazier, Katy Clark, Jim Devine, Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins, John McDonnell, and Gwyn Prosser.

Race Relations Act

Despite the Minister’s commitment that “I remain committed to bringing the 1976 Act within EU law” and his concession that “the RMT occupies the moral ground here” there has been little progress on this issue. The Minister said that the draft Order, to amend the 1976 Act, had taken longer to draft than expected, but that it would be laid after the summer recess, but nothing had been tabled following the party conference recess.

The Group therefore wrote to the Minister again on 4th October (full text in Annex 2) raising its concerns on work permits, tonnage tax and the Race Relations Act. A reply was received on 10th November 2006, which stated that:

“We are planning to consult upon the proposed amendments to the RRA by the end of this year [2006]. The consultation will run for three months.”

In May 2006, the Group tabled EDM 2191 ‘Race Relations Act and the Minimum Wage’ which notes that notes that seafarers are only entitled to the protection of the national minimum wage in United Kingdom internal and not territorial waters”, and calls on the Government to “ensure that seafarers are properly protected by the United Kingdom minimum wage on United Kingdom ships within United Kingdom waters”. A letter, jointly signed by John McDonnell MP and Gwyn Prosser MP was sent to all MPs, asking them to sign the EDM. It had been signed by 69 MPs by the end of the 2005-06 parliamentary session.

Work Permits

The Group raised the issue of Work Permits with Maritime Minister Stephen Ladyman at the May Group meeting. At that time, the Minister stated that he was very close to a resolution on this issue with the Home Office.

Given the subsequent lack of movement, the Group also raised this issue in its letter of 4th October. In his reply of 10th November, the Minister stated:

“The Home Office will be rolling out their points based immigration system in the new year. The starting point for this is that employers should look first to recruit from the 22 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

UK and the expanded EU before recruiting migrants from outside the EU. As this is so well aligned with our own objectives, our approach will be to work with the Home Office to coordinate on the work permits issue for single port voyages. I will be in touch with the RMT when we have a better idea of timescale for this.”

Irish Ferries dispute

The Group 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.

23 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

OTHER CAMPAIGNS

Trade Union Freedom Bill

EDM 1170 ‘Campaign for a Trade Union Freedom Bill’ was tabled with a wide range of carefully balanced political support, covering all sectors of the Parliamentary Labour Party and it was signed by 187 MPs in the 2005-06 parliamentary session, and can be viewed in Annex 1. This represents two-thirds of backbench Labour MPs. All EDMs fall at the end of the parliamentary session so we are now in the process of tabling a new TUFB EDM.

The RMT and its parliamentary group have been leading the campaign to promote the Bill, along with a number of other unions and their parliamentary groups. The Bill is in the process of being drawn up by the TUC in consultation with John Hendy QC and the Institute of Employment Rights.

In advance of the 2006-07 Private Member’s Bill ballot, the Group wrote to MPs to ask them to consider if they were successful promoting the Trade Union Freedom Bill. John McDonnell MP was drawn at No.16 in the ballot – meaning that he will be able to publish the Bill, but will be unable to have it debated or voted upon. The first four MPs drawn in the ballot were all Conservative MPs, but discussions are underway with Labour MPs selected in the top 10 to see if they will move the Trade Union Freedom Bill.

To commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Trade Disputes Act 1906, John McDonnell MP will be unveiling a plaque in Bristol on Monday 11th December 2006 – at the invitation of RMT South West and South Wales Region.

Public Services Not Private Profit Campaign

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

Sixteen public sector trade unions have come together to form the initial organisers of the campaign, in conjunction with a number of campaigning organisations.

The campaign has achieved significant advances in a relatively short period. In September, the TUC Conference 2006 endorsed the aims of the campaign and it has now been agreed that there will be a TUC ‘Day of Action’ in January 2007 to defend public services.

There was also a packed ‘Public Services Not Private Profit’ meeting at TUC conference, attended by 150 delegates at which Mark Serwotka and John McDonnell, in addition to Bob Crow (RMT), Judy McKnight (NAPO) and Steve Sinnott (NUT). There was a collection for FBU members in dispute on Merseyside.

Since then, there have been a number of ‘Public Services Not Private Profit’ meetings across the country, including in Bristol and Leicester. The winter and spring look likely to be marked by significant action right across the public sector, affecting areas including workers in the Health Service and Civil Service workers. The campaign can play a vital role in uniting workers from different sectors in mobilising for the TUC Day of Action in January and in support of colleagues in the front line of dispute.

24 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

John McDonnell MP tabled EDM 1940 ‘Public Service Not Private Profit’ to support the campaign, and this has been backed by nearly 100 MPs. The text of the EDMs and all signatory MPs can be viewed in Annex 1. Following the rally in June, Bob Wareing MP also tabled an EDM to congratulate the campaign on a successful rally – and this was supported by 41 MPs.

Hope Not Hate

To coincide with the 2006 local elections the RMT, along with Amicus, GMB and UNISON, supported Billy Bragg's Hope not Hate tour, which aimed to “portray a positive, anti-fascist and anti-racist message of Hope not Hate in various workplaces and communities, in towns and cities in the run up to the May local elections”. To support the campaign, the Group tabled EDM 1920 Hope not Hate tour, which gained the support of nearly 100 MPs in advance of the elections.

John 4 Leader

On 14th July 2006, RMT Parliamentary Group Convenor John McDonnell MP announced that he would challenge for the Labour Party leadership, once Blair stood down. John’s blog, events diary and policy proposals can be viewed in full at www.john4leader.org.uk.

The 2006 LRC conference Challenging for Labour’s Future, held at the TUC on 22nd July, was addressed a number of MPs and trade union leaders including Bob Crow on behalf of the RMT. In response to a resolution from the CWU Central London Branch the 450 labour movement activists in attendance unanimously endorsed John McDonnell as candidate who supported the full restoration of trade union rights, opposed the privatisation of public services including the Post Office, and believed in the maintenance of the trade union link with Labour.

Since then, John’s campaign has toured the country, holding meetings in Bournemouth, Brighton, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Hull, Oxford, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Northumberland, Sheffield, Southampton, Worthing – with plans to visit Birmingham, Barnsley, Dundee, Halifax, Lewes, Nottingham and Preston in the next couple of months.

John’s campaign has built considerable support from within the movement, including numerous trade union branches and trades councils. The Amicus Unity Gazette caucus has backed the campaign, and John is speaking to the CWU Broad Left AGM in January 2007. Within the next week, John is also speaking to the GMB Political Committee and Unison London Region Political Committee. The campaign has also recently been endorsed by the FBU London Region.

25 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Annex 1 – EDMs

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

EDM 133 FIRE PRECAUTIONS REGULATIONS 42 signatures

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

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

EDM 134 ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ON NORTHERN RAIL SERVICES 42 signatures

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

Jim Cousins Atkinson, Peter Campbell, Gregory Campbell, Ronnie Clark, Katy Clelland, David Conway, Derek Corbyn, Jeremy Cryer, Ann Dean, Janet Dismore, Andrew Drew, David Ennis, Jeff Flynn, Paul Francis, Hywel Grogan, John Hamilton, David Hemming, John Hopkins, Kelvin Illsley, Eric Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne Leech, John Martlew, Eric McCafferty, Chris McDonnell, John Owen, Albert Pope, Greg Prentice, Gordon Riordan, Linda Robinson, Iris Simpson, Alan Simpson, David Spink, Bob 26 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Stringer, Graham Trickett, Jon Truswell, Paul Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty Willis, Phil Wilson, Sammy

EDM 286 FUTURE OF LONDON UNDERGROUND PASSENGER SERVICES 21 signatures

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

Jeremy Corbyn Austin, John Caton, Martin Cohen, Harry Drew, David Galloway, George Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Hancock, Mike Hoey, Kate Hopkins, Kelvin Jackson, Glenda Jones, Lynne McDonnell, John Meale, Alan Owen, Albert Riordan, Linda Robinson, Iris Turner, Desmond Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N

EDM 3xx GNER 6 signatures

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

Jim Cousins Linda Riordan Ian Davidson Jim McGovern John McDonnell

Listed below are all Early Day Motions tabled or supported by the RMT Parliamentary Group in the 2005-06 session of Parliament (since the May 2005 General Election until November 2006).

EDM 200 TONNAGE TAX AND UK SEAFARERS’ EMPLOYMENT 27 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

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 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 28 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

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 59 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 Ennis, Jeff Etherington, Bill Farron, Timothy 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 Leech, John 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

29 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

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 35 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.

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 30 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Skinner, Dennis Stringer, Graham Thornberry, Emily 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.

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 31 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

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 65 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 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 32 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

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 Khan, Sadiq 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 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

33 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

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 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.

34 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

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 43 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 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 Davidson, Ian Dean, Janet Devine, Jim Dismore, Andrew Dobbin, Jim Drew, David Etherington, Bill 35 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Gibson, Ian Hamilton, David Hepburn, Stephen Hopkins, Kelvin Illsley, Eric Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne Laxton, Bob 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 187 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 Anderson, Janet Austin, Ian Austin, John Banks, Gordon Barlow, Celia Battle, John Bayley, Hugh Begg, Anne Benton, Joe Berry, Roger Betts, Clive Blackman-Woods, Roberta Borrow, David S Brown, Lyn Brown, Nicholas Buck, Karen Burden, Richard Burgon, Colin Butler, Dawn Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Challen, Colin Chaytor, David Clapham, Michael Clark, Katy Clark, Paul Clarke, Tom Clelland, David Cohen, Harry Connarty, Michael Cook, Frank Cooper, Rosie Corbyn, Jeremy Cousins, Jim

Crausby, David Creagh, Mary Cruddas, Jon Cryer, Ann Cummings, John Cunningham, Jim Curtis-Thomas, Claire Davidson, Ian Dean, Janet Devine, Jim Dismore, Andrew Dobbin, Jim Dobson, Frank Donohoe, Brian H Doran, Frank Dowd, Jim Drew, David Dunwoody, Gwyneth Durkan, Mark Eagle, Angela Efford, Clive Ellman, Louise Engel, Natascha Ennis, Jeff

