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 pm
That brings me to unions and pay. The Bill will over time create tens of thousands of new public sector rail workers on a jumble of anachronistic terms and conditions. There should be an independent body to look at what we are inheriting and to advise on what is fair to those employees and the taxpayer each year when it comes to pay. Teachers, nurses, doctors and our armed forces all have independent bodies that help take the politics out of pay. How can it be a good idea for rail union bosses to sit around the table with Ministers negotiating pay without the assistance of an independent pay review body, especially Ministers who from time to time benefit from generous union donations?
I imagine that the Secretary of State herself can see how that would look. She must know that it would not pass the sniff test. This looks like the return of the 1970s—a return to deals done over beer and sandwiches in No. 10. Surely nobody in this country beside the unions wants to see that happen. We have actually just had a taste of it with the Government’s recent ASLEF deal, in which Ministers skilfully negotiated a bumper pay rise for train drivers for nothing in return—nothing for passengers and taxpayers. This no-strings pay deal meant removing all reforms to working practices—in other words, all the things that might help modernise the network and drive down fares—shortly followed by ASLEF announcing another strike anyway. Who knows what deal was done to get that called off; perhaps the Secretary of State will be making a statement on that.
We on the Opposition Benches are blue in the face from making this argument: living standards are not raised through inflationary pay rises; they are raised by improving productivity.