Industrial Action on the Railway

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

Similar to the right hon. Gentleman—this is where we have a lot in common—I had the very sad Hatfield rail accident in my constituency, and Potters Bar is next to where I live. Those were two major rail accidents in respect of which the maintenance of the railway was absolutely key.

I have heard Mick Lynch of the RMT mention this figure of a 50% reduction in safety staff. What is wrong about that is, as I explained in my statement, if we can have automation, with trains taking 70,000 images per minute, and use drones and other technologies, it will put our railway at risk not to use those things, because the modern standards that are required for maintenance will not be available.

The right hon. Gentleman asked how I know about these matters; as Transport Secretary, I have the unfortunate task of having to read all the Rail Accident Investigation Branch investigations, and I sometimes have to respond to coroners as well. Recently, I read with great sadness about a man who was killed while walking along the track to maintain it. We need to get rid of these outdated, outmoded ways of carrying out maintenance and really look after the safety of the railways.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I think the House will appreciate that the way to deal with increasing rail safety and reducing risk to rail workers is not really across the Floor of the House but between the employers and the union safety representatives. Further progress should then come.

The rail unions have a six-month authority to cause industrial disruption; they should not be using it straightaway. In my view, my local passengers—most of whom earn less than rail workers and some of whom do not earn anything at all because they are students trying to take exams this week—would prefer it if both sides of the House could call on the unions to postpone these disputes until they will not affect so many people so harshly. I think, as one of the most union-friendly Conservatives, that my voice is not necessarily going to be heard by the union leaders, but if Labour would join in we could say in a cross-party way, “Postpone the strikes this week, get on with the talks and negotiations, and if people want to take time off to go to a TUC or Labour rally, they should come back to the talks, not just go to the media.”

International Women’s Day

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

My apologies—how could I forget my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley)?

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I had planned to listen rather than speak, but can I say two things to my hon. Friend? The first is to ask whether in winding up this debate, the Minister can say what harm was done by, and what benefits there were from, early, easy and safe contraception by telephone. There is a responsibility on Government to give that information in the open so that we can challenge it if necessary, or agree with it if they say it was safe, easy and convenient—that it had benefits.

Secondly, on the issue of sex and gender, I agree with my hon. Friend that people need to speak much more openly, and that those who call people like Professor Kathleen Stock a dangerous extremist for her book “Material Girls” clearly have not read it. She, Jo Phoenix and others have written very plainly and sympathetically about trans people, but have also written determinedly that sex matters, and that women should be safe and feel protected.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. The fact remains that women are entitled to single-sex spaces for their own sake; this should not just be about risk assessment and danger. We should be able to make choices about when we want to enter spaces without men present, and that should be as important as any potential risk that any man might pose.

I will focus the substance of my comments this afternoon on the criminal justice system, though, as we are talking about breaking the bias. I do so in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on women in the penal system. Without reiterating points made by my hon. Friends, this comes back to the point that men and women are different, and our laws and—in particular—our criminal justice system need to reflect that.

We have had a real move towards gender neutrality in how we approach public service delivery and how we produce law, but standing here in a debate to commemorate International Women’s Day, I tend to view gender neutrality as just another way of centring men, because it is making us all the same, and nowhere is that more obvious than in the criminal justice system. We have a penal system built on prisons and based on the principle that we incarcerate violent, dangerous men, and that has been the approach to women. We have seen study after study that has shown that prison is not the best place for women offenders, because more often than not, women offenders are more vulnerable than their male counterparts.

Call me a pink-hearted liberal, but I tend to view our prison population as being full of people who have been failed by the state, and that is a matter of shame for me. It is particularly the case when it comes to women. We know that there are high rates of illiteracy and innumeracy among our prisoners, so how are they going to get on in life? We know that there are a huge number of people who have been through the care system and then been left on the scrapheap. In the case of women, we know that many of them are victims of sexual abuse, and in that context, prison is not the best place for them, and study after study has shown that.

Every time we make progress in this area and we start to say, “This is an opportunity for a first intervention to support women and address that vulnerability”, we then seem to go backwards. I highlight the fact that this Government have a female offenders strategy but equally are investing in 500 more prison places for women, and we need to properly join the dots and use the opportunities to make interventions to support women and break the cycle of offending. We all know that once someone has been incarcerated, the chance that they then embark on a lifetime of reoffending and re-entering prison is very high. That is not good for them, but nor is it good for society or the taxpayer. We need to get this right.