36 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Etherington, Bill Farrelly, Paul Flynn, Paul Foster, Michael Jabez Francis, Hywel Galloway, George George, Bruce Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Gilroy, Linda Godsiff, Roger Griffith, Nia Hall, Patrick Hamilton, David Hancock, Mike Harvey, Nick Havard, Dai Hemming, John Henderson, Doug Hendrick, Mark Hepburn, Stephen Heyes, David Hillier, Meg Hodgson, Sharon Hoey, Kate Hood, Jimmy Hopkins, Kelvin Howarth, George Hoyle, Lindsay Humble, Joan [R] Iddon, Brian Illsley, Eric Jackson, Glenda James, Sian C Jenkins, Brian Jones, Helen Jones, Lynne Jones, Martyn Joyce, Eric Kaufman, Gerald Keen, Alan Kemp, Fraser Kilfoyle, Peter Lazarowicz, Mark Lepper, David Llwyd, Elfyn Love, Andrew Mackinlay, Andrew Malik, Shahid Mallaber, Judy Marris, Rob Marsden, Gordon Marshall, David Marshall-Andrews, Robert McCafferty, Chris McCarthy, Kerry McCarthy-Fry, Sarah McDonnell, John McGovern, Jim McGrady, Eddie McKechin, Ann Meacher, Michael Meale, Alan Miller, Andrew Mitchell, Austin Moffat, Anne Moffatt, Laura Moon, Madeleine Morgan, Julie Mudie, George Mullin, Chris Murphy, Denis Murphy, Paul O'Hara, Edward Olner, Bill Osborne, Sandra Owen, Albert Pope, Greg Prentice, Gordon Price, Adam Prosser, Gwyn Purchase, Ken Reed, Jamie Riordan, Linda Robertson, Angus Robertson, John Ruddock, Joan Salmond, Alex Salter, Martin Sarwar, Mohammad Seabeck, Alison Sheridan, Jim Short, Clare Simpson, Alan Simpson, David Singh, Marsha Skinner, Dennis Smith, Geraldine Smith, John P Southworth, Helen Stewart, Ian Stoate, Howard Strang, Gavin Stringer, Graham Tami, Mark Taylor, Dari Taylor, David Taylor, Richard Thornberry, Emily Tipping, Paddy Todd, Mark Trickett, Jon Turner, Desmond Ussher, Kitty Vaz, Keith Vis, Rudi Walley, Joan Wareing, Robert N Weir, Mike Williams, Betty Williams, Hywel Willis, Phil Wood, Mike Wright, Anthony D Wright, Iain Wyatt, Derek

EDM 1222 TREATMENT OF SEAFARERS 51 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

37 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP 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 Cousins, Jim 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 Hodgson, Sharon 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

38 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

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 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 29 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 Austin, John Berry, Roger Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Cryer, Ann Drew, David Etherington, Bill Gerrard, Neil Goodman, Helen Hamilton, David Hancock, Mike Hopkins, Kelvin Jones, Lynne Marris, Rob McDonnell, John Meale, Alan Morgan, Julie Riordan, Linda Rowen, Paul Sarwar, Mohammad Simpson, Alan Skinner, Dennis Stringer, Graham Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Wood, Mike

EDM 1678 ENVIRONMENTAL CASE FOR RAIL 69 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;

39 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP 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 Anderson, David Austin, John Barlow, Celia Breed, Colin Brooke, Annette Cable, Vincent Campbell, Gregory Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Chaytor, David Clapham, Michael Clark, Katy Cohen, Harry Corbyn, Jeremy Cryer, Ann Cummings, John Davidson, Ian Dean, Janet Dobbin, Jim Dodds, Nigel Drew, David Durkan, Mark Efford, Clive Ennis, Jeff Etherington, Bill Fisher, Mark Francis, Hywel Galloway, George George, Andrew Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Hamilton, David Hancock, Mike Harvey, Nick Hemming, John Heyes, David Hodgson, Sharon Hoey, Kate Hopkins, Kelvin Horwood, Martin Hoyle, Lindsay James, Sian C Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne Keetch, Paul Lazarowicz, Mark Leech, John Lepper, David Marris, Rob Martlew, Eric McCafferty, Chris Meale, Alan Murphy, Denis Pugh, John Riordan, Linda Simpson, Alan Soulsby, Peter Spink, Bob Strang, Gavin Stringer, Graham Swinson, Jo Taylor, David Vis, Rudi Walley, Joan Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty Wilson, Sammy

EDM 1680 DELIVERING SAFER RAIL STATIONS 55 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 Anderson, David Barrett, John Breed, Colin Campbell, Gregory Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Clapham, Michael Clark, Katy Clelland, David Connarty, Michael Cooper, Rosie Corbyn, Jeremy Cryer, Ann Cummings, John Davidson, Ian Dean, Janet Dobbin, Jim Dodds, Nigel Durkan, Mark Efford, Clive Etherington, Bill Galloway, George George, Andrew Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Gidley, Sandra

40 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Godsiff, Roger Hamilton, David Hepburn, Stephen Heyes, David Hoyle, Lindsay Illsley, Eric Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne McDonnell, John Meale, Alan Moon, Madeleine Owen, Albert Prentice, Gordon Prosser, Gwyn Riordan, Linda Ruane, Chris Sanders, Adrian Simpson, Alan Simpson, David Strang, Gavin Swinson, Jo Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Willis, Phil Wilson, Sammy Wyatt, Derek Younger-Ross, Richard

EDM 1681 RAIL WORKERS’ PENSIONS 62 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 Anderson, David Brown, Lyn Burgon, Colin Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Challen, Colin Clark, Katy Cohen, Harry Connarty, Michael Cooper, Rosie Corbyn, Jeremy Cryer, Ann Cummings, John Davidson, Ian Dean, Janet [R] Donohoe, Brian H Drew, David Efford, Clive Ennis, Jeff Etherington, Bill Flynn, Paul Francis, Hywel Galloway, George Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Godsiff, Roger Grogan, John Hamilton, David Hancock, Mike Havard, Dai Hepburn, Stephen Heyes, David Hillier, Meg Hoey, Kate Hopkins, Kelvin [R] Horam, John Hoyle, Lindsay Jones, Martyn Laxton, Bob Lazarowicz, Mark Marshall, David McDonnell, Alasdair McGovern, Jim Meale, Alan Moffatt, Laura Morgan, Julie Osborne, Sandra Owen, Albert Prentice, Gordon Prosser, Gwyn Riordan, Linda Salter, Martin Simpson, Alan Singh, Marsha Smith, John P Truswell, Paul Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Williams, Alan Williams, Betty Wyatt, Derek

EDM 1920 HOPE NOT HATE TOUR 95 signatures

That this House congratulates the trade union movement for its continued work in combating the rising threat of racism and fascism, in both the workplace and the community; welcomes Billy Bragg's Hope not Hate tour, supported by Amicus, GMB, RMT and UNISON, together

41 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP with Love Music Hate Racism, Unite Against Fascism, Searchlight and the Left Field; and fully supports the campaign's objectives of highlighting the dangerous, fascist and racist threat posed by the BNP, whilst noting that the tour will be hoping to portray a positive, anti-fascist and anti-racist message of Hope not Hate in various workplaces and communities, in towns and cities in the run up to the May local elections.

Jon Cruddas Abbott, Diane Anderson, David Anderson, Janet Austin, Ian Bailey, Adrian Begg, Anne Borrow, David S Brown, Nicholas Bryant, Chris Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Cohen, Harry Cooper, Rosie Corbyn, Jeremy Cousins, Jim Creagh, Mary Cryer, Ann Cummings, John Dean, Janet Devine, Jim Dismore, Andrew Dobbin, Jim Doran, Frank Dowd, Jim Drew, David Durkan, Mark Engel, Natascha Ennis, Jeff Etherington, Bill Fisher, Mark George, Andrew Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Goodman, Helen Hamilton, David Hancock, Mike Hemming, John Henderson, Doug Hepburn, Stephen Hermon, Sylvia Heyes, David Hodgson, Sharon Holmes, Paul Hopkins, Kelvin Humble, Joan Iddon, Brian Illsley, Eric Jackson, Glenda James, Sian C Jenkins, Brian Johnson, Diana R Jones, Helen Jones, Lynne Joyce, Eric Keen, Alan Keetch, Paul Khabra, Piara S Lazarowicz, Mark Leech, John Linton, Martin Lloyd, Tony Llwyd, Elfyn Malik, Shahid Marris, Rob McCafferty, Chris McCarthy, Kerry McDonnell, Alasdair McDonnell, John McGovern, Jim Meale, Alan Mitchell, Austin Moffatt, Laura Morgan, Julie Owen, Albert Penning, Mike Pope, Greg Prentice, Gordon Purchase, Ken Russell, Bob Sarwar, Mohammad Short, Clare Simpson, Alan Stringer, Graham Ussher, Kitty Vaz, Keith Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty Williams, Stephen Willis, Phil Wood, Mike Wright, Iain Wyatt, Derek

EDM 1923 SOUTH EASTERN TRAINS (No2) 24 signatures

That this House notes with regret that on 1st April 2006, South Eastern Trains, which is currently in the public sector, will be privatised; is deeply concerned that this will be the first outright privatisation of a train operating company under a Labour Government and that this is in contradiction to a Labour Party policy of an integrated, accountable and publicly-owned railway; believes that public ownership of the railway would provide a better deal for the passenger and tax payer; and believes that the privatisation of South Eastern Trains represents a missed opportunity to get the railways back on track.

John McDonnell Anderson, David Austin, John Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Corbyn, Jeremy Cryer, Ann Dean, Janet Dismore, Andrew Etherington, Bill

42 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Gerrard, Neil Hopkins, Kelvin Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne McCafferty, Chris Morgan, Julie Prosser, Gwyn Pugh, John Russell, Bob Simpson, Alan Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty Wyatt, Derek

EDM 1940 PUBLIC SERVICES NOT PRIVATE PROFIT CAMPAIGN 96 signatures

That this House expresses concern at the increasing trend in Government for the privatisation of public services, including the promotion of contestability and outsourcing, which puts at risk the accountable and effective delivery of a wide range of public services and a large number of public sector jobs in health, education, the Civil Service, prisons and probation, postal services, public service broadcasting, defence, transport, fire safety and community services; and welcomes the launch of the Public Services Not Private Profit campaign, which brings together trade unions across the public sector, calling upon the Government to introduce a moratorium on privatisation and to engage in a constructive dialogue over how Government, local communities and the trade unions can work together to provide the high quality public services this country needs.

John McDonnell Abbott, Diane Anderson, David Austin, John Benton, Joe Berry, Roger Burgon, Colin Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Clapham, Michael Clark, Katy Clelland, David Cohen, Harry Connarty, Michael Cook, Frank Corbyn, Jeremy Cousins, Jim Cruddas, Jon Cryer, Ann Cummings, John Dean, Janet Devine, Jim Dismore, Andrew Dobbin, Jim Dobson, Frank Drew, David Durkan, Mark Etherington, Bill Fisher, Mark Flynn, Paul Foster, Michael Jabez Galloway, George Gapes, Mike George, Andrew Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Godsiff, Roger Griffith, Nia Hamilton, David Hancock, Mike Harvey, Nick Havard, Dai Hepburn, Stephen Heyes, David Hodgson, Sharon Hoey, Kate Hopkins, Kelvin Hoyle, Lindsay Humble, Joan Illsley, Eric Jackson, Glenda James, Sian C Jones, Lynne Leech, John Llwyd, Elfyn Mackinlay, Andrew Marris, Rob Marshall, David McCafferty, Chris McGovern, Jim McGrady, Eddie Meacher, Michael Meale, Alan Mitchell, Austin Morgan, Julie Murphy, Denis Osborne, Sandra Paisley, Ian Prentice, Gordon Prosser, Gwyn Pugh, John Purchase, Ken Riordan, Linda Rowen, Paul Russell, Bob Sarwar, Mohammad Short, Clare Simpson, Alan Singh, Marsha

Skinner, Dennis Smith, John P Strang, Gavin Taylor, David Trickett, Jon Truswell, Paul Turner, Desmond Vis, Rudi Walley, Joan Wareing, Robert N Weir, Mike Williams, Betty Williams, Hywel Williams, Mark Winnick, David

43 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Wood, Mike Wyatt, Derek Younger- Ross, Richard

EDM 1956 REGULATORY REFORM (S.I., 2006, No.484) 8 signatures

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Subordinate Provisions Order 2006 (S.I., 2006, No. 484), dated 23rd February 2006, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th March, be annulled.

