Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Apsana Begum Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)]

I congratulate you on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker, and hon. Members on delivering their maiden speeches today. I thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate on the Bill, which is widely welcomed by rail trade unions and will ensure that train services will be brought under public ownership as private companies’ existing contracts expire.

Many of us have long campaigned for the renationalisation of our railways, so today marks a hopeful turning point for our transport system. Time and again, privatisation has proven to be a failed imposition that has resulted in fare increases, falling real wages, a declining quality of service, and crisis after crisis in timetabling. At the crux of the privatisation problem has been the pursuit of profit at the expense of the taxpayer, railway workers and passengers. The negative impact of privatisation is far-reaching, as non-profitable railway lines are discounted, fares are raised above affordability or service quality is compromised. It is no wonder that distrust of the railway industry is rife, and that there has been consistent, long-term consensus for an integrated, publicly owned railway.

Compared with privatised railways, a publicly owned railway does not need to be driven to maximise profits through cuts or price hikes. Instead, a publicly owned railway enables transparent costing and sustainable funding. It means public investment in rail services, and properly staffed trains and stations. It means investing in green transport, and creating green jobs that are both socially and economically sustainable. It also means—I say this as somebody who campaigned alongside the RMT against ticket office closures—ensuring accessibility and reflecting the needs of a diversity of rail users, including disabled people. And, yes, public rail investment will aid much-needed economic growth.

People are absolutely desperate for material change. This Government promised to deliver investment, public ownership and employment rights, and the Bill before the House today is a positive first step towards a fully integrated, publicly owned railway. Our railways exist to support us, and people, not profiteering, should be at the heart of our railways.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Matt Turmaine to make his maiden speech.

International Women’s Day

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is now two years since I delivered my maiden speech in Parliament during a similar debate on International Women’s Day. In it, I paid tribute to our local history of women’s struggle for social justice, which continues to be a daily source of inspiration. To quote the amazing Greta Thunberg, International Women’s Day

“is for protesting against and raising awareness about the fact that people are still being oppressed or treated differently because of their gender”,

and we do still have so much to protest against.

Today’s debate comes as the cost of living crisis is fostering a sense of injustice, uncertainty and anxiety across the UK, set against the brutal backdrop of the pandemic and a decade of Conservative austerity. We know that the covid-19 pandemic means women have been more likely than men to lose their jobs or to reduce their paid work, given that they are more frequently employed in sectors that have been directly disrupted by lockdown and social distancing measures.

Women—particularly black, Asian and minority ethnic women—continue to account for about two thirds of low earners and are more likely to be working on zero-hour or part-time contracts. The increased overlap of working and caring responsibilities has added to the ongoing reality that caring continues to be a major factor in women’s ability to participate on equal terms. To put it simply, women still face structural economic inequality throughout their lives, and this intersects with other structures of inequality, including race and disability.

We also know that violence against women, including trans women, continues to blight our society. Women die—and they are dying—every day while support services continue to be cut. I know personally that the impact of domestic abuse on the mental health of survivors can be truly devastating, yet there continue to be many barriers and many challenges facing survivors when they try to access help. We know that ethnic minority survivors of domestic abuse suffer for one and a half times longer before seeking help. As such, we urgently need funding for services, particularly specialist community services and specialist refuges.

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, I am delighted to be working with Women’s Aid and others on their campaign #DeserveToBeHeard and to argue for domestic abuse to be recognised as a public health priority. Yet while the Government invariably use the language of protecting women, their programme of austerity, real-terms cuts to benefits and pensions, and assaults on civil liberties explicitly target those of us most at risk—migrants, as well as black, Asian and minority ethnic women, and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities.

The cruel “no recourse to public funds” condition prevents women from accessing help when most at need, and the hostile and racist immigration system tightens around women facing deportation, imprisons women in unacceptable conditions and even sees women drown at sea when they try to seek safety. I plead with the Government today: please scrap the inhumane Nationality and Borders Bill, which risks criminalising refugees, including Ukrainian refugees, who arrive in the UK through an irregular route. Instead, the Government should ensure that there are always safe routes for those seeking sanctuary and asylum.

Too often, under this Government the very institutions that are meant to protect us are in fact failing us, over and over again. Women are told we must forget that only a year ago, Sarah Everard was killed by a serving police officer. We are expected to ignore that there is clearly a problem within the police regarding racism and misogyny which needs urgently to be addressed. Structural racism has long been identified in the police, with the 2017 Lammy review finding that arrest rates are twice as high for ethnic minority women compared with white women. That has been found to lead to increased distrust of the official support services among ethnic minority communities, leading ethnic minority women to be less likely to report experiences of violence and receive support.

International Women’s Day must be about highlighting those ongoing injustices, but more than that it is about pointing the way to overcoming such wrongs. Although International Women’s Day has a historical association with recognising women’s oppression and exploitation, it is also a time when we highlight victories that have been won. Whether that is standing up against violence and austerity, struggling for better working conditions or demanding equal pay, women have always played a vital role in the struggle for social justice, by rallying, organising, protesting, inspiring millions of us, and winning against the odds. That includes industrial action by match workers at the Bryant and May factory in 1888, the historic strike action by female sewing machinists at the Dagenham Ford motor company in 1968, Jayaben Desai leading a walk-out at the Grunwick film processing laboratory in 1976, and Southall Black Sisters being at the forefront of challenging domestic and gender-related violence locally and nationally for decades. Yes, today is about inspiring us to overcome, and there is lots to inspire us.