We know also that many women do not belong in prison in the first place. One issue I have been taking up with the Ministry of Justice is the extent to which women are remanded in prison for their own protection. We have a mental health policy that has been removing police cells and prisons as places of safety—recognising that they are not good environments for people who are mentally unwell—but we are still remanding women in prison for their own safety. I thought it would be only a small number of women, probably no more than a dozen a year. Having raised the issue with the Government, I could not get any data on it. However, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons visited three prisons last year and in total found 68 women who had been remanded in prison for their own protection. They were not people who had committed an offence, and it was not a punishment. It is totally inappropriate for a country such as this to be remanding women in prison for that purpose, and that was in just three prisons. Across the whole system, we know that women being remanded for their own protection are a significant proportion of the prison establishment, and frankly that is not good enough. I am ashamed of it, and I call on the Government to do better.

My criticism is not with the Ministry of Justice. One of the issues is that the Ministry of Justice is sweeping up the failings of other organisations within the public sector. It is sweeping up the ability of local authorities to offer safe spaces for women to be sent to when they are at risk. Mental health services are sweeping up that failure by the Department of Health and Social Care, and I encourage the Ministry of Justice to be rather more robust in its dealings with other Departments and say, “You know what? These are not our problems, they are yours.” We should not be dealing with vulnerable people within our estate.

The other side of the criminal justice system where women are particularly negatively impacted is as victims, and we have had a number of debates in recent weeks about the poor prosecution rates for sexual violence crimes and rape in particular. Having spoken to victims, I understand that one of the reasons for that is that they are treated as a piece of evidence in that prosecution. If someone has gone through trauma, constantly reliving that in a dehumanising way is not the best way to ensure that we bring people to punishment. We really have to look at that.

There has been a lot of investment in services, but we have still not got it right. My biggest challenge on that point is that the likelihood of a victim getting justice depends on who they are. Victim-blaming, which we heard reference to earlier in the debate, is at the heart of that. Over and over again, assumptions are made about victims that impede their ability to get justice. White working-class girls in northern towns and cities were victims of abuse for many years before public authorities would pay proper attention to it, because they were not prepared to make that challenge.

I also highlight what we loosely describe as “honour killings”. What kind of a phrase is that to describe people being murdered? They are murdered by their families, who should love them and keep them safe, and we call that an honour killing—“honour”, which is a positive word, and “killing” for murder. That very phrase is an illustration of the discrimination against those victims; I am getting emotional just thinking about it.

In the context of the list that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) read out, we do not have to do much of a study to realise the socio-economic background of most of those victims. The only ones that we ever read about in the papers—the ones who the media get excited about—are nice white middle-class people with professional backgrounds. People who engage in prostitution disappear every week and do not get a column inch, but they are victims. They are women who are victims of male violence against women and girls.

Let us not pussyfoot around it: this is a gendered crime. My hon. Friends who are present—my hon. Friends the Members for Boston and Skegness, for Devizes, for Harwich and North Essex, for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and for Worthing West—will not take offence when I point out that those crimes are committed by men, which is exactly what we need to face up to. We will not tackle that issue unless we tackle it as a society, which means men stepping up too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Even worse, there are many men—young men—involved in this debate who have embraced a new form of misogyny. I know that to my cost, and I hope that that will start to change.

But I am trying to be positive, and I want to list a couple of the other successes there have been in the last year for gender-critical women such as myself. My friends at the LGB Alliance are registered as a charity now, and they held a major conference that was attended by many parliamentarians. I see some of them here today. Sadly, however, a straight, married Member of this House saw fit to protest outside the conference, which was organised by lesbians to discuss the rights of same-sex-attracted people. I thought I had seen the last of that sort of lesbophobia in the ’90s, but it turns out I was wrong. I repeat that lesbian rights are not conditional on our accepting gender identity theory.

Another positive development has been the Equality and Human Rights Commission entering the debate on self-identification and on how to frame the quite appropriate ban on conversion therapy. The commission entered the debate with a voice of calm common sense, reminding us that human rights are universal and that all protected characteristics under the Equality Act deserve protection. Others have mentioned the very welcome interim report on the Cass review today, and I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that the Government will look carefully at that report and look into the alarming phenomenon of so many young women feeling so uncomfortable with their identity as women as they go through puberty in our society that they feel they have to change their identity to cope with those pressures.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Can I make two points to, and through, the hon. and learned Lady? First, Suzanne Moore ought to have been able to write her column for The Guardian, and I hope that The Guardian will report the hon. and learned Lady’s speech in full tomorrow and explain why Suzanne Moore cannot publish her thoughts in her own newspaper, as it once was. Secondly, on the LGB Alliance conference, which I attended, I went up to some of the people protesting outside and asked if they had read the book “Trans” or the book “Material Girls”. They said no. I invited them to join me in asking Liam Hackett, the chief executive of the anti-bullying charity Ditch the Label, if he would withdraw his words describing Kathleen Stock as a dangerous extremist for giving her plain views on women’s rights.