John McDonnell Corbyn, Jeremy Cousins, Jim Drew, David Hancock, Mike Hopkins, Kelvin Simpson, Alan Wareing, Robert N

EDM 2191 RACE RELATIONS ACT AND THE MINIMUM WAGE 69 signatures

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

Gwyn Prosser Abbott, Diane Anderson, David Anderson, Janet Bottomley, Peter Brake, Tom Breed, Colin Buck, Karen Cable, Vincent Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Clelland, David Cohen, Harry Corbyn, Jeremy Cousins, Jim Crausby, David Cryer, Ann Cummings, John Dean, Janet Dismore, Andrew Dobbin, Jim Doran, Frank Drew, David Durkan, Mark Etherington, Bill Flynn, Paul Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Goodman, Helen Hamilton, David Hancock, Mike Henderson, Doug Hepburn, Stephen Hodgson, Sharon Hopkins, Kelvin Hunter, Mark Iddon, Brian Illsley, Eric Jackson, Glenda Jenkins, Brian Jones, Kevan Jones, Lynne Jones, Martyn Lazarowicz, Mark Leech, John Llwyd, Elfyn Marris, Rob McCafferty, Chris McDonnell, Alasdair McDonnell, John McGovern, Jim Meale, Alan Mitchell, Austin Prentice, Gordon Purchase, Ken Riordan, Linda Simpson, Alan Strang, Gavin Stunell, Andrew Taylor, Dari Taylor, David Turner, Desmond Vaz, Keith Vis, Rudi 44 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Walley, Joan Wareing, Robert N Weir, Mike Williams, Betty Wood, Mike

EDM 2266 SAFETY ON THE RIVER THAMES 55 signatures

That this House notes that following the Bowbelle/Marchioness disaster on the Thames in 1989, which claimed 51 lives, robust standards for qualifying for licensed Thames watermen and lightermen were introduced; further notes that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is consulting on a new licence system for boat masters operating passenger and non- passenger vessels on inland waterways and limited coastal voyages; is concerned that the new proposals will require lower standards than the existing safety requirements for the Thames; and urges the Government to ensure that competency standards and qualifying service time for boat masters operating on the Thames are no less than the current standards for time-served watermen and lightermen.

John McDonnell Austin, John Bottomley, Peter Brazier, Julian Brokenshire, James Brown, Lyn Cable, Vincent Campbell, Gregory Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Cohen, Harry Conway, Derek Corbyn, Jeremy Cruddas, Jon Cryer, Ann Cummings, John Dean, Janet Devine, Jim Dismore, Andrew Dodds, Nigel Drew, David Etherington, Bill Evans, Nigel Francis, Hywel Galloway, George Gerrard, Neil Gibson, Ian Hamilton, David Hancock, Mike Hemming, John Hepburn, Stephen Hermon, Sylvia Hoey, Kate Hopkins, Kelvin Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne Lepper, David McCafferty, Chris McDonnell, Alasdair Meale, Alan Prentice, Gordon Pugh, John Robinson, Iris Rosindell, Andrew Seabeck, Alison Simpson, Alan Simpson, David Spink, Bob Taylor, Ian Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty Wyatt, Derek Younger-Ross, Richard

EDM 2398 EAST LONDON LINE 26 signatures

That this House notes that London Underground's East London line is due to close in December 2007 in order that work on the phase 1 extension project can be completed by 2010; welcomes the important role that the extension will play in creating a world class transport infrastructure in preparation for the 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic Games; further notes that the East London line is currently operated by London Underground; welcomes the fact that, once the line is re-opened, there is the option for the East London line to continue to be operated by the London Underground; and calls for East London line passenger services to remain in the public sector.

John McDonnell Abbott, Diane Caton, Martin Clark, Katy

Cohen, Harry Corbyn, Jeremy Dismore, Andrew Drew, David Fisher, Mark Foster, Michael Jabez Galloway, George Gibson, Ian Hancock, Mike Hoey, Kate Hopkins, Kelvin Jones, Lynne

45 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Khabra, Piara S Llwyd, Elfyn McCafferty, Chris McDonnell, Alasdair Sheridan, Jim Simpson, Alan Truswell, Paul Wareing, Robert N Wyatt, Derek Younger-Ross, Richard

EDM 2511 REFORM OF RAIL FARES 44 signatures

That this House welcomes the record levels of Government investment in the railways; further welcomes the Transport Committee Report, `How fair are fares? Train fares and ticketing'; notes that the Committee concluded that despite record investment the privatised railway has put revenue and profit before passengers over the last decade and that in terms of value for money and user-friendliness the current system has proven to be an abject failure; further notes that fare structures are chaotic and pricing absurd because they are determined by commercial considerations rather than considerations for the public good and that the current system is not fit for purpose; and supports the Committee's recommendation that Government must address this situation by incorporating a coherent policy on fares and ticketing structures into the forthcoming White Paper on Rail.

John McDonnell Abbott, Diane Campbell, Ronnie Caton, Martin Clark, Katy Corbyn, Jeremy Cousins, Jim Cryer, Ann Cummings, John Davidson, Ian Davies, Dai Dean, Janet Devine, Jim Dismore, Andrew Dobbin, Jim Drew, David Ennis, Jeff Etherington, Bill Flynn, Paul Gerrard, Neil Godsiff, Roger Hamilton, David Heyes, David Hopkins, Kelvin Hoyle, Lindsay James, Sian C Jenkins, Brian Jones, Lynne Lazarowicz, Mark Llwyd, Elfyn Marris, Rob McCafferty, Chris McDonnell, Alasdair Murphy, Paul Prentice, Gordon Price, Adam Riordan, Linda Simpson, Alan Strang, Gavin Stringer, Graham Truswell, Paul Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty

EDM 2910 ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ON NORTHERN RAIL SERVICES 16 signatures

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

Jim Cousins Conway, Derek Corbyn, Jeremy Cummings, John Grogan, John Hopkins, Kelvin Jones, Lynne Leech, John Martlew, Eric McDonnell, John Riordan, Linda Spink, Bob Stringer, Graham Vis, Rudi Wareing, Robert N Williams, Betty 46 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Annex 2 – Group Letters

Please find below all letters sent by the RMT Parliamentary Group between the end of March and July 2006:

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

Monday 24th July 2006

Dear Stephen,

Re: New Licences for Boatmasters on the River Thames

As London MPs with a concern for safety on the River Thames we are writing to you regarding the introduction of new Boatmasters licences which will impact upon the training and certification arrangements for boatmasters on the River Thames.

As you are aware from discussions with the RMT Parliamentary Group we have no objection to placing the training and certification for non-passenger vessels under a new national statutory footing, indeed this is to be welcomed. However, by seeking to apply a uniform standard, the new Certificate will devalue the existing training on the River Thames.

The revisions to the current arrangements are in part being made in order to gain compliance with a new European Union Directive on harmonising boatmasters licences. However, as you are aware, the Directive does allow for the application of higher standards for watermen/lightermen on the River Thames.

Currently training and certification standards for work on the River Thames are high due to the demanding nature of work on the Thames and the levels of experience required to qualify for a full Port of London Authority (PLA) Watermen and Lightermen licence on the Thames.

Watermen and lightermen employed on the River Thames undergo training comprising of examinations and practical experience, which lasts for a total of five years before receipt of a full PLA Watermen and Lightermen licence. In addition, within this five year period a minimum of 150 days per year of service is required prior to the full licence being issued at the minimum age of 21.

We have grave concerns over the proposed new standards which will enable full qualification for work on the River Thames to be completed after two years general experience and a minimum 16 trips on the Thames to gain the necessary local knowledge, which is insufficient to gain the necessary local experience for such a vast and complex area as the River Thames. We therefore believe that two years local knowledge should be retained.

We should consider the prospect of a boatmaster who has gained his experience elsewhere commanding a vessel the size of the Bowbelle on the River Thames at the age of 18. The

47 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP vessel could come into contact with a passenger vessel carrying anything up to 250 passengers. At the current time watermen or lightermen are required to have completed two years local experience and be a minimum age of 21 and we believe this should be retained.

We also fail to see why it is being proposed that the local knowledge area from Teddington to Lower Hope Point be reduced. We would respectfully point out that only a very limited risk assessment produced by the PLA has been produced and which does not provide the evidence to support this proposal.

In addition we would also impress upon you the importance of ensuring that there is a suitably qualified person navigating as well as commanding passenger and cargo vessels on the River Thames. Currently the PLA Watermen and Lightermen 1992 by-laws stipulate that persons navigating passenger vessels have to be competent, however this does not apply to cargo vessels. This means that a non-certificated person with no relevant experience could be left in charge of a vessel when the commander of the vessel was forced for any reason to take a break or stop work.

The one report that has examined the work of watermen and lightermen is the Baxter Eadie study into the skills and competencies required for work on commercial vessels in navigation on the tidal Thames. It is therefore a matter of serious concern that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency appears to have ignored this work – commissioned by the PLA. Unfortunately it was not released to the working party considering the proposals for new licence requirements which it is now proposed will apply on the River Thames.

In conclusion it is important to remember the recent history that has driven the upgrading of the current regulations. The revisions were completed following the inquiry led by Lord Justice Clarke arising from the Bowbelle/Marchioness disaster.

We know from discussions with the watermen and lightermen that they are not automatically opposed to new proposals for qualifications to work on the River Thames. However it is considered that the proposals as they stand at the moment are inadequate for safe working and the required level of local experience.

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest opportunity as we know that it was your intention to progress changes to the existing requirements in September of this year. We would be most grateful if you could address all correspondence to Simeon Andrews (details below) who is the co-ordinator of the Group

Yours sincerely,

John McDonnell MP Kate Hoey MP Harry Cohen MP (Hayes & Harlington) (Vauxhall) (Leyton & Wanstead)

Alan Keen MP Neil Gerrard MP John Austin MP Lyn Brown MP (Feltham & Heston) (Walthamstow) (Erith &Thamesmead) (West Ham)

Ken Livingstone Mayor of London City Hall The Queens Walk London SE1 2AA

48 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Tuesday 25th July 2006

Dear Ken,

You will recall that two primary items that we discussed when we met on 9th May were concerns over the future operation of the East London Line and also the retention of the Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) Regulations 1989.

With regard to the East London Line the explanation of your plans was appreciated and I would reiterate that we warmly welcome any new investment that will improve our transport infrastructure. The Group however feels that the needs of London will be best served by the operation of passenger services staying in the public sector.

I accept that linking the East London Line to the North London Railway will result in improvements to London’s rail services but we cannot see any technical or practical reason why this means that the service has to be a private franchise or concession.

These concerns have not only been expressed by London Underground workers and indeed very senior London Underground management, but also by the trade unions for which this is a fundamental matter of importance. As you are aware, the question of the ownership of our railways is a highly charged issue within the labour movement as witnessed by the both TUC and Labour Party conference policy on this issue.

As suggested at our meeting, it would seem that with such widespread concern it would be useful, before any final decision is taken, for a framework for consultation to be established so that the concerns of all stakeholders can be considered. Indeed, I understand that the OJEU journal does provide for the option of the East London Line not to be franchised. I would be very grateful if you could give your consideration to some form of consultation before a final decision is taken.