I will finish by highlighting the victory secured by Unite the Union members working for Barts Health NHS Trust this month, after strike action in which black, Asian and minority ethnic women in particular played a crucial role. I applaud their bravery and determination in fighting exploitation, standing together day in, day out, in the cold and rain, demanding the change that they deserved. That landmark win sends a message to all that pay gaps and low pay are utterly unacceptable. It shows how to challenge injustice and inequality. The message is clearer than ever before: a woman’s place is in the political struggle, in her union and, yes, on the picket lines.

Covid-19: Emergency Transport and Travel Measures in London Boroughs

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huq]

Goodness me, the hon. Lady tells a chilling story. In Ealing, at least initially, there are no fines—maybe I should not be saying that—so that people get used to it. There is a softly-softly approach. Ultimately, I guess that people do get used to it, but it seems wrong to have that many tickets on day one.

In a global pandemic, life is hard enough as it is, and to make life even harder feels punitive. This policy is well tried in places such as Copenhagen, but this is just copying and pasting that into outer London, a place that people liked because of suburban convenience and because of the grid system.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I want to draw her attention to a recent report by the Institute of Race Relations called “The London Clearances”. This report found that regeneration projects are being used to actively dispossess working-class communities and low-income families of their homes. This process, which is commonly known as social cleansing, has mostly been understood as a class issue. However, given the over-representation of black, Asian and ethnic minority communities in social housing and the racialised language used to describe London’s post-war housing estates—for example, in the aftermath of the 2011 riots —I believe this is also very much a race issue. Certainly, constituents of mine have been in touch about the impact this is having on them and the fact that some of the measures have been targeted not towards housing estates in very congested or overcrowded areas but areas that have terraced homes—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am sorry, but interventions by their very nature should be short, and that was very long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huq]

Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. People would have been charged to go from Ealing to Acton, and possibly to use the A23, which goes to Brighton. It is good that that has gone, and congratulations to the Minister too, if she was involved in that.

We are told that local authorities are the final arbiters, but there is so much mistrust around this. Is there any kind of mechanism to ensure that it does not look as though people are marking their own homework? Would she, or someone, be able to swoop in? The Secretary of State wrote to councils to say that they should have had pre-implementation consultation, and should respect all road users. How will that wish be operationalised, especially in places where the consultation takes place six months after implementation? Surely there is scope for some sort of review before then if things are not working. There have been reversals—wholesale in Wandsworth, partial in Redbridge and Harrow. Could the Minister give some guidance on that? I think some councils are getting a bit entrenched; they are not for turning, or for any modifications.

In the final reckoning, does the Minister think a referendum might be a way forward? The scheme has been divisive in the way that Brexit was—sorry to bring that up, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it coloured all our lives for many years, and it has not gone away. A referendum would be completely equitable. If a council has a consultation tool on its website, only those with the right level of literacy, technology and energy will use it and make that count; what about the elderly and infirm? In a referendum, we could give as options, “Yes, with modifications, if need be”—then if “yes” wins, the modifications can be worked out—and “No” for those who want the measures removed.

[Apsana Begum]

I will be brief this time. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should not only be consultation, but due consideration should be given to equalities impact assessments, and to determining the socioeconomic impact of LTNs?

[Dr Huq]

My hon. Friend has read my mind. Impact assessments are missing in all this. There have been no baseline data or traffic surveys. It would be good to have a clear point of measurement, so we can ask, “Did it work?”. How will this be measured?

I have suggestions for the Minister. There are ways to discourage car use other than taking this big-bang approach of setting up all the LTNs at once. Instead of our closing every side road, I would like us to have dedicated, segregated cycle lanes on main roads. More of those, please—but not the bollarded ones, because I feel kettled in those, and people cannot overtake or be overtaken in them. Could she address cycle theft, cycle storage, and even bike grants? Not everyone has the same ratio of bikes as the Huq household, so could she help out there, maybe?

There could be more demand-responsive buses, and we could incentivise lift-sharing; on the other side of the pandemic, we will be allowed to be less than 2 metres apart. Perhaps we could even make public transport free, or cut fares—that was a Khan policy as well. There could be more charging points for electric vehicles. People who have bought those recently feel doubly diddled—or triply, if you count controlled parking zones, but that is probably another debate.

The biggest side-effect of this noble policy, which has good intentions—reducing carbon emissions and obesity, and all that stuff—is that it has dichotomised residents into the Lycra-clad brigade of cyclists versus the greedy, gas-guzzler motorists who feel a sense of entitlement to drive around in a metal box, when most of us are both, if not many other things, too. We all inhabit complex Venn diagrams. I use the tube every day as well as doing all those other things. Just the other day, I was on my bike, near one of those bollards. A guy in a Transit van-type vehicle had to reverse a long way, and started effing and blinding at me for being on a bike. I do not think he knew who I was—I hope not. Anyway, that is what the policy has done: create binaries in previously harmonious communities. What I am trying to say is that a well-intended policy has had unintended consequences, but there is time to rectify them. I know that the Minister is a reasonable person; I am curious to hear her answers to all those points.