Helen Whately MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Nov 2024 · “Get Britain Working” White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. The Conservatives are the party of work and aspiration— [ Interruption. ] In the decade after we took over from Labour, we drove down unemployment— [ Interruption. ]

• 26 Nov 2024 · “Get Britain Working” White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  In the decade after we took over from Labour, we drove down unemployment and economic inactivity year after year, including youth unemployment, which went down by 400,000 after the mess we inherited from the last Labour Government. During the pandemic, we took unprecedented action to protect jobs and livelihoods, but since the pandemic we have faced a new and difficult challenge in this country: rising economic inactivity, particularly among young people. In government, we were tackling that. I know that, because as a Health Minister I was working on it. I am delighted that the right hon. Lady and the Health Secretary visited one of our WorkWell pilots just the other day. I was working on our fit note reforms, our youth offer, which helped a million young people, and our universal support scheme, which I now hear the Secretary of State has quietly rebranded as her own Connect to Work scheme. Far from being cross that the Government are pinching our ideas, I welcome the right hon. Lady taking our work forward. She is making the right noises about how important it is to fix this area. Economic inactivity is a big problem for our economy and for each and every individual who risks being written off to a life on benefits. Knowing that, I am disappointed by the substance of what she is announcing today, because far from matching her rhetoric, it appears to be little more than a pot of money for local councils, some disparaging language about the work of jobcentres and a consultation that will be launched in the spring. Given that the Government have had 14 years to prepare for this moment, is that it? Where are the reforms to benefits that will make material savings to the taxpayer, such as the £12 billion we committed to save in our manifesto? Where are the reforms to fit notes, which we had handed over, ready to go? Where is the Secretary of State’s plan for reforming the work capability assessments? She has banked the £3 billion of savings from our plan, but has failed to set out her own. Her big announcement is making benefits for young people conditional. Did she forget that they already are? The fact is that the Secretary of State has dodged the tough decisions. Every day that she kicks the can down the road costs the taxpayer millions of pounds. At this rate, spending on sickness benefits will rise to £100 billion by the end of this Parliament. They are taking that money from farmers, from pensioners and from businesses. To get people off benefits, we need jobs for them to go into. Those are the very jobs that businesses are saying, since the Budget, they will no longer be hiring for. While the right hon. Lady tries to get people into work, her Chancellor is busy destroying jobs—50,000 jobs lost from her first Budget alone. If the Secretary of State wants to get more 18-year-olds into work, she should have a word with her Chancellor, who has made it so that from April it will cost £5,000 more for a business to employ them. She should have a word with her Business Secretary, whose Employment Rights Bill will, according to the Government’s own impact assessment, make it less likely for employers to take on young people. The Government cannot solve this problem on their own. Businesses are the engine of our economy that create jobs for people to do. It is telling that I cannot see a single business representative on the new Labour Market Advisory Board. I did hear the right hon. Lady talk about some new partnerships, but this announcement is such a song and dance about so little that I feel sure she will qualify for one of her own Royal Shakespeare Company apprenticeships. She has kicked the can so far down the road that her new partner, the Premier League, is sure to be on the phone by the end of the day. May I for a moment cut through the word soup of the announcement? It is time for the right hon. Lady to tell the House some facts. How many people will it help into work, and by when? What is the total she is saving the taxpayer? When will she reach her 80% employment target? What return on investment is she expecting from these plans? How will she measure her success or failure? This is so far from the bold grasping of the nettle that she is making it out to be and that this country needs for our economy, for taxpayers and for the millions of people missing out on the purpose and freedom that work brings. It is simply not good enough.

• 12 Nov 2024 · Social Security Advisory Committee: Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. This Government made a choice to take away the winter fuel payment from 10 million pensioners this winter and to rely on the notoriously under-claimed pension credit as a system of means-testing it. That choice will make life harder for pensioners across the country. It will see 750,000 of the poorest pensioners miss out on much-needed help with the cost of heating, and according to the Labour party’s own research, it could lead to 4,000 additional deaths this winter. The Government know that. That is why they have not done an impact assessment. Perhaps it is why, after seven weeks, they still have not responded to the concerns of their own advisory committee. The committee wrote the Secretary of State a letter containing its concerns about how the policy will affect the poorest people. It said that 70% of disabled pensioners will miss out on their payment this winter, and it suggested expanding the eligibility for winter fuel payments beyond pension credit because the committee knows that the Government’s savings are based on a third of the poorest pensioners missing out. In direct contrast to the Government, the committee said that “a more detailed assessment is urgently required”, as colleagues from all parts of the House—including Labour Members—charities and pensioner groups across the country have also said. Here we are, seven weeks later, and the Secretary of State is yet to even respond to the advisory committee. In fact, she is not even here to answer this urgent question. I ask the Minister: will the Government now, after seven weeks, respond to their own advisory committee? Will they now, after seven weeks, publish a full impact assessment for everyone to see? Does she accept that her Government have got this wrong? Does she recognise that they have negligently underestimated how many people will fall through the cracks? I suspect that deep down she is worried, as I am, about pensioners who cannot afford to heat their homes. I am sure her Secretary of State has been lobbying the Chancellor behind the scenes—perhaps that is where she is right now, instead of being here. Will the hon. Lady go back to her Chancellor one more time and try to make her think again?