With regard to the Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railway Stations) Regulations 1989, prior to the re-shuffle the Minister responsible, Jim Fitzpatrick MP, said he would run the provisions of the new Fire Safety Order concurrently with those of the regulations for a period of 6 to 12 months from October 2006. He also said he would give consideration to the establishment of a Working Party to examine where the existing arrangements are not covered by the Fire Safety Order in order to consider the best way forward. I am now also pursuing this matter with the new Minister, Angela Smith MP.

I have attached an analysis of the new and old arrangements provided by the RMT National Health and Safety Officer and I would be grateful if you could lend your support to the establishment of such a Working Party.

I hope that we can continue our positive dialogue on these issues and I look forward to hearing from you. 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.

Best wishes

John McDonnell MP Convenor, RMT Parliamentary Group

Rt Hon Stephen Ladyman MP Department of Transport

49 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street LONDON SW1P 4DR

Wednesday 4th October 2006

Dear Stephen

Re: Outstanding Issues – RMT Parliamentary Group meeting - 17th May 2006

You will recall from our meeting on 17th May 2006 that we discussed a number of issues relating to the UK shipping industry.

We were very pleased to hear that you stated that you were very close to a resolution on the issue of work permits. This issue has of course been an outstanding for several years, and given your commitment at the previous meeting, I wondered if you could make representations to your colleagues at the Home Office to ensure that this matter is finally resolved.

The Group continues to have concerns regarding low pay and long hours of work for seafarers on UK ships. At our meeting you kindly agreed to participate in a Parliamentary seminar to explore this issue further. My office has been in contact with yours regarding dates but due to the difficulty in matching up diaries we now intend to organise this for early next year and will therefore be in contact again shortly.

I understand that RMT has written to you regarding a compromise proposal for the tonnage tax. This is on the basis that a link could be applied that improved training and employment in only the domestic sectors. We look forward to hearing news of your response to this proposal.

Finally, you advised us that you would ask your officials to publish a timetable for the consultation on revisions to the Race Relations Act, and unfortunately this has still not been forthcoming. As you will be aware, you advised us that the Department would lay the Parliamentary Order very soon after summer recess?

Once again, thank you for your continued dialogue on these matters, which I hope will be maintained into the new session. I would be most grateful if your office could address all correspondence to Simeon Andrews (Parliamentary co-ordinator) whose details are below.

Best wishes,

John McDonnell MP Convenor, RMT Parliamentary Group

Tom Harris MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport Department for Transport Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DR

Monday 13th November 2006

50 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Dear Tom,

Re: Rail Policy

I am writing to you in my capacity as Convenor of the RMT Parliamentary Group, which has a membership of 21 Labour MPs with a strong interest in transport issues, to congratulate you on your recent appointment and to invite you to a future meeting of the Group.

We are very much aware that there are a number of Government Strategic initiatives in the coming months, which will have an impact on the railways. These include the Comprehensive Spending Review and the High Level Output Specification, which may also include a broader longer-term strategy document informed by the outcome of the Eddington Review.

The Group would very much welcome the opportunity to discuss these and other rail issues with you. We have had a constructive dialogue with your predecessor Ministers Derek Twigg and Tony McNulty, and very much hope that this will continue.

The next Group meeting will be held on Tuesday 12th December 2006 at 4pm in Room P and you would be most welcome if you are able to attend. I would be grateful if your office could liaise with the RMT Group Co-ordinator, Simeon Andrews (details below) to arrange a suitable date for a meeting.

Yours sincerely,

John McDonnell MP Convenor, RMT Parliamentary Group

Gillian Merron MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport Department for Transport Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DR

Monday 13th November 2006

Dear Gillian

BUS POLICY REVIEW

I am writing to you as Convenor of the RMT Parliamentary Group which, as you may be aware, has a membership of 21 Labour MPs with a strong interest in transport issues. We would therefore like to meet with you to discuss this issue in the near future.

The Group very much welcomed Douglas Alexander’s statement at Labour Party conference announcing that he would be bringing forward proposals to change the way buses are run.

We are aware that the Government is seeking the views of stakeholders and the Group of MPs would welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue with you. We have had a constructive dialogue with various Transport Ministers since our formation in 2003 and very much hope that this will continue.

51 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

If you are agreeable to a meeting, I would be grateful if your office could liaise with the RMT Group Co-ordinator, Simeon Andrews (details below) to arrange a suitable date, hopefully before the Christmas recess.

Yours sincerely,

John McDonnell MP Convenor, RMT Parliamentary Group

52 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Annex 3 – Excerpts from Hansard and Group Members

7 Nov 2006 : Column 211WH Rail Network

Dr. John Pugh: One of the most famous old boys at the school I went to, Maidstone Grammar School, was Richard Beeching who was subsequently Lord Beeching. I rush to add that we were not there at the same time and I have no recollection of the gentleman. He is the sworn enemy of railway anoraks and his spirit, to some extent, haunts the Department for Transport to this day. I want briefly to explain the legacy Lord Beeching left. Classically, he closed a quarter of the rail system, fuelled road expansion and earned himself a hallowed place in the demonology of railway lovers. I will obviously not praise him in that context, but I will say something about the Beeching plan and what he did for our take on railways. The Beeching plan was based on doubtful statistics that were closed to any kind of public or independent audit. It was spurred on by the vested interests of commerce and the unions— capital and labour combined—and was speculative about the future. In some cases it was also wrong and unbalanced about the present because rail patronage was not actually falling when the plan was conceived. The plan was unimaginative in the solutions it offered—for example, it suggested closure in every case—and it was Stalinist in its implementation, because sometimes with closure came the immediate demand that housing be built over railway land. Yet Beeching was not a fool. There is an anecdote that tells of when he went into a railway station lavatory and came across a slogan that said, “Beeching is a prat.” Apparently, he responded to that—I am not sure if this is parliamentary language, but I am only quoting—by writing in very neat handwriting, “No, I am not.” He was not a fool, but he did throw down a gauntlet to the rail system by challenging it to state an economic case for its existence. That theme was recently taken up by the former Transport Minister, now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when he said that the railways were not there to carry fresh air around the country. In a sense Beeching set a framework for subsequent debate, although in truth, since the inception of the railways, those involved have always had to make some sort of economic case. The first entrepreneurs who built the railways definitely knew that there was an economic case before they started work. Since Beeching, the argument has raged over whether an economic case should be a necessary condition for a rail service or whether it should simply be a sufficient condition. After all, there are other arguments that can be made for a railway system which are not strictly economic—for example, the tourist benefits it can offer and the environmental benefits such as cleaner air. There is also a public service argument that the railway should be in place because people need railways whether or not the railway companies actually make money. The thorny question that is often raised is how the economic case will be assessed and whether the economic case is solely made by looking at the bottom line of the operator, by considering a subsidy or whether, more holistically, an evaluation should consider the contribution of a rail system to the economy of a particular area.

Daniel Kawczynski: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that at the very least every county town in England should have a direct rail service to our capital city?

Dr. Pugh: I warm to that sentiment, but not know whether it is strategically possible—it is a certainly an entirely worthy ideal. The question that provokes me most is that if is there is an economic case for railway development, particularly relatively modest development, how is it to be progressed in

53 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

current circumstances? We are not talking about Crossrail—I can see more than a couple of my fellow prisoners from the Crossrail Committee here.

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): Go on, talk about Crossrail.

Dr. Pugh: I have spent enough of my life talking about Crossrail so I will forgo the opportunity. We are not talking about high-speed rail links to Glasgow or the £3.5 billion spent on Thameslink, but about reversing some, although not all, of the Beeching cuts. Some clearly cannot be reversed for practical or economic reasons, but I am referring to instances where an economic case can be made. We must accept that the railways are very different from how they were in Beeching’s day: the power of the unions is significantly reduced, patronage is rising sharply, competition exists and environmental issues are centre stage as they certainly were not before.

Tim Farron: In that spirit, does my hon. Friend accept that the Government are making potentially disastrous use of the existing network? The plans for a cross-country rail franchise will result in people who travel from towns north of Crewe to the south and south- west—particularly to stations such as mine in Oxenholme—having to change at Birmingham New Street. Passenger Focus has said that that would cost 2.8 million passenger journeys a year. Does he accept that that would be very damaging for the rail network and also for our environment?

Dr. Pugh: My hon. Friend makes a good point on which I am certainly not qualified or knowledgeable enough to comment in detail. The Minister will surely respond by saying that rail utilisation strategies are what the Department for Transport is focusing on at the moment to obtain better use of the existing network. It appears that that is certainly not happening in my hon. Friend’s neck of the woods. In my experience, the Treasury is always involved in the railways and actually killed off the investment in rail that was part of the Beeching package. There was supposed to be investment following on from the cuts, but while there were cuts, there was no investment, a move that set back electrification. The Treasury has suffered and groaned, quite understandably, under Railtrack and the events associated with it, and has calculated that it subsidises every rail passenger by about £4 per trip. However, the pressures for expansion exist and have to be admitted. In recent statements, the Government have said that they are aiming for more use and capacity on the railways, which is part and parcel of the new franchising process. Network Rail certainly aim to do that, and it set aside considerable sums of money for that purpose. The rail regulator, to whom I recently spoke, said that in his dealings with the rail companies and Network Rail, he wished to encourage, as far as possible, increased capacity and rail growth—whatever we mean by that. Groups such as Transport 2000 are mounting a vigorous and effective campaign, arguing for developing the railways. There have been a number of conferences on that, which have been supported by players such as the CBI.

Linda Riordan: One of the best ways to expand the rail network is to have more direct routes to the capital. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the recent decision to turn down Grand Central’s bid to operate a rail service from Halifax to London was a mistake and should be rectified as soon as possible?

Dr. Pugh: I do not have the detail on that particular proposition, but knowing the hon. Lady and the extent of her experience of the railways, I am sure she is making a valid and adequate comment. We cannot obtain increased capacity and a real modal shift, which is what everybody wants, simply through tidying up and investing in stations, smarter ticketing—though that is desirable—or clever rail utilisation strategies.

54 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Christopher Fraser: In terms of the investment needed to get people off the roads and on to rail, will the hon. Gentleman accept that Network Rail must invest in car parking facilities, which are often overlooked because the requirements for them are underestimated? Many landowners around railway stations are willing to give up their land, but Network Rail is incapable of accepting those offers.

Dr. Pugh: We certainly require a degree of joined-up thinking on that. Network Rail owns a considerable amount of land, some of which could be freed up for car parking. Clearly, the easier it is to get out of one’s car and on to a train, the more the train will be used. Better franchising will help. I am sure that the Minister will say something about that. All that is entirely desirable—I do not demur from that one jot—but we need increased productivity, functionality and utility to travellers. In some cases, that will mean infrastructure that has been removed being put back in place. That need not be a nightmare for the Treasury, or mean establishing connectivity without customers. It can be a win all round.

Kelvin Hopkins: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he agree that the first priority is to ask the Government to insist that every old railway corridor is protected and not built on?

Dr. Pugh: Absolutely. It would be very short-sighted to allow building in places where we will require transport. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there are plenty of quick wins to be had. A classic example of that in my neck of the woods is the Olive Mount curve in Liverpool, which is on the menu to be reinstated quite soon. In that instance, we have the absolute stupidity of freight lines coming out of Liverpool dock and fouling up passenger lines. It is crucial to the economy of the area that that is resolved pretty quickly, and it can be done for a fraction of the cost of some of the projects on the stocks in the capital.