[Joanna Cherry]

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am proud to call Professor Kathleen Stock a friend. She is an admirable scholar, a feminist and a lesbian who has written carefully about these issues, and the way she has been traduced by students at her university and, sadly, by some politicians in one of my favourite cities, Brighton, is absolutely disgraceful. I want to be positive today, however, and I think that on this issue the tide is turning. I am living proof that cancellation does not always work.

Just before I sit down, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Will she back the Equality and Human Rights Commission to produce solid guidance on the definitions of protected characteristics and single-sex services? A lot of the harassment I have described stems from women setting out the case for single-sex services and then facing wrongful accusations of transphobia. Secondly, will she push for Government Departments to end the use of external human resource benchmarking schemes for legal compliance with the Equality Act? As we saw in the Akua Reindorf report from Essex University, some external benchmarks—sadly, some from Stonewall, of which I used to be, but no longer am, a supporter—have been wrong in law. Finally, once the EHRC has published some decent guidance, will she review civil service HR policies to ensure that they are in line with the law of the land under the Equality Act, rather than in line with prejudiced lobbying groups?

--- Later in debate ---

[Trudy Harrison]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I just repeat what I have already said about liaising with Health Ministers. The wellbeing and safety of women requiring access to abortion services has been and will continue to be our first and foremost priority. The Department of Health is developing a new sexual and reproductive health strategy that will set out the ambitions to improve reproductive health outcomes and wellbeing. The strategy will include a focus on improving information and access to contraception to support women to make more informed choices, but on the specific point that she and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) made, I will endeavour to liaise with colleagues.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The House will be reassured by what the Minister has just said about liaising with colleagues. Can I say through her to the Whips that if there is a clear vote in this House, I would vote to extend the telemedicine service and I would encourage my hon. Friends to do the same? I suggest that the Chief Whip asks his colleagues to consult each of us what our views are.

[Trudy Harrison]

I am sure my hon. Friend’s comment has been heard.

There has been much talk about the economic empowerment for women, and this leads me on to some of the other steps we are taking to address the barriers that women face in the workforce. I myself was paid off when I was pregnant with our first child. We know that the pandemic has been one of the greatest challenges this country has faced in decades. Women’s economic empowerment is pivotal to our post-pandemic recovery, in the wake of even greater potential for wage inequalities for women, although of course it is not just women who face these difficulties. We need to make it easier for all employees to understand if they are being paid fairly and how decisions about their pay are made, and I am really pleased that we are going to stop asking about pay history during recruitment.

There has also been much talk about STEM, which has been so wonderful to hear about. In 2022, education remains a top priority for our Prime Minister. Earlier this week, he launched a new girls’ education skills partnership programme on private sector investment in girls’ education, which supports adolescent girls overseas. We have made great progress in increasing the number of girls studying STEM subjects, but at present women make up only 24% of the STEM workforce.

EU Exit Preparations: Ferry Contracts

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I am grateful to be able to speak in this debate. I want to start by dealing with the red herring we frequently hear from Conservative Members that this debate is about impugning the Government’s responsibility to prepare for a no-deal Brexit. It is not about that. It is about their ability to make those preparations competently and without squandering taxpayers’ money.

Of course, the Government have to prepare for no deal because they are insistent on keeping no deal on the table, and last week they voted against the SNP amendment that would have taken it off the table. As some Conservative Members have generously accepted, no deal could be taken off the table by a number of routes, including an extension of article 50 or the option of revoking it—the lifeline thrown to the British Government by a number of Scottish politicians, including myself. In that respect, I declare an interest, with the backing of the Good Law Project.

Let us get that red herring off the table. This is not about the Opposition querying whether the Government should prepare for a no-deal or Brexit. This is about the Opposition doing their job and holding the Government to account for making those preparations in a shambolic, chaotic fashion that is wasteful of public money.