• 12 Nov 2024 · Social Security Advisory Committee: Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question) : To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when she plans to respond to the Social Security Advisory Committee’s letter, published on 17 October 2024, on the means-testing of winter fuel payments.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Young People Not in Education, Employment or Training · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady will know that under the Conservative Government youth unemployment fell by 380,000, and that we were tackling inactivity with our WorkWell programme, helping people to stay in work or return to work, which I am delighted to see the right hon. Lady continuing. Unfortunately, however, as a result of her Government’s Budget and Employment Rights Bill, businesses will slash the number of their employees. Moreover, the Government have just broken another promise and hiked up university fees. What advice would the right hon. Lady give a young person who is currently out of work and education, and must choose between worse job prospects and more expensive university degrees thanks to her Government’s choices?

• 11 Nov 2024 · Young People Not in Education, Employment or Training · Hansard source

  More

  May I say how nice it is to be sitting opposite the right hon. Lady again, albeit, regrettably, having swapped places with her? I enjoyed our exchanges on social care during the last Parliament, and appreciated our constructive conversations during the pandemic, although, given how well she knows the care brief, I suspect that she was gutted, as I was, to see the incoming Government abandon the care cap and scrap more than £50 million of funding for social care training. The consistent feedback from jobcentres was that the biggest barrier to young people taking up job opportunities in social care was lack of career progression, hence our reforms to create a career path for care workers and investment in training. Has the right hon. Lady spoken to her counterpart in the Department of Health and Social Care about the impact of those social care cuts on her ambitions to get more young people working or learning?

• 11 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Budget is not the only thing frightening the life out of businesses at the moment. Labour’s Employment Rights Bill is a wrecking ball for the UK labour market. Labour’s own impact assessment predicts that businesses could cut staff—

• 11 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Conservatives are the party of work and aspiration, and once again, we left office with unemployment at a historic low. We all know that Labour always leaves unemployment higher than when it came into office, but rarely has it seemed in such a hurry to achieve that. Its first Budget will, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, cost the country 50,000 jobs in the next few years alone. What assessment has the right hon. Lady made of the cost to her Department of those job losses?

• 11 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder if the Secretary of State did not hear my earlier question; I said that I was grateful that she is continuing the work that we did in government, through the WorkWell programme, to help people in ill health into work by joining up healthcare and employment. However, the point I was just making, to which she did not respond, was that 50,000 jobs will be lost as a result of Labour’s Budget. That is not the only thing frightening the life out of businesses at the moment—

• 30 Oct 2024 · Draft Merchant Shipping (General Lighthouse Authorities) (Increase of Borrowing Limit) Order 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, to discuss lighthouse borrowing rules. This Budget day does not seem to be a good day to be a borrowing rule. Nevertheless, in this Committee Room, the Opposition are more inclined to see eye to eye with the Government on the necessity of some rule changes. I expect all Committee members agree that our general lighthouse authorities need to have up-to-date kit to keep mariners safe. I recognise that £100 million went a lot further in 1988 than it does today, and that vessels cost somewhat more now. It was good sense for the Government at the time to include a provision in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 to increase the borrowing limit, and even better sense to cap the increase at £33 million, just in case a future Government happened to be rather profligate and keen to change the rules so that they might borrow more. Focusing on the matter in hand, I would like to be assured that the GLAs will make good use of the increase. As an island nation, we always have and always will rely on shipping for trade, travel and connection—as I am only too aware, as a Kent MP with the world’s busiest shipping lane just offshore. Those who operate in UK waters deserve to do so safely, and I put on record my thanks to the general lighthouse authorities for all they do to ensure that. We will be supporting the order.