Stephen Williams: My hon. Friend mentions freight lines. A new freight line has been built, at enormous expense to the taxpayer, from Portishead in Woodspring to the city centre in my constituency in Bristol—ironically, to import cars. It could also be used to reopen the passenger line to Portishead, but First Great Western tells me that under its franchise it is not allowed to argue for an expansion of its existing network. It must simply run existing services. Is not that absurd?

Dr. Pugh: Clearly it is an absurdity, and a petty restriction that the Minister will find difficult to explain. The problem is not in identifying quick wins, but in getting them on the table. During our debates on the Railways Act 2005, I asked the then Minister of State, Department for Transport, now Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety, why there were so many clauses on how to close a railway line and none on how to open one. If people consult Hansard, they will find that he replied, with a trace of irony, that there is no need to have clauses on how to open a railway line because it is perfectly obvious and everybody knows how it is done. In my experience, that is not the case; it is more like knitting fog. Happily, in the same debate, he said that the Department for Transport was involved in an exercise to examine disused curves in different parts of the country to see what can be done with them. I have not seen the results of that exercise or heard any more about that suggestion, but if this Minister knows what has gone on, will he enlarge on that? The small town of Burscough, which is just outside my constituency, has two railway stations that serve two different franchises. They are separated by only half a mile and a disused rail curve. If it were reinstated and the line to Ormskirk electrified, it would join up two spokes of Merseyrail, to its benefit. It would also considerably enhance and boost services to Preston, Wigan, Ormskirk and Southport, and would cost very little—something in the region of £11 million or less. Merseytravel is doing research on that, as the previous research has been completely outdated and overtaken by changes in statistics.

55 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

However, getting the project through would mean cutting across the two passenger transport authority boundaries of Lancashire and Merseyside. It is not automatically a candidate for regional transport allocation—a method that one might wish to pursue—first, because it was not clear in the north-west whether rail fell within the regional transport allocation when it was agreed by the regional assembly; secondly, because the project is of relatively low cost; thirdly, because Network Rail needs to be involved in the act in some way; and fourthly, because it crosses a range of boundaries. I listened with some interest to talk from Network Rail and, to be fair, from the Department for Transport about the funding that is available for growth, but my general experience from one particular project in my area is of bouncing around from body to body, including the DFT, which I have been in and out of from time to time. I went in there as a naive MP, got the maps out and tried to explain to the civil servants exactly what I was talking about. On one occasion, I was asked to go away and construct a business case. I wrote back saying, “I know, generally, what you mean by a business case, but can you give me some samples of business cases already submitted so I can model mine on the most successful of those?”, but I have not received a reply. Despite the massive, unanimous local support, trying to make progress is like confronting a Kafkaesque environment. I know that we need to get over certain hurdles, but I have never been clear about what those hurdles are or who puts them there. Sadly, I believe that many projects are in a similar, limbo-like situation. There are many quick wins to be had in which progress can be made. Where progress is made, it is often for a series of eclectic reasons, such as a section 106 agreement in the right place, or a local authority being prepared to put up funding. In the run-up to the debate, the Kilbride group drew itself to my attention. It specialises in offering advice to beleaguered MPs such as myself and communities such as mine that are keen to make progress on schemes that do not seem to meet any of the usual parameters. There is much to be gained from expanding the rail network. A lot of money could be well spent, although we are not talking about huge sums, to bring about economic benefit in the regions, extend capacity and encourage a modal shift. A business case can be made for that, but it is not clear what the path is to bring such schemes to fruition.

Several hon. Members rose—

Anne Begg (in the Chair): Order. Several hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. If Back-Bench Members keep their speeches to just over five minutes, everyone should be able to speak. I repeat what I said about the digital clock: the time at the bottom has stuck at 4.27 for some strange reason, but the time above is the real one. Hon. Members will have to watch that to keep to their time. I call Katy Clark to speak next because she sat through all of the last debate but, unfortunately, missed out.

Katy Clark: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate, Miss Begg. I congratulate my friend, the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) who, like me, is a member of the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill. I am well aware that he is making a great contribution to expanding the rail network in Britain. I shall take this opportunity, in the week after the Stern report, to argue the environmental case for an expansion of the railways system. Sadly, because of the huge increase in the use of the car in Britain, all forms of public transport, including buses, railways and trams, are estimated to account for only about 6 per cent. of transport use in Britain. The Government are rightly aware that if we are seriously to tackle carbon emissions in this country, something will have to be done about the increasing use of the car. A huge amount of work is being done on road pricing, but even before the Stern report, the Government were setting themselves challenging targets to reduce carbon emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010 and 60 per cent. by 2050. Those targets are ambitious, particularly when one

56 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP considers car use and the fact that transport accounts for a quarter of all carbon emissions in Britain, with cars contributing a major part of that. Clearly, if we are to do something about climate change and reduce carbon emissions, it is necessary to consider transport, and public transport in particular. The railways have an important role to play, but the current system simply does not have the capacity to deal with a large increase in passenger use.

Mr. Fraser: I accept the hon. Lady’s point about people wanting to get off the roads and being keen to use public transport, but does she agree that they are often discouraged from doing so because services are infrequent, unreliable and overcrowded?

Ms Clark: Indeed, I do. Another factor that puts people off using public transport is the cost. Many of us are well aware of the cost of using the railways, particularly those of us who live in far-flung parts of Britain and have to travel regularly to London to attend the House.

Daniel Kawczynski: Does the hon. Lady also agree that the complexity of the fares, which has been raised many times in the House, puts people off because they have to trawl through the whole complicated system to find the cheapest fare?

Ms Clark: I do agree, and that complexity has not been reduced by the railways’ complex management and ownership structure. The franchising arrangements do not help to provide the British public with a simple fare structure or the best-quality service. We need to look at a number of issues, including the fragmentation of the railways, which does not help to ensure that the best pricing structures are available for passengers. There is a strong environmental case for rail, and it is supported by the public. In a recent MORI poll, 64 per cent. of those polled said that they would support increased spending and investment in the railways if that would help to combat climate change. There is also great public support for ensuring that the railway system is not only convenient and available, but priced in a way that makes it an attractive option. Currently, however, even a 3 per cent. increase in the railways’ share of passengers would require about a 50 per cent. increase in demand on the railways. Even a relatively small increase in the railways’ global share of passengers would therefore require quite significant spending and investment in the railways. If the Government’s policy of getting people off the roads and on to the railways and the buses is to be successful, an increase in capacity is needed. For all those reasons, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues, when they make representations in next year’s comprehensive spending review, to put the strongest possible case for doing everything to ensure that we live up to the ambitions of the Stern report, which so clearly outlined the challenges that we face, and to secure adequate investment and funding.

David Drew: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. When there are capacity issues and investment is needed, for example, in re-signalling, one of the most obvious things to do is to look at the number of trains travelling on the line and at its freight capacity. That is exactly what is happening on the line between Cheltenham and Swindon in my area, where we could double the use of the line and solve a lot of the problems. That is the right approach, but there is often no co-ordination. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Ms Clark: I am sure that that is indeed the case. It is important that we look at all such issues, particularly in the wake of the Stern report, which makes it clear that we must take action sooner rather than later. We must look at the organisational and structural issues in the railways industry. The bottom line, however, is that we must make a political decision that the railways are part of our future, and we must put in the investment to ensure that they are the option that people choose.

57 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Sir Peter Soulsby: On the question of investment in the railways, does my hon. Friend agree that there is a lot to be learned from the success of congestion charging in London and the subsequent investment in public transport that it has made possible? Does she agree that making motorists pay a realistic price for using their cars and investing the proceeds in rail is an environmentally friendly alternative for long-distance and community use? We should learn the lessons of congestion charging, which could be a major contributor to investment in rail.

Ms Clark: I agree. I suspect that many lessons can be learned from London’s experience with congestion charging and from the attempts to increase the number of buses and to promote the use Oyster cards and other mechanisms to reduce the cost of public transport. In Scotland, the policy of free bus travel for pensioners has also been very successful in getting pensioners to use buses as their preferred mode of transport. It is clear that price is a major factor when transport users make their choices, but if the trains are not there, people will not be able to use them, no matter what the cost. To conclude, there is a strong political case—particularly against the backdrop of the Stern report—for making significant investment to ensure that Britain’s railways provide us all with a service. Like me, my hon. Friend the Minister regularly commutes to Scotland, and he will be well aware that the journey is far lengthier for those who commute by rail than it is for those who use alternatives such as air. If we had the high-speed links that exist in many European countries, however, rail would become a far more competitive option. I therefore congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he has already done since being appointed to his position and encourage him to do all he can to ensure that we get better investment in our railways.

Daniel Kawczynski: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) on securing this important debate. I believe that Shrewsbury is the only county town—there may be one other—without a direct rail link to London. Dealing with that issue is a priority for me and many of my constituents because we believe that Shrewsbury, as the county town of Shropshire, should have a rail link to our capital city. That is not only because of the opportunities for tourism and business investment, but because of the flexibility that such a link would offer constituents, who would be able to get to London without changing at Wolverhampton. Let me explain to the Minister what happens to people who live in a county town with no direct link to London. In our case, people have to go to Wolverhampton on Arriva’s trains, which are extremely dirty. Last Monday, I saw one arrive at Shrewsbury station that was so dirty that I could not see anyone inside the carriage. I was amazed that both the inside and the outside of trains could be so dirty. The trains are always late, so people never get their connecting train on time, and desperately overcrowded. As Shrewsbury’s MP, and being very recognisable at 6 ft 8 in, I always give up my seat.

Kelvin Hopkins: I recognise some of the points that the hon. Gentleman is making from my own train service. Does he consider that they are at least partly the result of privatisation, because profit, and not passenger service and keeping the trains clean, is the main motive?

Daniel Kawczynski: I am trying to focus on Shrewsbury, but I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In the old days, when we had British Rail, there were various problems, and in certain cases the situation was even worse. I believe in privatisation, but the Government have the responsibility to regulate train operators to ensure that services are adequate. As I was saying, I always give up my place on the train, but every Monday I count at least 30 people standing in the carriage. Many senior citizens stand in the carriage from Shrewsbury to Wolverhampton every Monday. In the summer’s appalling heat, standing was unbearable and one could not get away with transporting animals in those conditions. We arrived at Birmingham station on one Arriva train and a poor lady collapsed on the platform. I stayed with her, as did many other passengers, for about 35 minutes before the paramedics took

58 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP her away. People travel in such conditions between Shrewsbury, Wolverhampton and Birmingham on Arriva trains, and it is a scandal.

Mark Williams: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the large number of my constituents who travel on the Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury line have to spend large lengths of time stranded in Shrewsbury because of the problems he identified. They largely derive from timetabling difficulties in respect of Birmingham New Street. On that basis, does he agree that an hourly service from Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury would be helpful? As a rail user for the past 20 years, may I reiterate a point made by another hon. Member? Some 15 years ago we had a direct train service from Aberystwyth, through Shrewsbury, to London. It was a good inter-city service before privatisation.

Daniel Kawczynski: I made the cardinal mistake of referring to the hon. Gentleman as a Plaid Cymru Member the other week, and I apologise for doing so, because he is a Liberal Democrat. He is right that a direct service from Shrewsbury to London would benefit all his constituents and the many people in mid-Wales who go through Shrewsbury. I was so frustrated with the performance of Arriva Trains Wales that I invited its managing director, Bob Holland, to come to Shrewsbury to have a look for himself. He agreed to come on the service with me and tour the station. Suddenly, miracle of miracles, the train arrived on time, there was no overcrowding because an extra two carriages were put on the train and a service of teas, coffees and cakes was provided, which was lovely. It was the most pleasurable train journey on which I have ever been. The train arrived in Wolverhampton on time, and it was immaculate. I had a tea, a coffee and a cream bun. Mr. Holland said to me, “Well, there you are Daniel. I don’t know what you’re complaining about. It’s lovely isn’t it?” That shows how out of touch the chief executives of these companies are. Every time they inspect the service, it is all laid on for them, so that they get a totally false perception of what is happening. Luckily, I and many other MPs who represent constituencies in Shropshire and Wales have been banging on about this for a long time. A company called Renaissance Trains wishes to provide a direct service from Shrewsbury to London, which is scheduled to start in late June or early July 2007. Renaissance Trains currently operates a service from the Deputy Prime Minister’s constituency to London, and the company has won national awards for the services that it provides. The trains are good, clean and punctual, and the ticket prices are very reasonable. I am informed that Arriva is trying to make it more difficult for Renaissance Trains to get the franchise because it will take Arriva’s business away. Will the Minister ensure that Renaissance Trains gets every help possible to try to secure the service, so that we do not have to rely on Arriva any more? Will the Minister explain how railway stations are maintained, because it is important for the railway network? I would like to take him around Shrewsbury station, which is poorly kept and not well maintained; it has graffiti and the buildings are dirty. Shrewsbury takes the Britain in Bloom competition seriously and is a beautiful, historic English town, so it is a great shame that it is blighted by having such a dirty, poorly maintained station. When one goes around the station with representatives from Arriva and Network Rail, they each blame the other and say that things are the other’s responsibility.

Katy Clark: Has not the hon. Gentleman simply illustrated the point about the fragmentation of the railway that I was trying to make earlier? Different companies are involved and that allows one to blame the other. Another problem is that of fines. If one company is not performing its task, that will not necessarily affect or matter to it, but it might affect someone else. Does he not agree that the fragmentation of the railways is most unhelpful?

Daniel Kawczynski: I agree that there is a serious problem of a lack of responsibility for certain maintenance of railway stations, and that is why I am asking the Minister to address it. I shall give her an example. Arriva says to me that anything above 6 ft—I should know about this because I am 6 ft 8 in—is the responsibility of Network Rail but anything under

59 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

that is its responsibility. The council also owns a bit of the railway station—a bridge going into the town. Both Arriva and Network Rail constantly say to me, “That is not our responsibility. It is their responsibility.” That is appalling, because the customers and the station suffer. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that point. Some stations in the west midlands are beautifully maintained, for example, Wolverhampton. Network Rail and the train operators seem able to work well together at Wolverhampton, where the facilities are extraordinary: it has bowls on the platform that are specifically for pets; it has flowers; the station is always painted; there is no graffiti. If they can do it in Wolverhampton, why cannot they do it in Shrewsbury? They also do it well in Hereford, which is a similar-sized city to Shrewsbury. We want more common standards on station maintenance. Finally, I want to discuss ticket prices. I come to London every Monday, returning on Thursday. I am desperate to keep my travel expenses as low as possible, unlike certain colleagues, particularly my predecessor—the former Liberal Democrat, then Labour, then Liberal Democrat Member, or was it the other way round? We will not go into that. I try to buy my tickets for a specific day and time, because that makes them so much cheaper and a fraction of the price of the most expensive ones. Sometimes, if one is delayed, one goes on the train and a huge penalty is imposed. I want to have a go at Virgin Trains for the huge differences in the prices that it charges for tickets from Wolverhampton to London. It is unacceptable and outrageous that, if someone needs a flexible fare to London, the company tries to fleece them for about £188 for a return ticket.

Dr. Pugh: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is unacceptable that the average Virgin train, certainly from Liverpool, consists of 50 per cent. first-class carriages, forcing standard- class passengers to suffer cattle-truck conditions? Does it worry him that a subsidy might be issued to Virgin to extend its trains and not convert some of the first-class carriages to standard class?

Daniel Kawczynski: I agree. The service from Wolverhampton to London provides a huge number of first-class carriages, most of which are empty, and people in standard economy class are wedged into crowded carriages. I am not a great fan of Virgin—I want to put that on the record—and I would like to hear the Minister’s views of its treatment of customers, the overcrowding in standard class and, more importantly, its fleecing with first-class fares.

Several hon. Members rose—

Anne Begg (in the Chair: Order. I ask hon. Members to restrict their comments to five minutes, so that everyone who wants to speak may do so.

Jeremy Corbyn: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), because I grew up in Shropshire and spent many hours hanging around Shrewsbury railway station waiting for trains. In the days of British Rail, there were direct trains from Shrewsbury to London, but privatisation fragmented the service, which is largely what I shall speak about today. Everyone now recognises the value of the train system, and everyone knows that the combination of Beeching and Buchanan in the 1960s destroyed much of our huge railway network. Ten thousand miles of track were destroyed by Beeching, and Professor Colin Buchanan persuaded the Government and local authorities of the day to destroy town centre after town centre and build roads through them. We are now paying the price for that, and it is up to us to ensure that the current mood in favour of railways continues and that the necessary investment is made. Because of privatisation of the railways, there is often a lack of co-ordination in train journey planning. To be frank, the ticket-pricing system is mad. Railway nerds who read Rail magazine, as I do, will know that Barry Doe produces “Fair Dealer” every month in which he

60 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP goes through the complicated business of how to find the cheapest ticket from London to Aberdeen and so on. He obviously spends a lot of time looking at a computer screen and works it out for himself, but most people, when they want to buy a ticket to travel, do not want to go on a computer first. I look to the Minister to ensure that a simplified ticket system is introduced so that it is not only the people who have hours to spend looking for a ticket who can find a reasonable price. Everyone who wants to travel should be able to find that. Why are people who buy a ticket on the day of travel always penalised? Some people who have to travel do not always know that the day before and they are heavily penalised. We end up with busy trains in the morning from London and other big cities full of business men who get tax deductible expenses, and the rest of the population must wait and travel later when they can afford to. I hope that the Minister will look into that. Network Rail has recently published its programme of investment in the railway system for the next few years. It is an impressive document and a vast amount of investment is taking place. I pay tribute to the Government for the welcome amount of money that they have put into capital investment in the railway system.

Kelvin Hopkins: I strongly support what my hon. Friend is saying, but does he accept that the money might have been better spent if the railways had been in public ownership, given that the cost of track renewal has increased by between four and five times under privatisation?

Jeremy Corbyn: Indeed. Track renewal costs were high. Setting up Network Rail has ensured that the industry is now led by engineers rather than accountants, which is an improvement. The problem lies with the train operating companies and their relationship with it. When Richard Branson paraded his new Pendolino train to Manchester and said how wonderful the service was, he was praised, but the reality is that millions of pounds of public money went into building the infrastructure for that train to run on and his company can make a lot of money from running it. The train operating companies should be brought back into public ownership so that the public receive the benefits of the improvements, instead of those benefits being siphoned off by shareholders. As I said, I welcome the impressive rail investment programme, but the Government must address the issues such as the reopening of disused railway lines. I tabled a question for the Secretary of State for Transport in which I asked:

“which railway lines in England and Wales are under consideration for reopening; and what his policy is on the reopening of railways lines.” The reply I received was:

“In July next year we will publish our High Level Output Specification. This will set out the railway outputs the Government wishes to buy in terms of capacity, safety and reliability and the funding to support this for the next 5 years. It is for the industry to determine what inputs are needed to deliver this.”—[Official Report, 24 July 2006; Vol. 449, c. 749W.] Private Eye paraphrased that answer with the two-letter word, “No.” It is not for the industry to determine future outputs; it is for the Government to set the scene of the level of railway operation that they want and the investment that they are prepared to encourage in it. In that way, many of the disused railway lines can be reopened. There are many that I could mention, but I shall quickly mention the need for the east-west line to be developed. In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) called for the protection of existing railway corridors, which is important. We look to the Government to call in any planning application that proposes building over existing track, even if it is disused, to protect it for the future. The reopening of the Bletchley to Bicester line would be part of that, but many other lines should be reopened—for example, the Wisbech line should be reopened beyond March. I pay tribute to the Scottish Executive for their

61 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP preparedness to fund the reopening of part of the Waverley line; I hope that that goes all the way through. We need such developments. I represent a London constituency where there are some interesting developments. There is massive investment in public transport in London and London overground railways are being developed, but why, in the development of London overground lines and the east London line, must a train operating company be called in to run it? Why can it not be run by the public in the same way as Transport for London runs the rest of the system? Can the Minister give me any encouragement on the transfer not just of rail operations to Transport for London, but of some stations? I understand the point that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham made about station management. Finsbury Park station in my constituency is a classic example. The building is owned by Network Rail; Transport for London and London Buses operate there, and the British Transport police have an office there. When everyone finally agrees to come to a meeting, someone cancels the day before so the meeting does not happen and we go round the circuit again. We need better co-ordination. The Government have done well in their preparedness to invest in the railways system. They also did well in establishing Network Rail in place of the failed Railtrack. However, we want rail operations and the train operating companies to be returned to public ownership, and a real preparedness to go further with investment to ensure that many disused lines are reopened, so that we have the sort of rail network that this country needs and deserves. We have a great opportunity given the current mood, which has shifted away from our congested roads to cheaper and more environmentally sustainable rail transport.

Bob Spink: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) on securing this important debate. I did not agree with every detail of his speech, but I certainly agreed with the broad thrust of his interesting speech. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), and I echo what he and others have said about protecting the corridors that are currently closed. Recent Government policy has been to increase the cost of rail travel, which is already far too high, in order to reduce or hold down passenger numbers. That is particularly true of rail services into London, and the policy has pushed people on to the roads, which is mindless. It makes much more environmental and economic sense to increase peak capacity, thereby increasing the number of rail users and reducing the cost by the usual price-volume economic model. It is not rocket science, so I do not know why the Government continue to follow their policy of recent years. Some of my constituents have to travel into and out of London every day to work. Benfleet and Canvey Island in my constituency are part of the London commuter belt. Benfleet has the most used station on the C2C line, and it suffers particularly as a result of that policy. Although I accept the need for major blue-sky schemes throughout the country, one of the quickest and easiest ways to increase capacity as we must would be to maximise the use of existing infrastructure and rolling stock. I have three examples of how that can be achieved. First, we should extend platforms so that we can run trains with more carriages. Doing so is easy, provided one obtains the various permissions needed, it is quite cheap, it can dramatically increase train capacity and it can enable more people to be transported into and out of London at peak times. Secondly, we must examine the old signalling. The C2C line needs investment in signalling to run more trains during peak hours. A little investment in signalling on the approach to London would enable C2C to run more trains each hour during those key periods. Thirdly, and slightly more controversially, we should make small but strategic additions to the main lines. We should build spur lines and loops to existing tracks, and new stations to serve large communities. Many communities are without stations, but their people use the rail service. Canvey Island has 44,000 people, and 3,000 of them have to travel off the island to get on a train to travel to London to work each day. Only 600 people a day use the terminal at Shoeburyness on the same line, so we could afford a new station on Canvey Island, with

62 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP a spur line linking it to Pitsea down Canvey way. It would be quite cheap, it would make a lot of environmental sense, and it would help to regenerate the community of Canvey Island. It is dangerous and unacceptable that hundreds of people must stand when they travel into work—in my case for 40 minutes each way each day. We would not transport animals in that way, so why do we expect my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) to do so? I ask the Minister to consider ways in which we can positively encourage schemes such as the Canvey Island rail spur and station and enable them to be realised. It is an environmental and economic no-brainer. I also call on Thames Gateway London Partnership, a massive quango that should be improving local infrastructure and the economy for our communities, to shift its focus from yet more building to community regeneration. That would be a jolly good start, too.

