rmt parliamentary group

Transcription

RMT PARLIAMENTARY GROUP
Parliamentary Convenor: John McDonnell MP
RMT
Parliamentary
Group
Report
st
July 2006 – 1 December 2006
(Inclusive of the Summer and party conference season recess)
1
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
•
Fire Safety Regulations
•
East London Line
Maritime
•
Tonnage Tax
•
Thames Boatmaster licensing
•
Race Relations Act
•
Work Permits
•
Irish Ferries
Other Campaigns
•
Trade Union Freedom Bill
•
Public Service Not Private Profit
•
Hope Not Hate Tour
•
John 4 Leader Campaign
18
21
24
Annex 1 – EDMs
26
Annex 2 – Letters
47
Annex 3 – Hansard and Group Members
53
2
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
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.
200
230
351
352
395
447
532
534
549
575
724
Title
Tonnage Tax and UK Seafarers' Employment
Brittany Ferries
Northern Rail Services
Network Rail
South Eastern Trains
South Eastern Trains' Ticket Office Cuts
Public Ownership of Thameslink/Greater Northern franchise
Public Ownership of Greater Western franchise
Fire Precautions Regulations
Public Service Workers and the Terrorist Attacks on London
Working Conditions for Road Transport Workers
Tabling MP
Sigs
John McDonnell
92
John McDonnell
32
Graham Stringer 59
Bob Wareing
36
Clive Efford
35
Gwyn Prosser
35
Kelvin Hopkins
29
David Drew
36
John McDonnell
65
John McDonnell
84
John McDonnell
57
3
794
982
1093
1222
1278
1561
1574
1678
1680
1681
1920
1923
1956
2191
2266
2398
2511
2910
London Underground Public Private Partnership and Train Maintenance
Construction of Crossrail
Indemnification of Train Operating Companies during Industrial Action
Treatment of Seafarers
Wages of London Underground Cleaners
Tenth Anniversary of Rail Privatisation
Virgin Cross Country
Environmental case for Rail
Delivering Safer Rail Stations
Rail Workers' Pensions
Hope Not Hate Tour
South Eastern Trains (No2)
Regulatory Reform (S.I., 2006, No.484)
Race Relations Act and the Minimum Wage
Safety on the River Thames
East London Line
Reform of Rail Fares
Anti-Social Behaviour on Northern Rail services
John McDonnell
Harry Cohen
John McDonnell
John McDonnell
John McDonnell
John McDonnell
Jeremy Corbyn
John McDonnell
Kelvin Hopkins
John McDonnell
Jon Cruddas
John McDonnell
John McDonnell
Gwyn Prosser
John McDonnell
John McDonnell
John McDonnell
Jim Cousins
31
32
43
51
40
41
29
69
55
62
95
24
8
69
55
26
44
16
In addition four EDMs have been tabled on behalf of the Group since the start of the 200607 parliamentary session:
133
134
286
3xx
Fire Precautions Regulations
Anti-Social Behaviour on Northern Rail Services
Future of London Underground Passenger Services
GNER
John McDonnell
Jim Cousins
Jeremy Corbyn
Jim Cousins
42
42
21
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
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
Corporate Manslaughter
4
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
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
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
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
Track renewals
6
•
•
•
•
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
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.railreg.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
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.
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
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".
-EndsOn 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
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 nonprofit-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 ripoff, 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
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 overconfident 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
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
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
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 CheltenhamSwindon-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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
OTHER CAMPAIGNS
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
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
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
Caton, Martin
Conway, Derek
Davies, Dai
Drew, David
Galloway, George