• 16 Oct 2024 · Broadband Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents in Throwley and Wichling have been battling for high-speed broadband. We thought we had it over the line, but in a recent telephone conversation Building Digital UK said that it was still to be confirmed. Would the Secretary of State be willing to meet me to discuss how we can ensure that those communities do not miss out again?

• 10 Oct 2024 · Local Bus Services · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder if the right hon. Lady can see the irony in the fact that the new bus system that she is so excited about introducing is broadly the same as the train system that she is busy dismantling. The simple truth is that without funding, the Government’s plan will not make struggling bus services viable or affordable for passengers. What has helped is our £2 fare cap, which has saved millions of people money and helped to keep local buses going, especially in rural areas. Does the Secretary of State agree that the £2 fare cap has been a good thing and, crucially, is she going to keep it?

• 10 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I was expecting the right hon. Lady to say something along the lines of “wait for the Budget”, or “wait for the spending review”, as we have heard many times during this question session. However, she did not wait for the Budget to give unions a massive pay rise, to re-announce our plan to get HS2 to Euston, or to signal billions of pounds for a new HS2-light. If she can make those decisions before the Budget, surely she can confirm that every penny of investment that we had committed to transport through Network North will continue to be invested in our country’s transport infra- structure.

• 10 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  After just 100 days, this is already one of the most anti-growth Governments in history, from investor-scaring taxes to the right hon. Lady hitting the brakes on our transport infrastructure pipeline, with Northern Powerhouse Rail, the Midlands Rail Hub and road upgrades across the country all on hold. Growth requires investment and investment requires confidence. Will she give some to the businesses looking to invest, to the contractors waiting to get started, and, crucially, to the communities that so badly need these upgrades?

• 10 Sept 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Catapults are not classed as offensive weapons, but they are being used increasingly in my constituency to injure and kill livestock and pets. Will the Minister responsible for such matters agree to meet me to discuss how we can deter these people and stop their use of catapults to kill?

• 3 Sept 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We recognise the Government’s mandate to nationalise the railways. We are not seeking to frustrate that, but simply to improve their legislation. I have heard the arguments of Government Members and the Secretary of State in support of the Bill, but I remain unconvinced and unreassured. We agree that rail needs reform, but we disagree on how to do that. I thought we agreed that passengers were the priority, but it seems that we disagree on that too, because Government Members have just voted against a simple amendment that would have ensured that public operators served the needs of passengers, including in rural and underserved areas. I would have hoped that we could agree on the importance of controlling costs, including one of the biggest costs that the railways face, which is that of the workforce, but again we clearly disagree on that. The Government have caved into ASLEF’s pay demands with a “no strings, no modernisation” pay deal, and now Government Members have voted against our proposal for an independent pay review body, a simple mechanism to help the right hon. Lady make sure she is not steamrollered into conceding to excessive and expensive pay demands by Labour’s powerful union paymasters. However, I welcome the hint from the Minister with responsibility for local transport that the Government may be considering introducing something along those lines, and I look forward to hearing more about that. Here we are on Third Reading of the Bill after just a few hours of debate. Rushing this Bill through makes no sense at all. Why? Are the Government throwing a bone to their Back Benchers in return for their backing cuts to the winter fuel allowance? Is it to please the unions that donated to Labour Members’ campaigns? Is it a distraction from dodgy appointments and the conduct of their Rail Minister in the other place? Or do the Government Front Benchers believe this to be a minor change, though it is not? Is that why they think so little scrutiny and parliamentary time is required? I urge the Government to think long and hard about the amendments we have put forward. Although we do not agree with this plan, as I have said, we accept their mandate to deliver it. We are simply proposing sensible changes to protect passengers and taxpayers, and I urge them to reconsider during the Lords stages of the Bill. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