Kelvin Hopkins: It is a pleasure to follow those hon. Members who made fine points and, knowing your interest in railway matters, to see you in the Chair, Mr. Martlew. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) on raising the debate. Some important points have been made. I want to be more specific about the Stern report, about the urgency with which we must address the CO2 problem and about what transport, and rail in particular, can do. Statistics from the Department for Transport show that inter-city rail travel emits one fifth of the CO2 grams per passenger kilometre that car travel emits and one tenth of that of short-haul air travel. We have not touched on the role of the rail freight sector. The grams per tonne kilometre emitted by rail freight compared with that emitted by heavy goods vehicles on the roads is a factor of 10. Rail freight transport emits one tenth the CO2 of road freight transport. Our rail system lacks capacity for passengers and for freight, so we must have more investment. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that I want to consider large schemes, and I urge the Government to consider them, too. Some ideas for passenger rail transport are unfeasible. A new greenfield route would be horrendously expensive and it would not be the way forward. Making the best use of existing north-south corridors for passengers is the way to proceed, but to do so we must take freight off those lines and upgrade them so that they can run more and faster passenger trains. To do that, we need a new rail freight route that runs down the backbone of Britain, from Glasgow to the channel tunnel. The opportunity exists. I am involved in a scheme—I have not a pecuniary interest, but an enthusiasm to drive the idea forward—for a new rail freight line from Glasgow, linking all major industrial areas of Britain to the channel tunnel. It would also link to a burgeoning rail freight system on the continent. The scheme would include a large gauge that was capable of taking not only full-scale 9 ft 6 in lorry containers, which are becoming standard, but double-stacked 9 ft 6 in containers on trains all the way from Glasgow to Dortmund, or wherever, overnight. We believe that the scheme would take 5 million lorry loads off the roads every year, save the Government vast sums of money in road investment and repairs, transform our environment and make a massive contribution to reducing CO2 emissions. It is the realistic way forward. I shall not go into the details of the scheme, because I want to discuss them in another debate, but I urge the Minister to consider a dedicated rail freight system and route that links our industrial areas with the continent, and within Britain, the south, north and midlands and the west and the north-east. They key factor is gauge. The problem with the east coast main line, and particularly the west coast main line, is that they do not have sufficient gauge to accommodate even 9 ft 6 in containers. Under Railtrack, one of the new breed of railway managers who knew nothing about railways insisted that a container could go on a particular route, the gauge engineer said that it could not. The manager insisted it was taken on a train, and the container smashed into a bridge because it was 6 in too big. That was just one of Railtrack’s many successes before it was wound up and transformed.

63 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Katy Clark: Given that many goods enter this country through our ports, and that much is transferred on to roads, does my hon. Friend agree that we should develop dedicated railway ports where railways take on all freight? It is happening in other European countries, and we must consider it in our long-term strategy.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The scheme that I propose would deal with the continent, not with long distance deep-sea transport by ship. However, unloading freight from ships directly on to trains for delivery to terminals throughout the country, and then on to road for immediate delivery to localities, would be a sensible way forward. It would be additional to—not instead of—the scheme that I suggest. My proposal is to link Britain to the continent, where people are investing massively. A 35 km tunnel capable of taking double-stack containers is being built through the Brenner pass. It is being drilled through rock as part of a scheme that, for freight alone, will eventually link Sicily with Berlin. People on the continent are taking the matter seriously and we must do the same. If we do not, we will lose out economically. Britain is peripheral to the European economy and we need the new artery to ensure not just that we save on CO2 emissions, but that our economy is part of the European economy. That is particularly important in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Minister is a Scottish Member, and it is pleasing that we have a Minister with professional experience in the transport industry. I know that he will appreciate many of the arguments made by transport experts, because he is one himself. Such expertise is not the case with all Ministers. I am pleased that he is in his post and I hope that he will take seriously what is being said. We can make a massive contribution to Britain’s economy and to reducing CO2 emissions by taking rail freight seriously and investing in a scheme like the one that I have mentioned, going from the central industrial region of Scotland right through to continental Europe, and linking every major industrial area of Britain to the continental economy.

Ian Lucas: North-east Wales and west Cheshire is one of the fastest growing areas in the UK, and it has historically had a low usage of railways and a high usage of motor cars. The result of the combination of those two factors, growth and the lack of public transport is a serious congestion problem. The potential for growth in the rail services and systems of the area is reflected by three proposals. The first is the Wrexham-Shrewsbury-London line, to which the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) referred. I fully support his comments, and I am working hard to take the scheme forward. Secondly, there is a proposal for a new electrified service on the Wrexham-Bidston-Liverpool line, to be run by Merseytravel. That service could be extremely important to the commercial and industrial future of both north-east Wales and west Cheshire. We have industries such as General Motors at Ellesmere Port, Airbus at Broughton and Deeside Industrial Park Ltd, all of which are currently served not by public but by private transport. The result is a severe, developing congestion problem that must be tackled. The third proposal is for a further development of the Shrewsbury to Chester line, particularly at the north end. Services would be improved between the commercial centres of Wrexham and Chester by the addition of stations at places such as the Chester business park and Rossett. That would facilitate much better commuter travel between the two centres. There is currently serious congestion difficulty on roads in north-east Wales and west Cheshire. I have been commuting in the area for 20 years and I have seen free-flowing traffic grind to a halt. I was very taken by the speech by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), particularly with his description of trying to work our way through developing the transport system as being like “knitting fog.” That is how I see our approach to transport. The current franchising system is intended to manage the existing service. It is bad at improving the public service, considering the potential for new development and carrying it out. I recognised the hon. Gentleman’s point about the difficulty of taking such projects forward.

Daniel Kawczynski rose—

64 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Ian Lucas: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has had his say and I want to be brief. I hesitate to counsel my hon. Friend the Minister on further structural reform, because I know it is an ongoing sore, but there is a real need to consider how to take new projects forward. Members of Parliament can do so much with their resources and knowledge, but we recognise that there are possible services—I have mentioned three in my constituency alone—that could be carried forward. We wish to do so, and there are strong cases for it environmentally, as we have heard, and economically. If we do not develop the transport services in my area, the local economy will ultimately suffer. I am pleased that under this Labour Government we are managing success. The economy has expanded, but we need to manage that expansion environmentally. We have a system that looks backwards at keeping existing services going. We need a much more constructive, imaginative and facilitative system that enables us to improve transport services in the communities that we represent.

Paul Rowen: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) on initiating the debate, and other hon. Members on their contributions. Some excellent points have been made. The debate is timely because of the publication over the weekend of the Select Committee on Transport’s report on rail franchising and because we are promised a transport Bill in the forthcoming Session. I hope that that Bill, as well as doing something about bus re-regulation, will address the issues that hon. Members have raised. I wish to set out a few things that Liberal Democrats think important and in particular draw attention to four points made by the Select Committee that are pertinent to those made by hon. Members. The Government say that they support competition, yet they appear to consider open access operators—the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) mentioned one—a threat to stability. They hail the growth in passenger numbers, yet they do not provide a long-term strategy and investment to increase capacity. We are promised a Government report in 2007 in which they will set out their long-term strategy, but I hope that the Minister will explain today the direction in which they are travelling. They want co-ordination, yet they continue to operate a system of fragmentation, as hon. Members have said. Finally, they want the private sector to invest, take risks and innovate, yet they prioritise price above all those factors. There is a role for the private sector in the railway industry, and for companies to continue to expand and develop it they need longer franchises than they currently get. I pay tribute to the Government’s record of investment in the past few years, and the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), used to say that the investment was £88 million a week, which is not to be sneezed at. We must look forward, however, and consider what needs to be addressed. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) mentioned freight. I was disappointed at the end of last month that the channel tunnel rail company made it difficult for freight trains to travel through the tunnel. I went up to Trafford Park in Manchester to watch one of the last few freight trains that will be able to operate through the tunnel.

Stephen Hammond: I support the hon. Gentleman’s view on freight and was interested in what the hon. Member for Luton, North said about the channel tunnel rail link, but the Government have the contract with the channel tunnel rail company. It is the Government who are failing to get involved and sort out the contract so that freight can continue to move through the tunnel.

Paul Rowen: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that the Minister will consider the matter. It is clear that companies will not be able to afford the prices that are being set, which will mean not less traffic on the road but more. I agree with the hon. Member for Luton, North that we need investment in a freight line that runs down the centre of the country.

65 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Kelvin Hopkins: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on rail freight. Does he agree that the matter is even more critical now that the channel tunnel is about to be forced into bankruptcy? Putting fewer trains through it will make it even less viable. We need thousands of tonnes of freight going through it every day.

Paul Rowen: I agree. It is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, and I hope that the Minister will do so. I wish to mention something that has not yet been raised: the need for a high-speed rail link between Scotland and the capital. Currently, 97 per cent. of all traffic to the capital from Scotland uses air. It is clear that such a line would be important in getting people to switch and as part of our attempts to address climate change. Speed will be of the essence. If we are talking about a long-term plan, we need to ensure that the line is built, but there are rumours that the Eddington report has gone cold on that. I hope that that is not the case, because if every other developed country that is serious about rail can have a fast rail link, why not this country, which invented rail? I finish with two points. A number of bottlenecks need to be addressed, such as at Birmingham New Street and platforms 12 and 13 at Manchester Piccadilly. Addressing them would do much to alleviate the concerns that hon. Members have raised. We also need longer trains and longer platforms, but that will not happen unless the train operating companies receive longer franchises. I hope that the Minister will consider the points that I and other hon. Members have made.

Stephen Hammond: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) on instigating this debate and, once again, the prisoners of the Crossrail Committee on their good work. It is good to see them here this morning. It is clear that Britain’s transport infrastructure will face almost unprecedented pressures over the next 25 years. Forecasted growth in the number of cars is far greater than what we can possibly provide for by building more roads. That means that we shall need a modern, efficient railway system that can face up to the challenges that will confront the network. As was mentioned, the rail network now carries more passengers each day than before Beeching, which saw the wholesale closure of half the network. The current figures are an astonishing achievement that would have been thought laughable 15 years ago. On top of that, there has been a reversal—although not great enough—of the trend in freight, with at least some freight moving from road to rail. That has happened since privatisation, but that is not what we are here to discuss, which is the challenge of the future. The future challenge for the railways, for both passenger and freight, is capacity. It is difficult to see how the next decade can be anything like as successful as the previous one unless the policy is orientated to ease the constraints on capacity. According to Network Rail, the TOCs and industry commentators, passenger numbers are estimated to grow by some 30 per cent. between now and 2014. However, the Office of Rail Regulation says that no growth in the number of passenger train kilometres travelled on the network between now and 2014 is expected, which in layman’s language means no more space for passengers.