Gibson, Ian
Hemming, John
Jackson, Glenda
Llwyd, Elfyn
Riordan, Linda
Simpson, Alan
Truswell, Paul
Williams, Betty
Buck, Karen
Clapham, Michael
Corbyn, Jeremy
Dean, Janet
Ennis, Jeff
George, Andrew
Hamilton, David
Hopkins, Kelvin
Jenkins, Brian
McDonnell, Alasdair
Robinson, Iris
Swinson, Jo
Vis, Rudi
Willis, Phil
Campbell, Ronnie
Clark, Katy
Cryer, Ann
Dismore, Andrew
Flynn, Paul
Gerrard, Neil
Harvey, Nick
Illsley, Eric
Jones, Lynne
Owen, Albert
Russell, Bob
Taylor, David
Wareing, Robert N
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
Clark, Katy
Corbyn, Jeremy
Dismore, Andrew
Flynn, Paul
Hamilton, David
Illsley, Eric
Leech, John
McDonnell, John
Prentice, Gordon
Simpson, Alan
Campbell, Gregory
Clelland, David
Cryer, Ann
Drew, David
Francis, Hywel
Hemming, John
Jenkins, Brian
Martlew, Eric
Owen, Albert
Riordan, Linda
Simpson, David
Campbell, Ronnie
Conway, Derek
Dean, Janet
Ennis, Jeff
Grogan, John
Hopkins, Kelvin
Jones, Lynne
McCafferty, Chris
Pope, Greg
Robinson, Iris
Spink, Bob
26
Stringer, Graham
Vis, Rudi
Willis, Phil
Trickett, Jon
Wareing, Robert N
Wilson, Sammy
Truswell, Paul
Williams, Betty
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
Drew, David
Gibson, Ian
Hopkins, Kelvin
McDonnell, John
Riordan, Linda
Vis, Rudi
EDM 3xx
Caton, Martin
Galloway, George
Hancock, Mike
Jackson, Glenda
Meale, Alan
Robinson, Iris
Wareing, Robert N
GNER
Cohen, Harry
Gerrard, Neil
Hoey, Kate
Jones, Lynne
Owen, Albert
Turner, Desmond
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
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
Bottomley, Peter
Campbell, Gregory
Cohen, Harry
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cummings, John
Donohoe, Brian H
Eagle, Angela
Etherington, Bill
Fraser, Christopher
Gibson, Ian
Hamilton, David
Harper, Mark
Heald, Oliver
Hepburn, Stephen
Horam, John
Jackson, Glenda
Law, Peter
Marshall, David
Mercer, Patrick
Morgan, Julie
O'Hara, Edward
Pound, Stephen
Prosser, Gwyn
Salmond, Alex
Simpson, Alan
Spink, Bob
Teather, Sarah
Turner, Desmond
Watkinson, Angela
Williams, Betty
Bailey, Adrian
Brazier, Julian
Caton, Martin
Connarty, Michael
Crausby, David
Dean, Janet
Drew, David
Efford, Clive
Fabricant, Michael
Garnier, Edward
Gillan, Cheryl
Hammond, Philip
Harris, Evan
Hemming, John
Holloway, Adam
Hoyle, Lindsay
Jones, David
Lazarowicz, Mark
McDonnell, John
Miller, Andrew
Mundell, David
Owen, Albert
Prentice, Gordon
Riordan, Linda
Sarwar, Mohammad
Smith, John P
Swire, Hugo
Thornberry, Emily
Vis, Rudi
Weir, Mike
Williams, Hywel
EDM 230
BRITTANY FERRIES
Bellingham, Henry
Brokenshire, James
Clark, Katy
Conway, Derek
Cryer, Ann
Dismore, Andrew
Dunwoody, Gwyneth
Ellman, Louise
Francis, Hywel
George, Andrew
Gove, Michael
Hancock, Mike
Hayes, John
Hendry, Charles
Hopkins, Kelvin
Iddon, Brian
Jones, Lynne
Lewis, Julian
Meale, Alan
Mitchell, Austin
Murrison, Andrew
Paice, James
Price, Adam
Robertson, Angus
Selous, Andrew
Spelman, Caroline
Taylor, David
Truswell, Paul
Wareing, Robert N
Wiggin, Bill
Wyatt, Derek
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
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
Corbyn, Jeremy
Dean, Janet
Donaldson, Jeffrey
Etherington, Bill
Hancock, Mike
Hoyle, Lindsay
Law, Peter
Meale, Alan
Prosser, Gwyn
Skinner, Dennis
EDM 351
Clark, Katy
Crausby, David
Dobbin, Jim
Donohoe, Brian H
Francis, Hywel
Hepburn, Stephen
Jenkins, Brian
Llwyd, Elfyn
Pound, Stephen
Riordan, Linda
Wareing, Robert N
NORTHERN RAIL SERVICES
Cohen, Harry
Cryer, Ann
Dodds, Nigel
Drew, David
Hamilton, David
Hopkins, Kelvin
Jones, Lynne
McGovern, Jim
Price, Adam
Robinson, Iris
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
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Caton, Martin
Cousins, Jim
Dean, Janet
Ellman, Louise
Farron, Timothy
Grogan, John
Hendrick, Mark
Hodgson, Sharon
Howarth, George
Jenkins, Brian
Kemp, Fraser
Martlew, Eric
Mitchell, Austin
Anderson, Janet
Borrow, David S
Clark, Katy
Crausby, David
Dismore, Andrew
Ennis, Jeff
Galloway, George
Hancock, Mike
Hepburn, Stephen
Holmes, Paul
Hoyle, Lindsay
Jones, Kevan
Leech, John
McCafferty, Chris
Moore, Michael
Beith, AJ
Burgon, Colin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cryer, Ann
Efford, Clive
Etherington, Bill
Goodman, Helen
Henderson, Doug
Heyes, David
Hopkins, Kelvin
Humble, Joan
Jones, Lynne
Marsden, Gordon
McDonnell, John
Murphy, Denis
Simpson, Alan
Smith, Geraldine
Singh, Marsha
Stunell, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis
Trickett, Jon
29
Truswell, Paul
Walley, Joan
Wright, Iain
Ussher, Kitty
Wareing, Robert N
EDM 352
NETWORK RAIL
Vis, Rudi
Willis, Phil
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
Clark, Katy
Cryer, Ann
Drew, David
Galloway, George
Hemming, John
Hoyle, Lindsay
Lloyd, Tony
McGovern, Jim
Owen, Albert
Simpson, Alan
Taylor, David
Caton, Martin
Cook, Frank
Dean, Janet
Efford, Clive
Gibson, Ian
Hepburn, Stephen
Jenkins, Brian
Llwyd, Elfyn
Meacher, Michael
Price, Adam
Skinner, Dennis
Vis, Rudi
EDM 395
SOUTH EASTERN TRAINS
Clapham, Michael
Corbyn, Jeremy
Dobbin, Jim
Etherington, Bill
Hancock, Mike
Hopkins, Kelvin
Jones, Lynne
McDonnell, John
Mitchell, Austin
Riordan, Linda
Strang, Gavin
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
Brake, Tom
Cook, Frank
Cryer, Ann
Flynn, Paul
Hancock, Mike
Jenkins, Brian
Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Prosser, Gwyn
Anderson, David
Caton, Martin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Dean, Janet
Gerrard, Neil
Hopkins, Kelvin
Jones, Lynne
McDonnell, John
Riordan, Linda
Austin, John
Clark, Katy
Cruddas, Jon
Drew, David
Gibson, Ian
Hoyle, Lindsay
Marshall, David
Mitchell, Austin
Simpson, Alan
30
Skinner, Dennis
Emily
Turner, Desmond
Williams, Betty
Stringer, Graham
Thornberry,
Vis, Rudi
Wareing, Robert N
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 welltrained 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
Caton, Martin
Cook, Frank
Cummings, John
Dunwoody, Gwyneth
Hancock, Mike
Jones, Lynne
McDonnell, John
Pelling, Andrew
Robinson, Iris
Stoate, Howard
Widdecombe, Ann
EDM 532
Austin, John
Clark, Katy
Corbyn, Jeremy
Dowd, Jim
Fallon, Michael
Hopkins, Kelvin
Law, Peter
McGovern, Jim
Prentice, Gordon
Rosindell, Andrew
Turner, Neil
Wyatt, Derek
Campbell, Ronnie
Cohen, Harry
Cryer, Ann
Drew, David
Flynn, Paul
Hoyle, Lindsay
Morgan, Julie
Riordan, Linda
Simpson, Alan
Vis, Rudi
PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF THAMESLINK/GREAT NORTHERN
FRANCHISE
29 signatures
That this House remains deeply concerned that despite public subsidy being more than
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
Cohen, Harry
Cryer, Ann
Dobbin, Jim
Gerrard, Neil
Hemming, John
Jones, Lynne
Caton, Martin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Dean, Janet
Drew, David
Gibson, Ian
Hepburn, Stephen
McDonnell, John
Clark, Katy
Cousins, Jim
Dismore, Andrew
Etherington, Bill
Hancock, Mike
Illsley, Eric
McGovern, Jim
31
Mitchell, Austin
Alan
Taylor, David
Wareing, Robert N
Riordan, Linda
Simpson,
Turner, Desmond
Vis, Rudi
EDM 534
PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF GREATER WESTERN FRANCHISE
36 signatures
That this House remains deeply concerned that, despite public subsidy being more than
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
Clark, Katy
Cousins, Jim
Dobbin, Jim
Gibson, Ian
Hood, Jimmy
James, Sian C
Marshall, David
Mitchell, Austin
Owen, Albert
Simpson, Alan
Williams, Betty
EDM 549
Berry, Roger
Cohen, Harry
Cryer, Ann
Etherington, Bill
Hancock, Mike
Hopkins, Kelvin
Jones, Lynne
McDonnell, John
Morgan, Julie
Price, Adam
Vis, Rudi
Williams, Hywel
FIRE PRECAUTIONS REGULATIONS
Caton, Martin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Dean, Janet
Flynn, Paul
Hemming, John
Illsley, Eric
Llwyd, Elfyn
McGovern, Jim
Osborne, Sandra
Riordan, Linda
Wareing, Robert N
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
Bottomley, Peter
Caton, Martin
Cohen, Harry
Cryer, Ann
Barlow, Celia
Brooke, Annette
Clapham, Michael
Conway, Derek
Dean, Janet
Betts, Clive
Campbell, Gregory
Clark, Katy
Corbyn, Jeremy
Devine, Jim
32
Dismore, Andrew
Mark
Etherington, Bill
Fisher, Mark
Gerrard, Neil
Hancock, Mike
Hillier, Meg
Jenkins, Brian
Khan, Sadiq
Lloyd, Tony
McGovern, Jim
Penning, Mike
Pugh, John
Rowen, Paul
Short, Clare
Taylor, David
Vis, Rudi
Williams, Hywel
EDM 575
Drew, David
Durkan,
Evans, Nigel
Francis, Hywel
Gibson, Ian
Hemming, John
Hopkins, Kelvin
Jones, Lynne
Law, Peter
Love, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin
Price, Adam
Riordan, Linda
Russell, Bob
Simpson, Alan
Thornberry, Emily
Wareing, Robert N
Featherstone, Lynne
Galloway, George
Hamilton, David
Hepburn, Stephen
Jackson, Glenda
Kaufman, Gerald
Lepper, David