Last week, the Government settled out of court litigation brought against them by Eurotunnel for the legal reasons laid out by the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). They paid more than £33 million to buy off the risk of losing the action and having to pay more, and the action was brought because they had failed to put three contracts—not just Seaborne Freight, so far as I am aware, but all three contracts—out to competitive tender. That £33 million was in lieu of a larger sum that would have had to be paid out in damages if the court case had gone ahead and the Government had lost.

That is why I, as a lawyer, am so puzzled by the insistence of the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Health that this £33 million will somehow pay for increased security at the ports. In my long experience of 30 years—20-odd years at the Bar and a number of years as a solicitor—I have never heard of such a stipulation in an out-of-court settlement in this type of case. That is why I was so puzzled, and perhaps expressed my puzzlement in terms that were unparliamentary.

I want to know. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), is looking at his phone and is not interested in what SNP Members have to say, as usual, but this is not going to go away because I am going to pursue it with Eurotunnel and others. I want to know—[Interruption.] Well, perhaps he could just listen and be quiet while he is listening. I want to know whether Eurotunnel—

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it customary for the Member who is speaking to provoke a Minister into looking at her directly and then to say that he is somehow interrupting her. It seems to me it would be far better if the hon. and learned Lady went on addressing the Chair and left the Minister to listen, like the rest of us.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has his own interpretation of the chronology of events, which those attending to observe our proceedings can make a judgment about for themselves, and that is one point of view. If I may say so, there is another point of view, which is that the hon. and learned Lady was somewhat disquieted, not to say mildly irritated, by the junior Minister’s evident fascination with the contents of his electronic device. It might be thought courteous not to be focusing intently on the said contents when a Member is addressing the House. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not take offence when I say that he is in the end a very loyal sort of person, and it is not terribly surprising that he should spring to the defence of his ministerial colleague and fellow parliamentarian. It was very gracious of him and a nice try.

Rail Timetabling

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I was rather expecting the hon. Gentleman to say that, and I respond simply by saying that it is my job to make sure that the problem is fixed, and that is what I intend to do. But the Opposition cannot have it both ways: half the time the hon. Gentleman is saying to me that the Government should run the railways, but when something goes wrong he says that it is the Government’s fault that we are not running the railways properly. They cannot have it both ways.

There are two specific points. On what we are going to do about the timetable in December, I have been very clear in the letter I sent to all colleagues last week that we are not going to do a major change of this kind again in the way that has happened in the last couple of months; it must be done in a more measured and careful way. We are already doing work now on how that timetable change should happen—how it should be modified—and the incoming chief executive of Network Rail, Andrew Haines, who I think will bring enormous experience to this, is the person who was responsible 10 years ago for the very successful timetable change on South Western. I have great confidence that as he comes into the organisation in the coming months, he will be able to put in place a plan for timetable change both at the end of this year and in the future that works better for passengers, who are the most important people in all of this.

The hon. Gentleman also asked me why we did not pay more attention to Chris Gibb’s report last year. Actually, we did. We appointed Chris Gibb chairman of the industry readiness board. Chris is one of the most experienced and respected figures in the rail industry, but that board still did not gather the scale of the problem that lay ahead when it last reported to me in May. Lessons have to be learned by the people on that board. We have to make sure that this cannot happen again, and everyone in the rail industry—and everyone in my Department, including me—is working to ensure that that happens.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Our constituents who are passengers, and our constituents who work on the railways, want to get this solved, and the best thing to do is to give backing to those in the industry and to the Secretary of State to ensure that that happens.

Anticipating an article by Nigel Harris in Rail magazine, I would suggest that those who have power need to be accountable and those who are accountable need to have power.

Anyone who has no expertise should take advice from those who can make things better. That requires getting everyone—unions, managers and knowledgeable passengers —together to see how best we can get out of the hole we are in at the moment.

It is too bad, and it has been too bad for too long.

[Chris Grayling]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend; I think that the railways are going to have to change significantly as a result of what has happened. However, I say to those who are saying that we should sack the franchisees that simply sacking the people who are working today will not solve the problem, because I do not have some other group of people down the corridor who are able to take over. We have to make sure that everyone has all the necessary support from across the industry to deliver solutions for passengers and get back to stability as quickly as possible. I absolutely accept what my hon. Friend says.