Daniel Kawczynski: With all the new people using rail services, does my hon. Friend agree that it is also important for the Government to ensure better access for disabled passengers at stations? For example, there is no opportunity for disabled people to get on to the platform for the service between Shrewsbury and Chester, which has been mentioned.

Stephen Hammond: I agree with my hon. Friend and congratulate him on getting Shrewsbury mentioned a record number of times in a debate. We can all do the maths. All that we are seeing adds up to more and more passengers, on more and more overcrowded trains, with a constant upward pressure on fares to try to take the sting out of overcrowding. I am concerned that neither Network Rail nor the Government seem to be prioritising the challenge, and I should like briefly to comment on their roles.

66 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Network Rail seems to want more and more money. Earlier this year it asked the Government for another £7 billion of investment, over and above the cash that it had already received. In total, Network Rail wants nearly £1.5 billion more to run the railways than the independent rail regulator thinks it should have. There are only two places from which that money can come—the taxpayer or the travelling public. The Government are talking of allowing huge fare increases, which seems to be facing the capacity challenge with a policy of pricing people off the railways. It is all very well for Network Rail to ask for more money, but earlier this year it said, both privately and publicly, that its priorities were repair, maintenance and replacement. Not once was there talk of an increase in capacity. Through this control period and the next one, Network Rail has been given some aggressive targets to drive down costs, which indicates an element of previous profligacy in that organisation. However, it is also interesting to see the start of some change. The route utilisation strategy shows at least a recognition in Network Rail that capacity is the key driver, although there is no time scale for implementation of that. Given the length of lead time and payback time, we need Network Rail to accelerate and to prioritise that programme. The Government interfere too much in the railway. It makes no sense to have them writing timetables. A comment was made earlier about the privatised railway and Railtrack running trains into a buffer. The first timetable that was written by the Government for the First Great Western franchise had two trains on a single track heading towards each other at the same time until First Group pointed that out. It also makes no sense for the Government to be the key driver of procuring new trains, which is the reason for a number of the problems in the south-west London commuter network.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman talks about procuring trains, but is it not a fact that some of the biggest costs are the vast rental costs that are charged by the ROSCOs—the rolling stock leasing companies, which are essentially the banks—to the train operators? The costs sometimes amount to 30 per cent. every year of the value of the trains and stock, which can themselves last for 20 to 30 years.

Stephen Hammond: Some element of the leasing structure is undoubtedly problematic, but as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, part of that is driven by the length of franchise in this country, which fails to allow the TOCs to invest in a way that they might otherwise want to. It is madness for franchises to be so tightly specified that the TOCs have little incentive to invest or to innovate.

Ian Lucas: Does the hon. Gentleman not consider that very long franchises might prevent the imaginative development of railways?

Stephen Hammond: No, I do not see any evidence for that. Innovation and investment are much more likely. I see no problem with the infrastructure either, because we could operate a full repairing lease, as we have elsewhere, so I am not convinced by the hon. Gentleman’s point. I am convinced that the status quo is not the answer to confronting the capacity challenge. The current system cannot drive the sort of capacity increases that we are looking for. As imposed by the previous Secretary of State but two, the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers), it has caused structural rigidities, which neither allow decisions about capacity to be taken fast enough nor provide for clarity in the railways as to who is accountable. The separation of the TOCs and Network Rail has meant institutionalised conflict, which has pushed up cost. The current system cannot and will not confront the challenge of expansion. There is an overwhelming acceptance among the railway lobby groups and the chief executives of the TOCs that we need to reconsider the current structure, as imposed by the right hon. Gentleman. It is time for a reconsideration of vertical integration, which is probably the only way of overcoming the structural rigidities in the system.

67 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

The current franchise arrangements make increased investment impossible. They are too tightly specified and there is too much Government interference. Chiltern Railways is the only franchise of a longer length—although on a small scale—but it is driving innovation and investment. We need to learn the lessons and consider the length of franchises. I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) that, were we to examine those franchise lengths, we could also ensure that we left room for innovative small operators and open-access operators, and protected the interests of the rail freight operators. A number of potential schemes have been mentioned. Let me touch on a few that seem to be relatively minor improvements. We need the Government to commit to and force on to Network Rail a scheme of small-scale improvements that could drive big capacity increases in the railways. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) talked of the needs in his constituency. Let me put to the Minister the following issues: the Maindee curve reinstatement, the Halton curve reinstatement, double tracking from Leamington Spa to Coventry and from Salisbury to Exeter, platform lengthening, extra links at termini and freight improvements at a number of the London commuter stations. Birmingham New Street and Manchester Piccadilly have also been mentioned. The expansion of railways also needs a scheme to make underused and disused railway lines more available for innovative light rail schemes. I look forward to the Minister’s confirmation that none of the above is going to happen and that the Government will continue to define the franchise too tightly. I look forward to him stating that he is not going to instigate a programme of reform within Network Rail. I shall be interested to hear how he thinks that capacity will be driven up unless there are changes.

Tom Harris: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) on securing the debate, which provides an opportunity for the House to consider the progress made on Britain’s railways, the investment in growth that we are already delivering, and our plans to take that to the next level. Unfortunately, a couple of hon. Members have now left the Chamber, but it was refreshing to see so many members of the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill come blinking into the sunlight after their long exile—it would not be quite accurate to say self-imposed exile. However, it is good to see so many members of the Select Committee and other hon. Members here today. I shall try my best to answer as many as possible of the points made, but I am sure that hon. Members will understand that I may not be able to answer every single one in appropriate detail as well as deliver my own prepared remarks. If someone from another country who knew nothing about the British railway system were listening to this debate, they could be forgiven—particularly given the comments made by the hon. Member for Southport—for assuming that the British railway system was under- resourced, underused and under threat. The opposite is the case. Of course there are major challenges, capacity prime among them, but ours is the first Government in generations to have to deal with the problem of increased rail passenger numbers. Many previous Governments would sorely have wanted such a problem. The hon. Member for Southport started by saying that Beeching’s spirit haunts the Department for Transport today, but he did not clarify what on earth that meant. I have to challenge that statement. If he is suggesting any resemblance between the Government’s policies and what Beeching did in the 1960s, I challenge him to go back to his sources.

Dr. Pugh: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Harris: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I want to get through my speech. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski)—that is another mention for Shrewsbury in Hansard—said that every county town should have a direct rail link to London. Unfortunately, I did not hear that mentioned by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). I wait with interest to see whether that commitment will find its way into the next Conservative party manifesto.

68 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

The hon. Member for Southport mentioned that seeking to progress infrastructure developments can be a Kafkaesque experience. I understand the frustration of anyone who wants physical growth in the rail network about how slowly the industry moves, and I sympathise. The hon. Gentleman will understand that there are good reasons for that, but I share his and others’ frustrations. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) talked about the comprehensive spending review in the context of the Stern report. She also mentioned a high-speed rail link. She was probably not present when I delivered my first response to an Adjournment debate on that very subject. Through the 2005 Labour party manifesto, the Government are committed to looking at the possibility of a high-speed rail link, but that has to be done in the context of the Eddington report, which is due before the end of this year. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Fraser) has left his seat after describing the rail service as infrequent and unreliable in an intervention. That is far from the truth. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is not a regular user of the rail service, but as he is not in his position to defend himself, I shall let that stand. I will be happy to take up the complaints made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham about the state of Shrewsbury station. I understand that the station is operated by Central Trains, not Network Rail, but if there is a problem in getting the station up to specification, I shall look into that for him. If he writes to me, I shall pursue the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) made some powerful points, although he would not expect me to agree with them all. However, I am grateful that he was the first speaker in the debate to pay tribute to the amount of investment that the Government are making in the railways. In the current spending cycle, we invest £88 million every week. My hon. Friend asked for a simplified ticketing structure. He should realise that the travelling passenger is a sophisticated being and that the internet has made it possible to shop around for the cheapest ticket. I accept that that can be intimidating, particularly for those who are not used to travelling, but the statistics do not bear out the claim that a complex ticketing structure is discouraging people from using the network. The simple fact, as I mentioned earlier, is that there has been exponential growth in rail passenger numbers. My hon. Friend asked for train operating companies to be nationalised, but I cannot offer him any encouragement in that respect. He said that it was up to the Government to set outputs. Notwithstanding my original answer to his question—I was intrigued to hear him quote it back at me—I should say that through the Railways Act 2005, the Government intended to bring back strategic direction of the railways to themselves and take it away from the strategic rail authority. That move was welcomed by the whole industry. Next year, our high- level output specification will identify the outputs that the Government want to see and want to be able to pay for.

Jeremy Corbyn rose—

Mr. Harris: I am sorry. I have three minutes left and have already refused the hon. Member for Southport.

Jeremy Corbyn rose—

Mr. Harris: Very well, I shall give way.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Minister. Very quickly, is he prepared to do anything to protect disused railway lines that may be subject to reopening procedures in future?

Mr. Harris: My hon. Friend is very persistent. Network Rail keeps corridors under review. Of course, some railway land was sold years ago and nothing can be done about that. It is rare for Network Rail to sell off land that might be brought back into rail use, and it is up to the local planning authority to decide on planning applications.

69 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Rosie Cooper: I shall be brief. The Minister mentioned investment of £88 million a week, and we are now talking about reinstating railway lines. I have not heard the Minister mention whether he would commit anything to such things as the Burscough curves. A tiny portion of that money would unlock the whole of the network for my constituency.

Mr. Harris: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I hope that she will forgive me; I have a number of points to cover in the time left. However, I take her point on board, and if she writes to me we can continue the dialogue. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) made some good points about freight. On EWS International’s problems with the channel tunnel, freight usage charges, already extended once by the Government, cannot legally be extended beyond the end of this month. However, I understand that negotiations are continuing between the company and Eurotunnel. I expect freight to continue to run through the channel tunnel. I am grateful for the description given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) of the unique circumstances affecting his constituency. He is an enthusiastic campaigner on local transport. If he writes to me, I shall be happy to meet him to discuss the issues. This debate is turning into a great opportunity for me to receive a lot more mail, Mr. Martlew. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) talked about the Transport Committee’s report on rail franchises, which was published at the weekend. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the Chairman of that Committee, in her place. I say to the hon. Gentleman that I am not aware of any major rail issues in the new transport Bill that we are expecting. He said that the Government do not have the strategy or investment to cope with increasing capacity. I strongly disagree. I have already referred to the high-level output specification to be published next year. We certainly intend to continue high levels of investment in the rail industry. The hon. Member for Wimbledon made some interesting—

Eric Martlew (in the Chair): Order. We must move on to the next debate.

RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP MEMBERS

Name Constituency Diane Abbott Hackney North & Stoke Newington

John Austin Erith & Thamesmead

Jeremy Corbyn Islington North

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

Jim Cousins Newcastle Upon Tyne Central

Ann Cryer Keighley

Bill Etherington Sunderland North

David Drew Stroud

Kelvin Hopkins Luton North

70 RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP

Bob Marshall - Andrews Medway

John McDonnell Hayes and Harlington

Jim McGovern Dundee West

Stephen Pound Ealing North

Gwyn Prosser Dover & Deal

Linda Riordan Halifax

Marsha Singh Bradford West

Alan Simpson Nottingham South

Jon Trickett Hemsworth

Rudi Vis Finchley and Golders Green

Robert Warering Liverpool West Derby

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

71