| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Debate to be resumed on Friday 14 November.
STREET FURNITURE (GRAFFITI) BILL
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS AND DENTISTS (PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE INSURANCE) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Friday 14 November.
DRAFT CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE (REFERENDUM) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Friday 21 November.
FISHERY LIMITS (UNITED KINGDOM) AMENDMENT BILL
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
CONSUMER PROTECTION (UNSOLICITED E-MAILS) BILL
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
CHILDREN'S COMMISSIONER FOR ENGLAND BILL
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
PENSIONER TRUSTEES AND FINAL PAYMENTS BILL.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
GREENBELT PROTECTION BILL
Order read for resumed debate on Question [13 June], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 14 November.
COMPANY DIRECTORS (HEALTH AND SAFETY) BILL
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
DISABLED PEOPLE (DUTIES OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES) BILL
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
HARBOURS BILL [LORDS]
Read a Second time, and committed.
CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Friday 21 November.
PENSIONS (WINDING-UP) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead): As the Government have again blocked the Bill on pension reform, I ask for 21 November, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
To be read a Second time on Friday 21 November.
HOUSING (OVERCROWDING) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Friday 14 November.
HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (OFFENCES) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Friday 14 November.
FOOD COLOURING AND ADDITIVES BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Friday 14 November.
ROAD SAFETY BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Friday 14 November.
AVIATION HEALTH BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Friday 14 November.
PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN (PROHIBITION) BILL
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
EMERGENCY BROADCASTING SYSTEM BILL
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTS (RAILWAYS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Friday 21 November.
EQUALITY BILL [LORDS]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
LOCAL COMMUNITIES SUSTAINABILITY BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Friday 21 November.
CROWN EMPLOYMENT (NATIONALITY) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 11 September.
GOVERNMENT POWERS (LIMITATIONS) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Friday 14 November.
HOUSE OF LORDS (EXCLUSION OF HEREDITARY PEERS) BILL
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been informed that, although the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) destroyed the last chance of the High Hedges (No. 2) Bill becoming law, he will not be identified in Hansard. Is that correct? If so, is it in keeping with transparency and openness in the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am guided entirely by the rules of order of the House. I cannot alter those instantly. Hansard will show what it has traditionally shown.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that a Minister blocked Bills 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32 and 33?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can say only that Hansard will show what Hansard will show.
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible for Hansard to record that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), who shuttled between his Front-Bench and Back-Bench responsibilities, objected to the Health and Safety at Work (Offences) Bill, which is important in setting proper penalties for health and safety offences? Will it also show that he objected to the Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill, which I promoted, and would have made important reforms to admission procedures to the civil service, especially for those from ethnic minorities?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not stray into discussing Bills that we have covered. Any hon. Member has the right to object.
Greater Anglia Rail Franchise
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Margaret Moran.]
2.38 pm
Bob Russell (Colchester): My previous dealings with the Minister suggest that we agree about very little, but I have confidence that we shall be in complete agreement on my opening remarks.
The privatisation of the railways by the Conservative Government was a disaster. It was a shambles. Public assets were sold off with gay abandon, no regard to their worth and total disregard for the well-being of the railway industry and its passengers.
A once proud industry, which generations of dedicated railway men and women built up over many decades, was split asunder and fragmented. Where once was unity of purpose, there are now 101 or so companies. There is no longer joined-up thinking in service provision. The same applies to maintenance; there is a belief that safety standards are not what they used to be.
Each company apparently has an interest in only its compartment of the industry, with a prime objective of securing dividends for shareholders, ahead of the public service ethos that existed hitherto.
We were told that privatisation would bring sweeping benefits to the industry and to the travelling public. I have seen no sign of them. If I compare the publicly-owned British Rail of the early 1970s—when I was a daily commuter from Colchester to London—with the rail service of today, I can see that it has not got any better in those 30-plus years. I use the train to travel between my Colchester constituency and London. I am a politician who practises what he preaches. I believe in public transport and I use it—unlike most Ministers, it has to be said. But are the railways a truly public service? The train operating companies are owned by shareholders, not by the public through state or local authority ownership. They are private companies that the public use, in the same way that Tesco and Sainsbury are private companies whose shops are used by the public. So can we please drop the misnomer "public transport"? The accurate description is "transport for public use".
Many of us, including the real Labour MPs, would like to see the railways—and our once-proud municipal bus transport undertakings, for that matter—brought back into public ownership, at which point they could again be truthfully described as public transport. Alas, six years down the line, there is no indication that new Labour has that as an objective. The Government's only solution to what they acknowledge is a problem is to reduce the number of train operating companies. How that will galvanise the industry and provide a better service is not clear, but the Government want to give the impression that they are doing something.