Northern Rail Timetable Changes

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) on securing this debate and thank my hon. Friends the Members for Crawley (Henry Smith) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) and the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for their contributions. We have been reminded that this is not just about Northern rail, although it is clearly central in this instance, but is an issue that affects other parts of the country, other parts of the north and parts of the south, too.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove has given us an excellent opportunity to discuss the recent timetable changes. The debate is timely because we are still in the lee of the changes, which were launched less than a week ago and which constitute—we are reliably informed—the biggest change to network timetables in at least a generation. My hon. Friend has proved himself a vigorous and effective campaigner in many different areas, and this debate underlines that: it is the last debate before the recess, yet my hon. Friend is here fighting the case for his constituents. I salute him for that. He is doing so even though this issue was raised in the exchanges on yesterday’s urgent question and again in oral questions this morning. There has rightly been a consolidated set of interrogations of the Government, and it is now on the record from every conceivable angle. I appreciate that.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I join the Minister in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg). As someone who occasionally travels up to the north, I hope that it might be possible for the Minister, with the help of the rail industry, to put out a general statement over the weekend about how the changes are settling in. If the changes are having some adverse effects not only in the north, as my hon. Friend set out well, but in the south, as was illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), our passengers should be able to know what they can expect from next week on and whether, if there are glitches, they will be cured within six months, rather than everyone having to wait until the next major change.

[Jesse Norman]

My hon. Friend neatly segues me on to my next topic. His point is well landed and well taken account of, and it will undoubtedly feed back to colleagues and officials, but as he will be aware, it does not require a PhD in cryptology or the detective skills of a Sherlock Holmes to realise that I am the Roads Minister and therefore will not be giving direct instructions to officials in this regard. Nevertheless, I shall ensure that due regard is taken of the point that he raises, and rightly so. For that reason, I may be a little less crisp on the detail than some of my colleagues on the rail side would be, but I assure all Members that their considerations will be heard and taken account of.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove will know, Northern is now running hundreds more services compared with last week. Clearly, there is an upside to this situation as well as a downside. By 2020, there will be more than 2,500 extra services a week with room for 40,000 extra passengers, and these will be, by and large, faster and more comfortable journeys, with new and direct services across the north and beyond. Indeed, this week’s timetable change, although we have properly and appropriately focused on the negative feedback that has occurred, has also been one that has delivered an extra 1,682 train services a week across the network.

As I have said, the Department for Transport is monitoring the situation very carefully. My colleagues have made it clear that if these teething problems are not resolved in the coming days, they will hold the industry to account—not merely the operators, but Network Rail itself, which is, I am afraid, at the heart of the problems that we have at the moment.

The beginning of the week, as my hon. Friends have noted, was a challenging time for customers of Northern and the TransPennine Express, and operators have appropriately apologised for the disruption. It is sometimes forgotten that they were upfront—perhaps not upfront enough—about the kind of disruption that they were expecting and the scale and the number of the changes. It is also right to note—the Secretary of State noted this himself earlier today—that many thousands of railway staff are working flat out to deliver the benefits of this enormous investment programme, and we should be celebrating their efforts. No one, least of all I or my colleagues, or indeed any Member of this House, wishes to see passengers face disruption, let alone on the scale that has been identified in the specific cases that have been picked out today. We understand the frustration that many have felt with this week’s service. The hope is that passengers will become a little more understanding as these initial issues are addressed and as the wider benefits start to feed through.

As colleagues across the House will know, in this case, the franchises are managed by the Rail North Partnership jointly on behalf of the Department and Transport for the North. I am assured that the team, which is based in Leeds, has been closely monitoring the situation and liaising with both operators. There is a timetable recovery plan against which Northern expect to be monitored by the Rail North Partnership team. In response to my hon. Friend’s question, I would not be surprised if a slightly more formal process of internal assessment were set up.

It is absolutely right for passengers to be compensated if they are affected by disruption. I hope that it is understood across the House that the Department has, with some effectiveness, worked with train operators to promote passengers’ awareness of their compensation rights. Rail passengers are now more willing and more able than ever to demand and to receive, without undue disruption to their own timetables or cost, the compensation that they are due. Figures published for 2016-17 showed that more than £73 million was paid out to successful claimants—an increase of 63.8% on the previous year.

Both Northern and TransPennine Express operate this delay repay compensation scheme, which allows rail passengers to claim compensation for each delay of more than 30 minutes or more whatever its cause. There are no exclusions for weather or for other delays outside the control of the rail industry. One suspects that quite a lot of this compensation will spike as a result of the experience that we have had over the past few days.

In the case of multi-modal tickets, delay repay compensation is payable for delays that occur on the rail element of journeys covered by these tickets. Of course, the train operating companies and the relevant local transport authorities remain responsible for this policy. The Department has worked very closely with the train operators to make those compensation claims as swift and as simple as possible, including through online claim forms, smartcards and online apps.

Let me turn now to the timetable. Northern has planned for some time to introduce these changes in two phases—one in December 2017 and the other in May 2018, with the latter being larger and more relevant. These were supposed to be underpinned by planned line speed improvements and electrification of the route between Manchester and Preston. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove, in a very incisive analysis, put his finger on the central problem, which was that this electrification did not take place on schedule and that had all of these knock-on effects, and of course, in a network, knock-on effects themselves have knock-on effects and the result creates further disruption.

The effect of the delays to the completion of the Manchester to Preston upgrade meant that Northern had to move some of its service enhancements to a later date. Further service enhancements for Northern and TransPennine Express are planned for introduction from the end of this year through until 2020. I am sure that colleagues will be working closely with the operators to ensure that they are put in place with minimum disruption. As a result, although the operators will be delivering an increase of 1,300 new services a week from May 2018, 900 services a week—disappointingly for customers—will not be delivered until the infrastructure is ready. Once that happens, it will be a further improvement.

It became apparent in the early part of this year that the electrification process would not be completed on schedule. My hon. Friend rightly targets the question whether enough notice was given at that time. This required a lot of rethinking and rejigging by Northern. Although we are in the midst of significant operational challenges, I am afraid to say that it is appropriate to recognise that they have not yet ended. Once wishes that it were not so, but there may still be some further localised service disruption. In a way, that is to be expected with any new timetable, but it is all the more regrettable given the current circumstances. Northern has assured us that it will continue to do everything it can to make certain that there is minimal service disruption and to keep customers informed. Officials in the Department have focused on ensuring that customers know that timetables are changing.

I will not go further than my hon. Friend in addressing the specific issues that he has experienced in his constituency and on the Buxton and Hazel Grove line into Manchester Piccadilly. He has done a good and accurate job of bringing these issues to the forefront of the House’s attention. It is worth pointing out, however, that we will continue to see further improvements over time.

In Greater Manchester, Northern will begin to operate two trains an hour between Buxton and Manchester Piccadilly, significantly increasing the capacity on one of the most popular lines into the city. There will also be six trains an hour on weekdays between Rochdale and Manchester Victoria, as well as an hourly Sheffield to Manchester Piccadilly service every day. In Merseyside and Cheshire, Northern has made it clear that it will operate two weekday trains every hour between Southport and Manchester Victoria, two morning peak services from Southport to Alderley Edge via Manchester Piccadilly and two evening peak services from Alderley Edge to Southport via Manchester Piccadilly. A host of other changes and improvements have been put in place.

Chris Gibb Report: Improvements to Southern Railway

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Let me start with something that I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree on: the service Southern has provided for passengers over the last more than two years has been completely unacceptable. There is no disagreement about that. Our constituents are at the end of their tethers, and the service last year, in particular, was wholly unacceptable—to the point that it was causing economic loss and real suffering on the part of our constituents.

The question, therefore, is not whether the service has been poor, but why that is the case and who is responsible. There has been no shortage of criticism on the Government Benches of Southern and Network Rail for their part in the story. Two and a half years ago, at the beginning of 2015, I and other Conservative Members initiated debates in Westminster Hall, asked questions and held a succession of meetings with Ministers about Southern’s performance after it took over the new and expanded franchise.

There were clearly serious problems. There were not enough drivers, and the infrastructure was inadequate because of the London Bridge improvements. It is an irony that the £6 billion London Bridge improvements, which will result in a better service for passengers, have caused a temporary shortage of capacity for the new franchise, which has exacerbated the problems.

In response to the criticism we made on behalf of our constituents, the then Secretary of State and the then rail Minister convened a meeting of the industry. A performance improvement plan was introduced, whereby the industry agreed that it was necessary, step by step, month by month, to improve performance in the new franchise, recognising that it was a matter for not just the operator but Network Rail, which provided the track, and which is, of course, already in public ownership—a point that those on the Labour Front Bench might do well to consider.

As a consequence of that performance improvement plan, performance steadily improved again towards the end of 2015, but it then began catastrophically to deteriorate at the beginning of 2016, and specifically from April onwards. There was no coincidence about that. The reason it deteriorated was the industrial action that began at that time. That was not just the official industrial action on the part of the RMT, but the unofficial action, which the union has denied. There were suddenly very high rates of sickness, and there was a general unwillingness on the part of the workforce to co-operate with the management. It was undoubtedly the case that the operator was already having to improve its performance and already faced difficulties—there is no disagreement about that—but its performance declined catastrophically as a result of that industrial action. That action was then joined by the drivers, whose work to rule was official, rather than unofficial. The consequence was that the service last year was simply appalling.