• 3 Sept 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman and I probably do have different views ideologically; I will acknowledge that. I think that he probably, as was implied in his intervention, thinks that profit is bad. I think that profit can be a helpful thing, and it is thanks to the motivation of people to make profits that we in this economy, and those in many similar economies, have the prosperity that we enjoy today. I think that Government can do a lot, but I am also thoughtful about when Government can help and when Government might hinder. That is why I take the view that, in rail, sometimes it is right for the public sector to do things and sometimes it is right for the private sector to do things. One thing that I fundamentally think is missing from the Bill is scrutiny. I am not trying to frustrate the mandate that the hon. Gentleman’s party has to bring forward this legislation—I think I made that clear—but I want to improve it, and improving it involves introducing a level of transparency and accountability that simply is not in the Bill. That is why I tabled my amendments. We also seek clarity on how the Bill will affect other privately run passenger services on the network. It is clear that deep down, those on the Government Benches know that the public sector cannot, and should not, run every service on the network. That is why open access operators like Eurostar and Gatwick Express have rightly been allowed to continue under these plans. Open access represents a huge opportunity for passenger rail in this country. When done right it can provide nimble, cost-effective services that give passengers greater choice and bring in revenue for the network. In fact, the EU has enshrined in law the rights of open access operators in tendering for passenger services. We are not proposing that at this stage, but I am concerned about how this change will impact on those already operating on the network, and what opportunities will remain open to them or others to offer new open access services in future. The same goes for the future of devolved concessionary models. Why, if Government Members truly believe that private providers are simply siphoning off cash, can Transport for London and Merseyside still run concessionary models? While I happen to think they should be allowed to do so, it does not seem fair to have one rule for Sadiq Khan and another for everyone else. What about Manchester, Leeds or Birmingham? What if they want to run their own transport systems in a way that suits them? My understanding is that the Labour Government want to build on the progress we have made in devolving responsibilities to cities and regions, but this Bill looks more likely to reduce the options for other devolved authorities, leaving them able to run concessionary models only if they get an exemption under section 24 of the Railways Act 1993 to do so.

• 3 Sept 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There are a few problems with what the hon. Member has just said. One is that he talks about those figures, but the Government have not taken the time or trouble to set out what the impact of the Bill on passengers and taxpayers is expected to be. Were the Government confident about that impact, I am sure they would have set it out, but they have not. That is why our amendment proposes that they should set it out. We also know that while on the one hand, there are some savings to be made from management fees—I will come to that later in my speech—the benefits of competition, and the pressure of profit and loss and the bottom line, drive innovation and bring efficiency. That does not necessarily happen to the same extent in the public sector.

• 3 Sept 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is good to see hon. Members so soon after the summer recess. I know that the Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), has been busy over the summer, but I hope that she managed—like the Deputy Prime Minister—to find some time to let her hair down. When we last met, I set out why the Conservatives cannot support the Bill. I do not doubt that Government Members sincerely believe in their plan, in getting rid of privately run train operators, and in putting politicians in charge of running train services, but just because an ideological belief is deeply held, that does not make it right. It is certainly not the same as using evidence as a basis for decision making. Our railways are vital to our economy: millions of people rely on trains, whether to get them to work or school, to make essential journeys, to see family and friends, or simply to visit other parts of the country. Our rail system is complex—a mix of public and private built up over many years. One thing it is not, though, is a toy train set to be played with, but I fear that is the approach this Government are taking. They are rushing through this ideological reworking of our rail system despite the absence of solid evidence to back up their approach, at a time when other countries are choosing to increase private sector involvement and competition in their rail systems. There is no good reason for this Committee stage to be raced through in one day, rather than through a normal Bill Committee that would allow proper time for consideration and discussion, the time appropriate for such a substantial and significant change. Proper time would allow this legislation to be made better—indeed, fit for purpose—drawing on the strengths of our rail system as well as the weaknesses, and using the lessons of our experience and that of others, while still fulfilling the Government’s intention as set out in their manifesto. Instead, in their haste, this Bill simply takes a one-size-fits-all approach, pulling the plug on even the best train operating companies despite the mixed record of the Department for Transport when it comes to the performance of the franchises it runs already. In the Government’s haste, the Bill lacks any controls or incentives to reduce the risk of increased costs to taxpayers and passengers. We can say the same for performance: where in this Bill are the incentives to improve that, or the protections for passengers should performance worsen when the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley is at the controls of our trains? In the Government’s haste, those things are missing too. In their haste, if they do what they said in their manifesto, they are going to bring thousands of rail workers into the public sector, all under a single Government employer. We will have unions reclining comfortably on ministerial sofas as they discuss pay for thousands of people, funded by the taxpayer, with no safeguards to speak of to make sure the taxpayer gets a good deal. On Second Reading, I said that some more thought should go into the Bill over the summer. I asked a series of questions and made a number of suggestions. At the very least, I was expecting the Government to table some amendments, but I am sorry to report that, as far as I can see, they are going full steam ahead. There is no sign that any serious thought has been given to the long-term impact of Government-run train companies on growth, or on the efficiency of our railways. There is barely a word on the liabilities that this Bill would transfer on to the Government’s balance sheet, and crucially, no evidence has been shared about how passengers and their journeys will be affected. Fundamentally, the Government are rushing ahead but travelling blind, pressing on irrespective of the impact on passengers or taxpayers, which they simply do not know. The right hon. Lady has made herself passenger-in-chief and then set off on a journey without knowing the destination. That is not a sensible way to govern. Passengers should always come first, above providers, unions and ideology. That is why our first amendment would require the Government to set out what impact they believe the Bill will have.