Marshall, David
Morgan, Julie
Prosser, Gwyn
Robinson, Iris
Scott, Lee
Skinner, Dennis
Truswell, Paul
Whittingdale, John
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
Bottomley, Peter
Cable, Vincent
Clapham, Michael
Cohen, Harry
Cryer, Ann
Donaldson, Jeffrey
Efford, Clive
Galloway, George
Gibson, Ian
Hemming, John
Hopkins, Kelvin
Iddon, Brian
Jenkins, Brian
Kidney, David
Lepper, David
MacNeil, Angus
McDonagh, Siobhain
Morgan, Julie
Pelling, Andrew
Riordan, Linda
Salmond, Alex
Slaughter, Andrew
Swinson, Jo
Anderson, Janet
Brake, Tom
Campbell, Gregory
Clark, Katy
Conway, Derek
Dean, Janet
Drew, David
Ennis, Jeff
George, Andrew
Hamilton, David
Hepburn, Stephen
Hosie, Stewart
Illsley, Eric
Jones, Lynne
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lloyd, Tony
Marris, Rob
Meale, Alan
Osborne, Sandra
Price, Adam
Robertson, Angus
Seabeck, Alison
Smith, John P
Taylor, David
Barrett, John
Brooke, Annette
Caton, Martin
Clelland, David
Corbyn, Jeremy
Dismore, Andrew
Durkan, Mark
Etherington, Bill
Gerrard, Neil
Hancock, Mike
Holmes, Paul
Hughes, Simon
Jackson, Glenda
Keetch, Paul
Leech, John
Llwyd, Elfyn
Marshall, David
Mitchell, Austin
Owen, Albert
Pugh, John
Rosindell, Andrew
Simpson, Alan
Spink, Bob
Teather, Sarah
33
Thornberry, Emily
Paul
Turner, Desmond
Weir, Mike
Wishart, Pete
Todd, Mark
Truswell,
Vis, Rudi
Williams, Betty
Wyatt, Derek
Wareing, Robert N
Williams, Hywel
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
Berry, Roger
Campbell, Ronnie
Clark, Katy
Cruddas, Jon
Dobbin, Jim
Efford, Clive
Gapes, Mike
Hancock, Mike
Hillier, Meg
Illsley, Eric
Lazarowicz, Mark
Marris, Rob
McGovern, Jim
Moffat, Anne
Riordan, Linda
Simpson, Alan
Truswell, Paul
Williams, Betty
Anderson, David
Betts, Clive
Caton, Martin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cryer, Ann
Drew, David
Etherington, Bill
Gibson, Ian
Hepburn, Stephen
Hopkins, Kelvin
Jenkins, Brian
Llwyd, Elfyn
Marshall, David
Meale, Alan
Osborne, Sandra
Russell, Bob
Strang, Gavin
Vis, Rudi
Williams, Hywel
Austin, John
Brown, Russell
Clapham, Michael
Crausby, David
Dismore, Andrew
Durkan, Mark
Francis, Hywel
Hamilton, David
Hermon, Sylvia
Hoyle, Lindsay
Jones, Lynne
Love, Andrew
McCafferty, Chris
Mitchell, Austin
Owen, Albert
Sheridan, Jim
Trickett, Jon
Wareing, Robert N
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
John McDonnell
Abbott, Diane
Caton, Martin
Cohen, Harry
Cryer, Ann
Etherington, Bill
Gibson, Ian
Law, Peter
McCafferty, Chris
Price, Adam
Skinner, Dennis
Wareing, Robert N
EDM 982
Anderson, David
Clapham, Michael
Cook, Frank
Cummings, John
Flynn, Paul
Hemming, John
Llwyd, Elfyn
Mitchell, Austin
Riordan, Linda
Stringer, Graham
Austin, John
Clark, Katy
Corbyn, Jeremy
Drew, David
Gerrard, Neil
Hopkins, Kelvin
Marshall-Andrews, Bob
Owen, Albert
Simpson, Alan
Vis, Rudi
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
Burstow, Paul
Connarty, Michael
Cruddas, Jon
Etherington, Bill
Hopkins, Kelvin
Khabra, Piara S
McGovern, Jim
Prentice, Gordon
Robinson, Iris
Wareing, Robert N
EDM 1093
Brake, Tom
Caton, Martin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Devine, Jim
Gapes, Mike
Jackson, Glenda
Lepper, David
Mitchell, Austin
Prosser, Gwyn
Simpson, Alan
Brown, Lyn
Clark, Katy
Cryer, Ann
Dismore, Andrew
Gibson, Ian
Jenkins, Brian
McDonnell, John
Owen, Albert
Riordan, Linda
Vis, Rudi
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 illconceived scheme immediately.
John McDonnell
Austin, John
Clapham, Michael
Connarty, Michael
Cryer, Ann
Dean, Janet
Dobbin, Jim
Campbell, Ronnie
Clark, Katy
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cummings, John
Devine, Jim
Drew, David
Caton, Martin
Cohen, Harry
Cousins, Jim
Davidson, Ian
Dismore, Andrew
Etherington, Bill
35
Gibson, Ian
Stephen
Hopkins, Kelvin
Jones, Lynne
Llwyd, Elfyn
Meale, Alan
Pugh, John
Simpson, Alan
Vis, Rudi
Hamilton, David
Hepburn,
Illsley, Eric
Laxton, Bob
Marris, Rob
Mitchell, Austin
Riordan, Linda
Skinner, Dennis
Wareing, Robert N
Jenkins, Brian
Lloyd, Tony
Price, Adam
Rowen, Paul
Stringer, Graham
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
Austin, Ian
Barlow, Celia
Begg, Anne
Betts, Clive
Brown, Lyn
Burden, Richard
Campbell, Ronnie
Chaytor, David
Clark, Paul
Cohen, Harry
Cooper, Rosie
Anderson, David
Austin, John
Battle, John
Benton, Joe
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Brown, Nicholas
Burgon, Colin
Caton, Martin
Clapham, Michael
Clarke, Tom
Connarty, Michael
Corbyn, Jeremy
Anderson, Janet
Banks, Gordon
Bayley, Hugh
Berry, Roger
Borrow, David S
Buck, Karen
Butler, Dawn
Challen, Colin
Clark, Katy
Clelland, David
Cook, Frank
Cousins, Jim
Crausby, David
Cryer, Ann
Curtis-Thomas, Claire
Devine, Jim
Dobson, Frank
Dowd, Jim
Durkan, Mark
Ellman, Louise
Creagh, Mary
Cummings, John
Davidson, Ian
Dismore, Andrew
Donohoe, Brian H
Drew, David
Eagle, Angela
Engel, Natascha
Cruddas, Jon
Cunningham, Jim
Dean, Janet
Dobbin, Jim
Doran, Frank
Dunwoody, Gwyneth
Efford, Clive
Ennis, Jeff
36
Etherington, Bill
Foster, Michael Jabez
George, Bruce
Gilroy, Linda
Hall, Patrick
Harvey, Nick
Henderson, Doug
Heyes, David
Hoey, Kate
Howarth, George
Iddon, Brian
James, Sian C
Jones, Lynne
Kaufman, Gerald
Kilfoyle, Peter
Llwyd, Elfyn
Malik, Shahid
Marsden, Gordon
McCafferty, Chris
McDonnell, John
McKechin, Ann
Miller, Andrew
Moffatt, Laura
Mudie, George
Murphy, Paul
Osborne, Sandra
Prentice, Gordon
Purchase, Ken
Robertson, Angus
Salmond, Alex
Seabeck, Alison
Simpson, Alan
Skinner, Dennis
Southworth, Helen
Strang, Gavin
Taylor, Dari
Thornberry, Emily
Trickett, Jon
Vaz, Keith
Wareing, Robert N
Williams, Hywel
Wright, Anthony D
EDM 1222
Farrelly, Paul
Francis, Hywel
Gerrard, Neil
Godsiff, Roger
Hamilton, David
Havard, Dai
Hendrick, Mark
Hillier, Meg
Hood, Jimmy
Hoyle, Lindsay
Illsley, Eric
Jenkins, Brian
Jones, Martyn
Keen, Alan
Lazarowicz, Mark
Love, Andrew
Mallaber, Judy
Marshall, David
McCarthy, Kerry
McGovern, Jim
Meacher, Michael
Mitchell, Austin
Moon, Madeleine
Mullin, Chris
O'Hara, Edward
Owen, Albert
Price, Adam
Reed, Jamie
Robertson, John
Salter, Martin
Sheridan, Jim
Simpson, David
Smith, Geraldine
Stewart, Ian
Stringer, Graham
Taylor, David
Tipping, Paddy
Turner, Desmond
Vis, Rudi
Weir, Mike
Willis, Phil
Wright, Iain
TREATMENT OF SEAFARERS
Flynn, Paul
Galloway, George
Gibson, Ian
Griffith, Nia
Hancock, Mike
Hemming, John
Hepburn, Stephen
Hodgson, Sharon
Hopkins, Kelvin
Humble, Joan [R]
Jackson, Glenda
Jones, Helen
Joyce, Eric
Kemp, Fraser
Lepper, David
Mackinlay, Andrew
Marris, Rob
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah
McGrady, Eddie
Meale, Alan
Moffat, Anne
Morgan, Julie
Murphy, Denis
Olner, Bill
Pope, Greg
Prosser, Gwyn
Riordan, Linda
Ruddock, Joan
Sarwar, Mohammad
Short, Clare
Singh, Marsha
Smith, John P
Stoate, Howard
Tami, Mark
Taylor, Richard
Todd, Mark
Ussher, Kitty
Walley, Joan
Williams, Betty
Wood, Mike
Wyatt, Derek
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
to ensure that United Kingdom and Irish seafarers have a future in the
United Kingdom ferry industry.
John McDonnell
Abbott, Diane
Caton, Martin
Cohen, Harry
Cryer, Ann
Devine, Jim
Drew, David
Flynn, Paul
Hamilton, David
Hepburn, Stephen
Hoyle, Lindsay
Jenkins, Brian
Kilfoyle, Peter
Marris, Rob
Meale, Alan
Price, Adam
Skinner, Dennis
Wareing, Robert N
Anderson, David
Clapham, Michael
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cummings, John
Dismore, Andrew
Ennis, Jeff
Galloway, George
Hancock, Mike
Hodgson, Sharon
Iddon, Brian
Jones, Lynne
Lazarowicz, Mark
McCafferty, Chris
O'Hara, Edward
Prosser, Gwyn
Vis, Rudi
Williams, Betty
Bottomley, Peter
Clark, Katy
Cousins, Jim
Dean, Janet
Dobbin, Jim
Etherington, Bill
Goodman, Helen
Hemming, John
Hopkins, Kelvin
Illsley, Eric
Kemp, Fraser
MacNeil, Angus
McGovern, Jim
Owen, Albert
Simpson, Alan
Walley, Joan
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
Brown, Lyn
Cohen, Harry
Cryer, Ann
Dismore, Andrew
Etherington, Bill
Gerrard, Neil
Hoey, Kate
Jones, Lynne
McCafferty, Chris
Price, Adam
Anderson, Janet
Caton, Martin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Dean, Janet
Dobbin, Jim
Farrelly, Paul
Gibson, Ian
Hopkins, Kelvin
Leech, John
Meale, Alan
Pugh, John
Bottomley, Peter
Clark, Katy
Cruddas, Jon
Devine, Jim
Drew, David
Galloway, George
Hamilton, David
Jackson, Glenda
Marshall, David
Pope, Greg
Riordan, Linda
Robinson, Iris
Vis, Rudi
Russell, Bob
Wareing, Robert N
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Betty
EDM 1561 TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF RAIL PRIVATISATION
41 signatures
38
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
Caton, Martin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Dobbin, Jim
Etherington, Bill
Galloway, George
Hamilton, David
Hodgson, Sharon
Iddon, Brian
Lloyd, Tony
Morgan, Julie
Rowen, Paul
Vis, Rudi
Wood, Mike
EDM 1574
Anderson, David
Clapham, Michael
Cryer, Ann
Drew, David
Flynn, Paul
Gerrard, Neil
Hancock, Mike
Hopkins, Kelvin
Illsley, Eric
Meacher, Michael
Prosser, Gwyn
Simpson, Alan
Wareing, Robert N
Campbell, Ronnie
Clark, Katy
Dean, Janet
Ennis, Jeff
Francis, Hywel
Gibson, Ian
Heyes, David
Hoyle, Lindsay
Jones, Lynne
Mitchell, Austin
Riordan, Linda
Taylor, David
Williams, Hywel
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
Berry, Roger
Cryer, Ann
Gerrard, Neil
Hancock, Mike
Marris, Rob
Morgan, Julie
Sarwar, Mohammad
Stringer, Graham
Wood, Mike
EDM 1678
Anderson, David
Campbell, Ronnie
Drew, David
Goodman, Helen
Hopkins, Kelvin
McDonnell, John
Riordan, Linda
Simpson, Alan
Vis, Rudi
Austin, John
Caton, Martin
Etherington, Bill
Hamilton, David
Jones, Lynne
Meale, Alan
Rowen, Paul
Skinner, Dennis
Wareing, Robert N
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
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
Barlow, Celia
Cable, Vincent
Caton, Martin
Clark, Katy
Cryer, Ann
Dean, Janet
Drew, David
Ennis, Jeff
Francis, Hywel
Gerrard, Neil
Hancock, Mike
Heyes, David
Hopkins, Kelvin
James, Sian C
Keetch, Paul
Lepper, David
McCafferty, Chris
Pugh, John
Soulsby, Peter
Stringer, Graham
Vis, Rudi
Williams, Betty
EDM 1680
Anderson, David
Breed, Colin
Campbell, Gregory
Chaytor, David
Cohen, Harry
Cummings, John
Dobbin, Jim
Durkan, Mark
Etherington, Bill
Galloway, George
Gibson, Ian
Harvey, Nick
Hodgson, Sharon
Horwood, Martin
Jenkins, Brian
Lazarowicz, Mark
Marris, Rob
Meale, Alan
Riordan, Linda
Spink, Bob
Swinson, Jo
Walley, Joan
Wilson, Sammy
DELIVERING SAFER RAIL STATIONS
Austin, John
Brooke, Annette
Campbell, Ronnie
Clapham, Michael
Corbyn, Jeremy
Davidson, Ian
Dodds, Nigel
Efford, Clive
Fisher, Mark
George, Andrew
Hamilton, David
Hemming, John
Hoey, Kate
Hoyle, Lindsay
Jones, Lynne
Leech, John
Martlew, Eric
Murphy, Denis
Simpson, Alan
Strang, Gavin
Taylor, David
Wareing, Robert N
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
Breed, Colin
Caton, Martin
Clelland, David
Corbyn, Jeremy
Davidson, Ian
Dodds, Nigel
Etherington, Bill
Gerrard, Neil
Anderson, David
Campbell, Gregory
Clapham, Michael
Connarty, Michael
Cryer, Ann
Dean, Janet
Durkan, Mark
Galloway, George
Gibson, Ian
Barrett, John
Campbell, Ronnie
Clark, Katy
Cooper, Rosie
Cummings, John
Dobbin, Jim
Efford, Clive
George, Andrew
Gidley, Sandra
40
Godsiff, Roger
Stephen
Heyes, David
Jenkins, Brian
Meale, Alan
Prentice, Gordon
Ruane, Chris
Simpson, David
Vis, Rudi
Wilson, Sammy
EDM 1681
Hamilton, David
Hepburn,
Hoyle, Lindsay
Jones, Lynne
Moon, Madeleine
Prosser, Gwyn
Sanders, Adrian
Strang, Gavin
Wareing, Robert N
Wyatt, Derek
Illsley, Eric
McDonnell, John
Owen, Albert
Riordan, Linda
Simpson, Alan
Swinson, Jo
Willis, Phil
Younger-Ross, Richard
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
Campbell, Ronnie
Clark, Katy
Cooper, Rosie
Cummings, John
Donohoe, Brian H
Ennis, Jeff
Francis, Hywel
Gibson, Ian
Hamilton, David
Hepburn, Stephen
Hoey, Kate
Hoyle, Lindsay
Lazarowicz, Mark
McGovern, Jim
Morgan, Julie
Prentice, Gordon
Salter, Martin
Smith, John P
Wareing, Robert N
Wyatt, Derek
EDM 1920
Brown, Lyn
Caton, Martin
Cohen, Harry
Corbyn, Jeremy
Davidson, Ian
Drew, David
Etherington, Bill
Galloway, George
Godsiff, Roger
Hancock, Mike
Heyes, David
Hopkins, Kelvin [R]
Jones, Martyn
Marshall, David
Meale, Alan
Osborne, Sandra
Prosser, Gwyn
Simpson, Alan
Truswell, Paul
Williams, Alan
HOPE NOT HATE TOUR
Burgon, Colin
Challen, Colin
Connarty, Michael
Cryer, Ann
Dean, Janet [R]
Efford, Clive
Flynn, Paul
Gerrard, Neil
Grogan, John
Havard, Dai
Hillier, Meg
Horam, John
Laxton, Bob
McDonnell, Alasdair
Moffatt, Laura
Owen, Albert
Riordan, Linda
Singh, Marsha
Vis, Rudi
Williams, Betty
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
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
Austin, Ian
Borrow, David S
Campbell, Ronnie
Cohen, Harry
Cousins, Jim
Cummings, John
Dismore, Andrew
Dowd, Jim
Engel, Natascha
Fisher, Mark
Gibson, Ian
Hancock, Mike
Hepburn, Stephen
Hodgson, Sharon
Humble, Joan
Jackson, Glenda
Johnson, Diana R
Joyce, Eric
Khabra, Piara S
Linton, Martin
Malik, Shahid
McCarthy, Kerry
McGovern, Jim
Moffatt, Laura
Penning, Mike
Purchase, Ken
Short, Clare
Ussher, Kitty
Wareing, Robert N
Willis, Phil
Wyatt, Derek
EDM 1923
Anderson, David
Bailey, Adrian
Brown, Nicholas
Caton, Martin
Cooper, Rosie
Creagh, Mary
Dean, Janet
Dobbin, Jim
Drew, David
Ennis, Jeff
George, Andrew
Goodman, Helen
Hemming, John
Hermon, Sylvia
Holmes, Paul
Iddon, Brian
James, Sian C
Jones, Helen
Keen, Alan
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lloyd, Tony
Marris, Rob
McDonnell, Alasdair
Meale, Alan
Morgan, Julie
Pope, Greg
Russell, Bob
Simpson, Alan
Vaz, Keith
Williams, Betty
Wood, Mike
Anderson, Janet
Begg, Anne
Bryant, Chris
Clark, Katy
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cryer, Ann
Devine, Jim
Doran, Frank
Durkan, Mark
Etherington, Bill
Gerrard, Neil
Hamilton, David
Henderson, Doug
Heyes, David
Hopkins, Kelvin
Illsley, Eric
Jenkins, Brian
Jones, Lynne
Keetch, Paul
Leech, John
Llwyd, Elfyn
McCafferty, Chris
McDonnell, John
Mitchell, Austin
Owen, Albert
Prentice, Gordon
Sarwar, Mohammad
Stringer, Graham
Vis, Rudi
Williams, Stephen
Wright, Iain
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
Clark, Katy
Dean, Janet
Austin, John
Corbyn, Jeremy
Dismore, Andrew
Caton, Martin
Cryer, Ann
Etherington, Bill
42
Gerrard, Neil
Brian
Jones, Lynne
Prosser, Gwyn
Simpson, Alan
Williams, Betty
EDM 1940
96 signatures
Hopkins, Kelvin
Jenkins,
McCafferty, Chris
Pugh, John
Vis, Rudi
Wyatt, Derek
Morgan, Julie
Russell, Bob
Wareing, Robert N
PUBLIC SERVICES NOT PRIVATE PROFIT CAMPAIGN
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
Benton, Joe
Campbell, Ronnie
Clark, Katy
Connarty, Michael
Cousins, Jim
Cummings, John
Dismore, Andrew
Drew, David
Fisher, Mark
Galloway, George
Gerrard, Neil
Griffith, Nia
Harvey, Nick
Heyes, David
Hopkins, Kelvin
Illsley, Eric
Jones, Lynne
Mackinlay, Andrew
McCafferty, Chris
Meacher, Michael
Morgan, Julie
Paisley, Ian
Pugh, John
Rowen, Paul
Short, Clare
Anderson, David
Berry, Roger
Caton, Martin
Clelland, David
Cook, Frank
Cruddas, Jon
Dean, Janet
Dobbin, Jim
Durkan, Mark
Flynn, Paul
Gapes, Mike
Gibson, Ian
Hamilton, David
Havard, Dai
Hodgson, Sharon
Hoyle, Lindsay
Jackson, Glenda
Leech, John
Marris, Rob
McGovern, Jim
Meale, Alan
Murphy, Denis
Prentice, Gordon
Purchase, Ken
Russell, Bob
Simpson, Alan
Austin, John
Burgon, Colin
Clapham, Michael
Cohen, Harry
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cryer, Ann
Devine, Jim
Dobson, Frank
Etherington, Bill
George, Andrew
Godsiff, Roger
Hancock, Mike
Hepburn, Stephen
Hoey, Kate
Humble, Joan
James, Sian C
Llwyd, Elfyn
Marshall, David
McGrady, Eddie
Mitchell, Austin
Osborne, Sandra
Prosser, Gwyn
Riordan, Linda
Sarwar, Mohammad
Singh, Marsha
Skinner, Dennis
Taylor, David
Turner, Desmond
Wareing, Robert N
Williams, Hywel
Smith, John P
Trickett, Jon
Vis, Rudi
Weir, Mike
Williams, Mark
Strang, Gavin
Truswell, Paul
Walley, Joan
Williams, Betty
Winnick, David
43
Wood, Mike
Ross, Richard
EDM 1956
Wyatt, Derek
Younger-
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
Hancock, Mike
Wareing, Robert N
EDM 2191
69 signatures
Cousins, Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin
Drew, David
Simpson, Alan
RACE RELATIONS ACT AND THE MINIMUM WAGE
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
Bottomley, Peter
Buck, Karen
Clark, Katy
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cryer, Ann
Dismore, Andrew
Drew, David
Flynn, Paul
Goodman, Helen
Henderson, Doug
Hopkins, Kelvin
Illsley, Eric
Jones, Kevan
Lazarowicz, Mark
Marris, Rob
McDonnell, John
Mitchell, Austin
Riordan, Linda
Stunell, Andrew
Turner, Desmond
Anderson, David
Brake, Tom
Cable, Vincent
Clelland, David
Cousins, Jim
Cummings, John
Dobbin, Jim
Durkan, Mark
Gerrard, Neil
Hamilton, David
Hepburn, Stephen
Hunter, Mark
Jackson, Glenda
Jones, Lynne
Leech, John
McCafferty, Chris
McGovern, Jim
Prentice, Gordon
Simpson, Alan
Taylor, Dari
Vaz, Keith
Anderson, Janet
Breed, Colin
Caton, Martin
Cohen, Harry
Crausby, David
Dean, Janet
Doran, Frank
Etherington, Bill
Gibson, Ian
Hancock, Mike
Hodgson, Sharon
Iddon, Brian
Jenkins, Brian
Jones, Martyn
Llwyd, Elfyn
McDonnell, Alasdair
Meale, Alan
Purchase, Ken
Strang, Gavin
Taylor, David
Vis, Rudi
44
Walley, Joan
Williams, Betty
EDM 2266
Wareing, Robert N
Wood, Mike
Weir, Mike
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 nonpassenger 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
Brokenshire, James
Campbell, Gregory
Clark, Katy
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cummings, John
Dismore, Andrew
Etherington, Bill
Galloway, George
Hamilton, David
Hepburn, Stephen
Hopkins, Kelvin
Lepper, David
Meale, Alan
Robinson, Iris
Simpson, Alan
Taylor, Ian
Williams, Betty
EDM 2398
Bottomley, Peter
Brown, Lyn
Campbell, Ronnie
Cohen, Harry
Cruddas, Jon
Dean, Janet
Dodds, Nigel
Evans, Nigel
Gerrard, Neil
Hancock, Mike
Hermon, Sylvia
Jenkins, Brian
McCafferty, Chris
Prentice, Gordon
Rosindell, Andrew
Simpson, David
Vis, Rudi
Wyatt, Derek
EAST LONDON LINE
Brazier, Julian
Cable, Vincent
Caton, Martin
Conway, Derek
Cryer, Ann
Devine, Jim
Drew, David
Francis, Hywel
Gibson, Ian
Hemming, John
Hoey, Kate
Jones, Lynne
McDonnell, Alasdair
Pugh, John
Seabeck, Alison
Spink, Bob
Wareing, Robert N
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
Drew, David
Galloway, George
Hoey, Kate
Corbyn, Jeremy
Fisher, Mark
Gibson, Ian
Hopkins, Kelvin
Dismore, Andrew
Hancock, Mike
Jones, Lynne
45
Khabra, Piara S
Chris
McDonnell, Alasdair
Truswell, Paul
EDM 2511
Llwyd, Elfyn
McCafferty,
Sheridan, Jim
Wareing, Robert N
Simpson, Alan
Wyatt, Derek
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
Clark, Katy
Cryer, Ann
Davies, Dai
Dismore, Andrew
Ennis, Jeff
Gerrard, Neil
Heyes, David
James, Sian C
Lazarowicz, Mark
McCafferty, Chris
Prentice, Gordon
Simpson, Alan
Truswell, Paul
Williams, Betty
Campbell, Ronnie
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cummings, John
Dean, Janet
Dobbin, Jim
Etherington, Bill
Godsiff, Roger
Hopkins, Kelvin
Jenkins, Brian
Llwyd, Elfyn
McDonnell, Alasdair
Price, Adam
Strang, Gavin
Vis, Rudi
Caton, Martin
Cousins, Jim
Davidson, Ian
Devine, Jim
Drew, David
Flynn, Paul
Hamilton, David
Hoyle, Lindsay
Jones, Lynne
Marris, Rob
Murphy, Paul
Riordan, Linda
Stringer, Graham
Wareing, Robert N
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
Grogan, John
Leech, John
Riordan, Linda
Vis, Rudi
Corbyn, Jeremy
Hopkins, Kelvin
Martlew, Eric
Spink, Bob
Wareing, Robert N
Cummings, John
Jones, Lynne
McDonnell, John
Stringer, Graham
Williams, Betty
46
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
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
(Hayes & Harlington)
Kate Hoey MP
(Vauxhall)
Harry Cohen MP
(Leyton & Wanstead)
Alan Keen MP
(Feltham & Heston)
Neil Gerrard MP
(Walthamstow)
John Austin MP
(Erith &Thamesmead)
Lyn Brown MP
(West Ham)
Ken Livingstone
Mayor of London
City Hall
The Queens Walk
London
SE1 2AA
48
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
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
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
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
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
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
52
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
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 southwest—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
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
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
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
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
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
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 standardclass 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 underresourced, 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
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 highlevel 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
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
Diane Abbott
Constituency
Hackney North & Stoke Newington
John Austin
Erith & Thamesmead
Jeremy Corbyn
Islington North
Michael Clapham
Katy Clark North
Barnsley West &
Penistone
Ayrshire and Arran
Jim Cousins
Newcastle Upon Tyne Central
Ann Cryer
Keighley
Bill Etherington
Sunderland North
David Drew
Stroud
Kelvin Hopkins
Luton North
70
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

rmt parliamentary group

Transcription

Documents pareils

Rail security - Public procurement

Coming from airports by train

Leasing oder Forfaitierung – wohin geht der Trend

2013 Transportation Master Plan - Kanata/Stittsville

Light Rail Overview

SiteJabber announces its al

Rail Human Factors

T101: Managing Rail - The Global Business Travel Association

120V FLEXIBLE TRACK CONNECTOR