What was that all about? It was about the alleged lack of safety as a consequence of the introduction of a system that has been operating on a third of the railways for 30 years. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) implied some kind of culpability—some kind of casual response to safety—on the part of the Government, but the Labour Government were in office for 13 years when driver-only operation trains were running. These trains run on the London underground; there happens to be a Labour Mayor responsible for that now. Indeed, the Docklands light railway has no drivers at all.

Currently, according to the figures that the unions gave us in a meeting this morning, over 97% of the trains that Southern is operating still have a safety-trained second member of staff on board. There have been no pay cuts, there have been no job losses, 97% of the trains are still running with a second person on board, and fewer than 3% of those trains are not, and yet the hon. Gentleman implied that there had been de-staffing. Far from de-staffing, there has been an offer of a 24% pay increase to ASLEF drivers. There is no doubt about the unions’ responsibility for what happened last year.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

We heard nothing from the Opposition Front Bench about the patients, teachers, pupils and clinical staff whose lives have been wrecked as they have been forced from rail to road, which is far more dangerous. We need to get the railways working properly so that they are all safe and all can rely on them.

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend.

For those who have faced such constraints on their pay over the past few years, it will stick in their throats to see an offer given to the train drivers such that their salaries for a four-day, 35-hour week will rise to over £60,000 a year. That is a perfectly generous offer. Frankly, this has nothing to do with safety at all. The Opposition have been unable to produce any evidence that the service that is now running is unsafe, partly because it runs extensively across the national network and has done for 30 years, and partly because, as I said, there is still a second member of staff on board anyway—it is just that they are not operating the doors.

Southern Rail

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard]

Some months ago, as the hon. Lady will be aware, we asked Chris Gibb to look into the operation of the network, the infrastructure and the train operating company. We look forward to receiving his report by the end of the year, which will guide us in the decisions we take in the new year as to how to make rapid, noticeable, identifiable improvements in this network.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

The RMT members who are adding to the disruption for all our constituents are also the employees. May we be told how much they earn, how many of them have signed up to the new operating arrangements and quite what issue is preventing the RMT and the operators from reaching agreement and allowing other workers to get to work reliably? I am talking about how students and teachers can get to work, and how old people can visit their friends.

[Paul Maynard]

My hon. Friend is right to point out why this is such a grossly disproportionate action the RMT is taking. More than 220 of the 223 staff involved have signed up to the new contracts to carry out the role of on-board supervisors, so they are striking against a role that they have already agreed to take up. That is both unreasonable and disproportionate.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

We have a national health service we can be proud of; we have a national health service that we have protected; and we have a national health service that will get proper funding.

Last evening, having done a fair day’s work, I found I had about 100 e-mails from 38 Degrees, which had saved them up from my constituents then dumped them in my inbox because of a technical problem. They all asked the same question. On behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House, I should be grateful if 38 Degrees wrote to MPs and got us to reply. It could then circulate our answers to all on its mailing list.

I invite 38 Degrees to ask its members whether they would like to provide their e-mail addresses to MPs so we can do that. It would make life much easier for our staff, who, from within that blizzard of e-mails, have to find the individual requests from constituents who have heart-rending problems and who need instant attention. Too often they will be overlooked because we are dealing with the blizzard of e-mails that 38 Degrees and others send.

Incidentally, I challenge 38 Degrees to put back on its Wikipedia entry the Labour activism of some of its founders. Accurate information was wiped off pretty quickly.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Oh! Falsifying Wikipedia. Shameful.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

It was not falsifying. It was just taking things out that ought to remain. There is a record in the trail.

There are many things in the Budget on which hon. Members on both sides of the House can agree. Some measures could go further in future Budgets. I welcome the suggestion that farmers should be able to average their income over a number of years, but the same problem applies to a number of people in small businesses. A lot of people in small businesses work very hard for very long hours for very many years. They often do not make many profits. Sometimes they have good years and sometimes their business becomes worth a bit and they can sell it. The taxation arrangements are not easy for all of them—they are better for those receiving entrepreneurial relief. For other businesses, if people get a lump sum in one year, they should be able to spread it across a number of years, as under the provision for farmers.