So we are faced with the continuation of a privatised railway. At this point I will admit—perhaps uniquely, given what I hear is happening elsewhere in the country—that for the people living in the areas centred on Colchester and Ipswich there has been one advantage from privatisation: namely, that it has resulted in more
services from two companies, First Great Eastern and Anglia, both of which serve that part of East Anglia. But will this be the case when, instead of two competing privately owned companies, there is a one-company private monopoly? A public monopoly is one thing, but I suggest that a private monopoly is not in the public interest.How long will it be before rationalisation—a euphemism for cuts—results in a reduction in the number of services between Colchester and London? Can the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee today that the number of trains running from my town into the capital will not be reduced? If not, what possible advantage is there for rail customers in my constituency if the only benefit that might have accrued from privatisation is lost? Accepting, albeit reluctantly, that public ownership of the railways is not on the Government's agenda, we are simply left with a dog's breakfast being served up differently.
Like it or not, the good people of East Anglia are to be served by one privatised monopoly railway company. However, the public in general, and rail passengers in particular, are not being allowed any say in who that company should be—quite the reverse, in fact. Although the public have indicated overwhelmingly their desire for one of the existing companies to be considered to operate the new Greater Anglia franchise, their views have been arrogantly ignored by the Strategic Rail Authority, a quango operating without any remit to provide the public, whose interests it purports to serve, with an objective assessment of what it does and its reasons for doing it.
Can the Minister say how much influence, if any, the Department for Transport has on the Strategic Rail Authority? To whom is the SRA answerable? Is there a democratic process that requires it to operate within the democratic framework of the United Kingdom when it comes to the parcelling out of railway franchises? Or are those who run the SRA a law unto themselves, as appears to be the case? Is the Minister entirely satisfied that the SRA has complied with the spirit and letter of the directions and guidance given by the Secretary of State—in particular, section 6.10, which covers value for money, and section 10.5, which deals with the criteria for replacement franchises?
I hold no brief for First Great Eastern. I am not saying that, as the largest of the three operating companies currently running trains in the region, it should automatically be given the new single Greater Anglia franchise. But what I and thousands of other rail users are saying is that it is completely unfair that the SRA has banished First Great Eastern from the shortlist. Everyone is asking why that should be the case. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us; the Strategic Rail Authority has refused to do so.
First Great Eastern is the best-performing train operator in London and the south-east. It is also the only franchise in the region not receiving public support, having turned a £40 million a year subsidy into a £10 million a year premium to the Government. The latest report from the London Transport Users Committee shows that First Great Eastern achieved the best punctuality and reliability score of all operators running services to London.
The SRA has refused to give verifiable reasons for excluding First Great Eastern. That has prompted some to ponder whether the SRA decision has more to do with the settling of old scores by senior members of the SRA against First Great Eastern than with what is best for a public railway service in the east of England. I am told that the SRA decision is without precedent. Can the Minister confirm that? We are not talking here of another Connex.
A MORI survey revealed that only 3 per cent. of passengers support the SRA's decision to exclude First Great Eastern from the Greater Anglia shortlist. The same survey shows that support for First Great Eastern services is twice the national level for rail franchises. The rail passengers committee for eastern England, which, as the Minister knows, is part of
- "the statutory watchdog protecting and promoting the interests of rail passengers throughout Great Britain"
The RPC's eastern England secretary, Mr. Guy Dangerfield, told me in a letter:
- "The Committee publicly expressed its surprise that FirstGroup did not make the short-list for the Greater Anglia franchise. Our Chairman, Derek Langslow, wrote to the Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority on 1 May asking about the basis on which the decision to take forward only three bidders was reached.
So far the SRA has declined to say more than that the process is commercially confidential and will remain so.
Our view is that, while we don't expect to see the answers provided to the SRA by prospective bidders, in an open and accountable world we cannot see why the questionnaire itself, together with details about the weighting applied to the questions, is a commercially confidential document."
- "We remain perplexed that FirstGroup, a company of financial strength owning a demonstrably competent subsidiary like First Great Eastern, is not on the short-list."
- "statutory watchdog protecting and promoting the interests of rail passengers"
The Federation of North Essex Rail User Groups—representing rail users from Colchester, Clacton, Manningtree, Frinton, Walton and Harwich—is particularly scathing about the SRA. A press release issued on 13 June said that the different groups
- "are so angry that they have combined to make this joint statement to the media."
- "We deplore the arrogant way that the Strategic Rail Authority has acted in relation to rail services between London Liverpool Street, Colchester, Manningtree and Ipswich, and between Colchester and Clacton, Frinton and Walton by:—
Sacking a highly competent rail operator (First Group) without giving any reasons or explanations for such a bizarre decision.
Short-listing three operators that in at least two cases, either lack experience in some areas or are plainly known to be weak in train punctuality or operations.
Refusing to answer any correspondence on the issue with anything other than a meaningless response that says they will not change their decision. The answer has been issued to all who have written to them regardless of status and position.
Taking over timetable planning and changing the timetable without consultation with any of the current or future train operators or the established rail user groups."
- "would mean that average journey times would be longer than those achieved by steam trains in the 1950s."