• 3 Sept 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Unfortunately, the hon. Member is simply wrong in some of the statements she makes. I am not ideological about this—I know that there is a place for the public sector and a place for the private sector. In our reforms, we proposed a closer working together of track and train through Great British Railways, much of which this Government are planning to bring forward. However, there have also been benefits to this country from privatisation, including a significant growth in passenger numbers, which has not been seen in many other countries. That is one reason why several European countries are planning to follow our model and increase competition in their rail services, in order to drive up passenger numbers and provide greater efficiencies. As I said a moment ago, amendment 18 would require the Government to set out what impact they believe the Bill will have. For instance, what impact will getting rid of private sector train companies—the good performers as well as the weaker ones—have on passengers, fares, reliability and the cost of the railway to taxpayers? The amendment proposes that the Government should set that information out clearly in a report within the next six months. I am sure that hon. Members do not consider that to be unreasonable; surely, it is the least that any of us would want to see, since we all represent both rail users and taxpayers. It would mean that we would all know what difference the Government expect the legislation to make. I would hope that the report would be set out in a way that stands up to scrutiny, that it draws on evidence and that it has a suitable level of rigour for something so significant. It would also give us all something to hold the Government to account against, as well as the managers who take over responsibility for train operators.

• 3 Sept 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will make some progress. For the reasons I have described, we have also tabled amendments to put some conditions on franchises moving into the public sector. Under the Secretary of State’s plan, the running of trains on our network will increasingly be tasked to a little-known Government company called DFT OLR Holdings Ltd, or DOHL, the current operator of last resort. It seems to me a huge risk to expect DOHL to successfully take over and run every franchise in the country. DOHL has had, shall we say, mixed results with the franchises it has taken over, and expecting it to run a further 10 on top of the four it is currently operating strikes me as a lot to ask. I recognise that the Bill makes reference to that risk by providing for franchise extensions where it would not be practical to bring the service in-house, but under the current plans, that would be decided by the Secretary of State. It is not that I do not trust the right hon. Lady, but she has shown herself to have a great deal of confidence in public operators, in the absence of any substantial grounds for that confidence. I have been told that there is no plan to increase headcount, budget or resources of any kind for DOHL as it takes on that increase in workload from four to 14 franchises. I welcome the Government making an effort to achieve efficiencies at the centre, but I struggle to believe that more than tripling the number of franchises brought in-house will not involve some increase in resources. We therefore think it would be prudent for the Office of Rail and Road to form an independent judgment on whether DOHL has the capacity and expertise to take on each new franchise as it comes up, and to run it, at a minimum, as well as it is already being run. That could be done well in advance of most contracts ending, so it would not really be a hindrance to the Secretary of State’s plan, but it would provide a great deal of reassurance to passengers, and all of us as their representatives, about the capacity of the Government to successfully take over the functions of so many train operating companies.

• 3 Sept 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 18, page 1, line 12, at end insert— “25B Report on impact of prohibition on franchise extensions and new franchises The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament— (a) within six months of the coming into force of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, a report on the anticipated impact of the prohibition on franchise extensions and new franchises under section 25A; and (b) after a period of five years has elapsed after the coming into force of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, a report outlining the actual impact of the prohibition on franchise extensions and new franchises under section 25A.”

• 3 Sept 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Unfortunately, the right hon. Lady’s approach is deeply flawed and risks our facing more strikes in future, rather than fewer. [ Interruption. ] Yes, to directly answer her question, I can assure her that I have spoken to her predecessor in the role, and I know that the reforms proposed to modernise the railways were crucial not only to controlling increasing costs and fares, but to improving the reliability of our train services. Unfortunately, she gave all that up overnight when she gave away a bumper pay deal of almost 15%, with nothing from the other side to improve services. The independent body I am proposing would look at pay and terms and conditions in the round. It could shed some light on who is getting a fair deal and help put modernisation at the top of the agenda in negotiations. Given that this Government seem to be set on creating a single huge employer across the network, as set out in their manifesto, which surely means harmonising pay and terms and conditions across many thousands of employees, none of whom I suspect will want to give up whatever terms they most value—a four-day working week, 34 days of annual leave and the extra money they negotiated to start using iPads are some examples—can the right hon. Lady imagine what effect this might have on ticket prices and the efficiency of our network? An independent pay review body could at least gather evidence and advise Government on what makes sense to fill jobs and provide value for money for the taxpayer. Madam Chair, I am grateful to you for giving me some time to outline our amendments, and I am mindful that other Members wish to talk to their amendments or make maiden speeches, so I will wrap up my comments with a couple of final points. As we made clear on Second Reading, His Majesty’s official Opposition do not support this Bill. Our rail system needs reform, and we have set out plans to do that, but this Bill is not the right way to go about it. On the contrary, the Government are being driven by a flawed ideological belief along the lines of “public sector good, private sector bad”. It is not underpinned by evidence of what works, and they are not being straight with people about the possible downsides such as higher fares for passengers, higher costs for taxpayers and less reliable trains. Why are the Government rushing through this Bill? Is it to please their Back Benchers, who we know are deeply unhappy about scrapping the winter fuel allowance, or is it to please their union paymasters? I know the right hon. Lady has promised everyone that she is going to move fast and fix things, but this looks more like moving fast and breaking things. I say sincerely to her, as I am sure she will want to make this legislation as good as it can be and, like me, wants to do the best possible job for all our constituents and for the country we serve, that she should please consider the amendments we have tabled and think hard about giving them the Government’s support.

• 3 Sept 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 3 Sept 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I accept some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. That is why I said that the record of DOHL had been mixed. Sometimes there has been improvement in performance, but that is not the case for all the franchises it runs. That is my reason for not being confident that it is the right organisation to take on such a large increase in its workload, particularly without any further increase in its resources, including some operators that are performing better than the train companies that he mentioned. We want every contract that is awarded to place a duty on DOHL to look at how to modernise our network and to ensure that passengers are at the forefront of all decision making—passengers not just in urban areas and around London but, crucially, in rural areas and places that have traditionally been under-served by the rail network. Time and again, the Secretary of State has said that her No. 1 priority is passengers—that she will protect their interests above all else, and that it is for them that she is seeking this change. This is a chance to put her money where her mouth is and create a legal duty that promotes the needs of passengers in all future agreements with public sector operators. That will build in a layer of accountability on things that we all agree are important. On amendment 8, public bodies marking their own homework is not something that Opposition Members believe leads to good results. I know from my time in government that independent scrutiny makes life harder for Ministers, but it also improves accountability, and with that outcomes. That is why we seek to introduce proper financial reporting and oversight for public sector operators. Under the franchise system, whatever its shortcomings, train operators are incentivised to increase passenger numbers and control costs. That has been an undeniable success of privatisation. Passenger numbers have doubled and costs have been controlled, increasing at a far slower rate than revenue. In future, passengers and taxpayers will have to foot the bill for any loss of control on costs, any inefficiencies or any failures to innovate. That is a serious implication, and something we should do our best to protect people from. Creating, or recreating, some incentives is a good place to start. We will need to know how well the public train companies are performing—what they are doing to increase passenger numbers and drive growth in rail services, how reliable their services are, how well they are keeping costs under control, and how satisfied passengers are with the service they provide. Our proposals will allow us to identify both good and bad performance, hold the managers of those companies to account and reward them accordingly, such as by linking managerial pay to performance. Those companies will no longer have shareholders to answer to, or the financial incentives that go with a senior role in the private sector. The Government have told us that part of their rationale for these changes is to better align the incentives of train operators with the interests of passengers, but the Bill currently provides no mechanism for that. We are not seeking to frustrate a change that this Government were elected to deliver; we simply wish to bring proper transparency and accountability to the process. That includes reporting on the costs involved in bringing operating companies into public ownership. Government Members will no doubt point to the money that will be saved by removing management fees, but this equation is not one-sided. While the Secretary of State might be saving £150 million each year on fees, industry experts have predicted that the Bill could cost passengers and taxpayers up to £1 billion a year in lost productivity and growth—and that is before accounting for the Government’s taking on all the long-term liabilities of the companies. Pension obligations, rolling stock and long-term leases will all be transferred on to the Government balance sheet, and we have had alarmingly little information on what that figure will be.