I spend much time serving with hon. Members from both sides of the House on the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill Select Committee. A number of farmers, business people and local residents come to see us. My admiration for people in business, whether on the land or in offices or factories, has gone up a great deal. I am very impressed by the quiet way in which people get on with their lives and come to Parliament to petition when their interests are affected.

Some cannot easily come to Parliament. I say this to those on the Treasury Bench: whatever the reasons of money, I do not intend to tolerate for much longer the fact that half the pensioners in this country who retire overseas get inflation increases and the other half do not. The Government say that there is no money, but we are getting out of austerity and into prosperity. The background is chance. We did not have agreements with some of the Commonwealth countries—the old dominions —but we did with other foreign countries, and the EU requires us to treat EU citizens the same.

It is frankly wrong that someone who has worked in this country and retires overseas should be treated differently on different islands in the Caribbean, in Canada, in the United States of America, in South Africa and other African countries and so on around the world. It is one of those things that is just wrong.

The Chancellor made a number of good jokes, some of which had tax prices attached to them. He said he wanted a review of the variation of wills. If that provision is taken away, a lot of ordinary people will find that they have to revise their wills several times over a decade. Most of us do not know when we are going to die. Being able to vary the beneficiaries of a will is important. People do it not just for tax reduction, but because it allows them to take account of changing circumstances. We have all heard examples of people who have made wills that were right 10 years ago, but that are not right 10 years later. If a variation can be agreed, it is a sensible way to do sensible things. It is not just about reducing tax.

Arguing that the lifetime pensions allowance should be reduced to £1 million is one thing. Someone who has a pension entitlement with a capital sum behind it of £1 million is lucky compared with many, but it begins to look a bit tight for those savers who are reasonably successful in their earnings. I remember once prison visiting with a retired newspaper editor. He said to me, “Tell me about MPs’ pensions.” I did, and said, “What about you?” He said: “When I retired as a newspaper editor, I had a pension pot of £10 million with a pension of £1 million a year.” I said: “Some people have all the luck. And you accuse us of having our noses in the trough.”

I say to the Government that there are some areas where money should not be restricted too much. On housing, we clearly have to improve leasehold, which requires civil servants in the Department for Communities and Local Government to watch what happens. We also need to bring in commonhold properly and make sure that resources are such that managing agents and freeholders do not get away with abusing leaseholders. I am not saying that they all do that, but it happens too often.

Finally, a number of people aged 19 are still doing A-level-type courses in further education and sixth-form colleges. The funding arrangements are becoming too tight for them, so I ask the relevant Departments—the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury—to ask themselves whether that is really their intention. They need to remember that they should not treat young people like racehorses by using their birthday as a rigid time to calculate how much money to spend on them. They all matter to us and I know that Members on both sides of the House care about that.

Road Investment Strategy

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

The answer I have just given was on local roads. As I said, between 2005 and 2010 the funding was £3.7 billion and between 2010 and 2015 the spending going to local authorities is £4.7 billion.

Today we have set out some ambitious programmes, because I am ambitious for the roads of this country, but that should be set alongside the ambition that we have also laid out for the railways and the investment we are making in them, which is seeing more people use the railways today than at any time in our history. We have also got to make sure our road network is sufficient for future generations. That is what today’s schemes will achieve.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the details. They were set out in the written statement I made this morning. Four documents explain what will be expected of the new roads investment strategy and the new highways department.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend not only for helping in the seats identified by the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), but for giving me the information that the Labour party is going to challenge me in Worthing. There was clearly support for dualling in Worthing and either side of it. There are clear benefits for safety, in air pollution reduction, and for environmental protection for the other roads and the countryside. Were the Dutch to come to the A27, they would say, “Why haven’t you put this dual carriageway in a long time ago?”

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made a strong case for dualling the road around that particular part of his constituency, and we would certainly want to work on that with him and other Members in the area.

Buckinghamshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [Lords]

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Gillan]

I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful little ray of sunshine in our debate.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which she is setting out the case for the Bill. As someone who has lived in a home where filming takes place on the road once or twice a year, I have never yet heard a neighbour complain if they have been given reasonable notice, which is to be expected, and if the time of filming is limited to hours or even days.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am grateful for that helpful intervention and I think that the people of Buckinghamshire feel exactly the same. Indeed, people are always delighted to see our towns, villages and streets on screen not only in some of our wonderful television productions, but as locations in big feature films. The Bill also offers protections.