I was told by one First Great Eastern employee:
- "There is widespread concern at First being excluded—from people who smelled an injustice. Many local authorities made strong protests. There was obviously cross-party political support."
- "We received well over 500 letters and e-mails and I suspect the SRA got more."
Between my seeking the debate and securing it, there has been a legal challenge, the first round of which was a victory in the name of First Great Eastern. Astonishingly, its parent company threw in the towel. That must be the first recorded case in which someone on the brink of a legal victory has capitulated. Why did that happen? It does not need a Sherlock Holmes to find the answer. It is blindingly obvious from what the managing director of First Great Eastern, Mr. Dave Kaye, told me in a letter dated 27 June:
- "Having exhausted the various options open to us, we wish to withdraw with grace and, as First has received assurances from the SRA that it is still a valued participant in the railway industry, move on to new challenges."
Quite simply, the SRA has told the parent company of First Great Eastern, FirstGroup plc, that if it drops its case for the Greater Anglia franchise it—the SRA—will ensure that the company is treated favourably in regard to franchises elsewhere. What other explanation can there be for First's otherwise inexplicable decision to withdraw from a legal challenge that it was winning?
FirstGroup has services in the north-west, and from London to Wales and the west country. Moreover, the group is one of the two final bidders for the TransPennine Express franchise. On the day that First was given the bad news about the Greater Anglia franchise, it was announced that it had pre-qualified for the Northern franchise. A coincidence, or what? It is not necessary to be a cynic to see that FirstGroup realised that it was not in its best interests to upset the SRA, so First Great Eastern was sacrificed.
The words of FirstGroup's spokesman Mr. Martin Helm, as reported in the Colchester Evening Gazette on Wednesday last week, were most revealing. He said:
- "The SRA has decided they're not reinstating us and we've got a broader business to consider."
- "It's very difficult for an operator. There's no appeals process and we're in the hands of the SRA—its decision is final."
- "This is a commercial deal",
- "left gaps in what they said they would do to run the new franchise".
First Great Eastern issued a legal challenge, requesting that the SRA disclose the documentation on which its claim that First had failed was based. It came as no surprise that the judge found in favour of the company—but then came the capitulation by the parent company. What we do not know is how the stitch-up between the SRA and FirstGroup plc was engineered. Was there a simple phone call, a private meeting at a discreet venue—perhaps over lunch—a nod and a wink? Perhaps the Department for Transport would like the appointment diaries of the two parties, and logs of their phone calls, to be examined. Or does either outfit contain a public-spirited whistleblower who will spill the beans?
First Great Eastern staff with whom I have discussed the situation feel that they have been shafted and betrayed. They have been let down and abandoned by a parent company that seems to have its eye on franchises elsewhere, and it is felt that the SRA has done a deal to get the legal challenge dropped.
While I do not doubt for a moment that most First Great Eastern staff will transfer next year to whichever company wins the Greater Anglia franchise, for many middle and senior managers the future is not so sure. Some, no doubt, will be head-hunted by companies elsewhere; I am told that others are already dusting down their CVs, and making overtures for jobs that have not yet even been advertised. What will happen to the management of First Great Eastern in the meltdown of the remaining period of the franchise? I fear the prospect of months of uncertainty as staff leave, having been dumped by their current employer.
- "The SRA still claim they can get the new franchise in by 1 April but most people think it is very unlikely."
- "First will freeze all investment and, frankly, I think we will very quickly see a drain of good managers off to other parts of the FirstGroup or elsewhere in the rail industry. The chances of replacing them are slim."
- "We will do our best to get the new trains in service but we have no budget to market them—the biggest rail investment story in Essex for many, many years (£80 million on 21 new trains just a few months before the franchise ends) and we can't tell anyone about it!"
- "We have recently achieved the Investor in People Award for our Engineering Department with the rest of the company being assessed for the Award later this year. If we do not get back in the bidding process a huge amount of work by many of our staff will be perceived as a waste of time—and motivation levels to exceed business goal targets will nosedive."
Before I commence my concluding comments, I invite the Minister to encourage his officials to see how they can help with the following request. The Government are keen to promote regional identities, although in the case of the east of England, it is a somewhat artificial region. That said, if the Government are serious about devolving power, which as a principle I support, and since Cambridge is geographically central to that region, 1 hope that whichever operating company wins the franchise will provide a regular direct service linking Colchester and Cambridge via Ipswich as a practical alternative to the A12-A14 road journey. It would be helpful if the Department for Transport endorsed such a direct rail service.
In its documentation seeking bids for the Greater Anglia franchise, the Strategic Rail Authority stated among its key objectives of letting in paragraph 3.1:
- "Deliver a safe, more reliable service of consistently high quality for rail passengers;
Provide a clarity of service specification so that industry partners work together for passengers;
Deliver value for money for passengers and taxpayers; and
Secure accountable, viable operators who are passionate about delivering for their customers."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |