Much as I love my job, the one thing that I knew I’d hate about becoming an MP was returning to a daily commute. I was right and it’s clear from my twitter feed, emails and letters that I’m not the only one who bemoans the atrocious performance of Southern Trains. I even managed to miss a ‘Meet the Manager’ event at Victoria station after my train was delayed. Last year, I started the call for Transport for London to take over the organisation of Sutton’s train services as they’ve done a reasonably good job in running the London Overground routes and TfL Rail to Shenfield. I was pleased that the Department of Transport have now agreed this albeit at the end of Southern’s franchise in 2021. TfL will take over the organisation of the parts of the Southern network that is predominately in London, though that is not the same as actually providing the services themselves.
That bodes well for the long term but doesn’t address the short term problems. I had thought that stripping GTR (who run Southern and Thameslink) of the franchise would help, but on further investigation I believe it wouldn’t change much immediately even if it did make us feel better for a while. The overall situation is complicated and is further exacerbated by unofficial union action which is providing commuters with a real summer of misery. It is this union action that we need to tackle first in order to strip back the underlying ongoing issues with Southern and Thameslink.
Network Rail
Some of the problems with the network are out of Southern’s control. The London Bridge station refurbishment is not due to be completed until the end of 2018. Signalling is woefully inadequate especially around the major junctions such as Purley and Selhurst. Because the Sutton lines join up with the mainline coastal routes, these all have knock-on effects even if they are not directly en route. Our franchise is the busiest in Europe, taking 22% of all rail passengers in the UK. Victoria station has more people passing through the barriers in the 90 minutes of the morning rush that fly from Heathrow in a day. The only way to increase capacity on the Southern routes is to move to digital signalling. Rather than having one train sitting between each set of traffic lights, digital signals monitor and regulate gaps between trains allowing them to travel closer together. This is how capacity and efficiency has increased markedly on the London Underground. There are several stretches of rail, especially closer to London where trains are only allowed to travel at a crawl because of the quality of the track. Replacing this requires significant investment and will entail many weekends of work. All of these issues are the responsibility of Network Rail, the government owned organisation that controls the rail infrastructure. Southern liaises with Network Rail but has no more input than that.
Long term solutions
Of course there are many faults that do lie solely with Southern. Trains breaking down are because of outdated rolling stock. Not enough staff until recently was down to a lack of recruitment by Southern although the unofficial union action has made this far worse. Southern are gradually introducing more carriages. The process is starting now but will take several months for the whole programme to roll out. This will eventually lead to more reliable trains. Southern started a major staff recruitment programme in 2014 but of course it takes time to train people once they’ve been hired. The old contracts that staff have been hired on date back to the steam age where rest periods reflected the physical nature of stoking furnaces and suchlike. Building up a staff roster who can look forward to a modern rail service will help tip the balance towards better management/staff relations where serving the customer is at the forefront of the job.
Union action
There had been some signs of improvement in April but things have got hugely worse since. The primary reason for this is RMT and ASLEF fighting against the introduction of Driver-Only Operated (DOO) trains. At the moment 40% of all routes in this franchise are already DOO including all of the services that go through Sutton. Most of the London Underground runs on this basis. Essentially the responsibility for closing the train doors before departing each station is with the driver using CCTV and platform staff, rather than with the guard on the train who can then be redeployed to more passenger-facing activities such as ticket sales and enforcement. No jobs are to be lost. At the moment the guard controlling the doors has to be specifically trained on their particular route and so cannot be moved to cover any other route to cover staff shortages, a significant hindrance to improved productivity. ASLEF had agreed to DOO trains on a number of routes but when an extra carriage were added to the Gatwick Express, they considered this a significant changeand so refused to keep the DOO system despite this already being operated successfully on this service. DOO has been in existence for more than quarter of a century. ASLEF representatives have been calling on members to “dig the trenches and prepare for war” when it comes to combating DOO.
The RMT recently talked about withdrawing the threat of industrial actions which is fine but what they need to do is to get their members to call off their unofficial action too. There is an extraordinary high level of ‘sickness’ where people are calling in to take a day off. Apart from disrupting the route that they are due to run, this leads to trains being in the wrong place so drivers who attend work on time are unable to operate anything and cover cannot be called in because of the need for route-trained guards. This go-slow is wreaking havoc on services. With Southern already underperforming, this further frustrates and indeed, annoys commuters. People have reportedly lost their jobs as a result of persistent lateness. One train in four arriving at Victoria on time is just ridiculous. Stripping the company of this franchise will do nothing to solve this immediate issue. DOO will be introduced across the network on August 21st. As it happens, their talk of withdrawal didn’t last long with a fresh five day strike announced for the 8th August onwards.
Southern have temporarily cancelled 341 trains each day claiming that this will be allow them to ensure the rest of the service can better cope with the unofficial action. This has had had mixed results but I was one of a number of MPs that told them that this was not the sensible way forward. Cutting further services is creating a hostage to fortune and adding to the woes of the paying public. There are also still too many services being delayed after this measure has been put in place. People have also complained about trains missing out stations in order to make up time. The Southern franchise works on a different basis to most others. GTR have a management contract with the Department of Transport for which they are paid a fee. They are not mitigating the risk of fines by skipping stations so this is simply an operational decision to ensure that services run as best as possible and that the rolling stock remains in the right position for the next service.
No easy answers
I have been working with the Department of Transport, GTR and the very many MPs from across the parties whose constituents are equally as affected. The union action must be resolved by September when people come back from their summer holidays. Demand dips by 20% in August but that clearly doesn’t last and so the pressure will soon return. GTR need a clear plan that can actually be delivered. The new Secretary of State for Transport is Chris Grayling, my neighbouring MP in Epsom & Ewell. His constituents are affected by the very same train routes as Sutton & Cheam. This situation is one of the most important items on his agenda (along with the impending airport expansion decision). I have already spoken to Chris about the situation and know that he is working hard on resolving the situation. It’s frustrating but it’s going to take time. It is scant comfort to remember the British Rail days when I had two unreliable trains an hour from Carshalton Beeches to Victoria. Demand has increased but so has expectation. We have plenty to do to make the service bearable, let alone world-class. But it is a top priority of mine to aim for both.
The past few weeks have been extraordinary for British politics. What looked like an uncertain summer for the government and the Conservative party has now become a period where Theresa May and her team are focused on Brexit plans and continuing to govern the country for the benefit of everyone. In the lead up to the Conservative leadership campaign, I spoke to as many people as I could about their thoughts on the matter. People were overwhelmingly in favour of Theresa May with Andrea Leadsom and Michael Gove running each other close for second place. For transparency, I thought it fair to tell you how I voted in the two leadership ballots and why.
I was sorry to see David Cameron go. Although we disagreed on the EU issue and I was unhappy with parts of his approach for the remain campaign, he was still a formidable Prime Minister whose legacy will extend to much more than this one issue and referendum result. Much as I would love to think that people in Sutton & Cheam were exclusively voting for me to be their Member of Parliament, I know that it was David Cameron’s strong leadership that attracted many people to vote Conservative last May. However as he believed it would need a new Prime Minister to work on Brexit, he triggered a leadership constest by resigning as Prime Minister. The rules dictate that Conservative MPs reduce the field of candidates to two by a number of ballots with the candidate receiving the lowest number of vote automatically dropping out each time. So on the first ballot, Liam Fox dropped out. Stephen Crabb decided to withdraw at this point as well.
In the second ballot, I voted for Theresa May. I started the day as I had been thinking all week, that my job was to ensure the best shortlist for the members and so had intended to vote for either Andrea Leadsom or Michael Gove in the knowledge that Theresa May had enough votes to get through with or without my vote. I was concerned about Andrea’s inexperience at a time when we need certainty and stability. I believe that Andrea made the right decision to withdraw her candidacy the following week, in what I know was a difficult decision after a highly-pressured weekend. I was not sure that Michael could unify the party or appeal to the wider electorate that we need to bring on board in order to maintain a majority, though he remains a very talented, intellectual friend.
In the meantime, I had spoken to Theresa May and just as importantly for me, Chris Grayling who is managing her campaign. As someone who I had campaigned alongside for a leave vote, I wanted to ask him why he had made that decision and how sure he was that the result of the referendum would not be reversed, kicked into the long grass or watered down so as to be meaningless. He reassured me on every point. At a hustings with the parliamentary party, Theresa was asked about Ken Clarke’s comments that she could be a ‘difficult woman.’ She replied that the next person who would find her a difficult woman would be Jean Claude Juncker.
In the end, I could not look beyond Theresa at this time. If we were choosing someone to take over in a couple of years, my view may have been different. But we weren’t. The winner was to step into No. 10 the very same day and give their nuclear instructions within the next 24 hours. They needed to give the markets confidence to ensure that our economy does not suffer from any more uncertainty than is necessary.
A number of people said to me that the next Prime Minister needs to be someone who campaigned to leave. I did not see this as being a prerequisite. The fact that Chris Grayling, David Davis, Liam Fox, and Priti Patel backed Theresa, people who I campaigned alongside as part of the Vote Leave team, gave me the reassurance that I needed to ensure that Brexit means Brexit, that there will be no second referendum and no watering down of the referendum result as Theresa has said on a number of occasions.
I used my first ballot to support Liam Fox. Not because he was likely to be one of the shortlisted two, but because his experience in international matters and the security and defence of this nation needs to be brought into the fore and so I wanted to ensure that he had a reasonable showing. The formulation of a Brexit team was an inspired move. David Davis as Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union will bring his thoughtful but determined approach to secure the best terms for the UK and Liam Fox as Secretary of State for International Trade will work on developing the opportunities for us to grab as we leave. In contrast to some of the media who are more interested in sensationalism, I believe that Boris Johnson will be a great salesman around the world for ‘Brand UK’, doing the same job as he did for London when helping to build our capital city into the leading tourist destination, the global centre for financial services and a hub for creative services.
Now, whilst the Labour Party continues its sad, internecine war, Conservatives both within Parliament and the membership have come together quickly, knowing that only by being a united team focused on the country, not the party, we will deliver Theresa May’s vision of fighting injustices, breathing new life into positive reforms that will make our lives better, our country fairer and more prosperous and provide opportunities for everyone to fulfil their potential. We have a bright future ahead of us. We need to concentrate on grabbing it with both hands starting today.
The only two continents not to see economic growth over the last decade are the Antarctica and Europe. We need to look further afield to trade freely with the countries that will dominate the global economy for the next century, free from the regulations and bureaucracy that membership of the EU involves. Meanwhile we will still trade with European countries. The Germans sell us 1 million cars each year. We are by far and away Ireland’s biggest export market. As much as some politicians may grit their teeth when faced with the UK leading the way to a new trading relationship, companies that have a significant UK trading market will not allow their governments to reduce their competitiveness through punitive measures which are not allowed through the WTO rules on internation trade anyway. The UK is the only major economy within the EU that exports more outside the EU than within. That is in no small part due to our history as a maritime trading nation with a somewhat buccaneering approach to international trade. Our island sits well geographically, we are in the right time zone and speak English, the language of business. We do not need free trade agreements to trade with other countries.
Much of the material in the clothes that we wear comes from Bangladesh. So many of the things that we buy arrive on supersized cargo ships from China. India is predicted to be dominate the global economy for the next century. We have no free trade agreements (FTAs) with these countries. Some people talk of the difficulty that we would have in negotiating free trade deals to replace the ones already secured by the EU. I was already confident that as the fifth largest economy we would be able to renegotiate these in good time if required and on favourable terms. Now I look at the list, I am even more so. See if you can spot any of the major global economies missing from this comprehensive list of FTAs completed by the EU:
Kosovo, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Serbia, Ukraine, Montenegro, Albania, FYR of Macedonia, Faroe Islands, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Morocco, Tunisia, Palestinian Authority, Syria, Ecuador, Colombia & Peru, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, South Korea, Cameroon, Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles, Zimbabwe, Chile, Mexico, South Africa, Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, Andorra, San Marino.
The top 10 economies in the world are in order: 1. USA, 2. China, 3. Japan, 4. Germany, 5. UK, 6. France, 7. Brazil, 8. Italy, 9. Russia, 10. India. The economies bubbling under the top 10 are Canada, Australia, South Korea, Spain and Mexico. So the EU has no free trade agreement with any of the top 10 not already a member state and only South Korea in the wider group. These are the countries that we will need to concentrate on following Brexit rather than the Faroe Islands, the Seychelles and St Kitts & Nevis as lovely as they all are.
EU member states are not allowed to negotiate individual FTAs with other non-EU countries, they have to be done through the EU trading bloc as a whole. Whereas this has been seen by some as using the leverage of such a big market, it also means that FTAs are incredibly difficult to complete with 28 very different member states all vying to protect their own interests. This has led to the proposed Canadian FTA being held up by an obscure disagreement about Romanian visas and the one with Australia held up by a dispute with Italian tomato growers. I have run a number of small businesses over the last 25 years. The ability to remain agile is a massive strength in business. It should come as no surprise when we read about companies like Amazon, Starbucks and Google running rings around national governments, let alone unwieldy political unions like the EU. Business has changed hugely since the start of the Common Market. Better refrigeration, larger cargo ships and of course, the internet has made it so much easier for people and companies to trade around the world. Graeme Macdonald, Chief Executive of JCB told the Guardian: “[the EU]’s a burden on our business and it’s easier selling to North America than to Europe sometimes.” We need to move on, lift our heads up and look to the rest of the world where an exciting future lies.
My father was born in Burma and I have seen the positive side of immigration first hand. But mass, uncontrolled immigration puts huge strain on our infrastructure and resources. We cannot manage migration with one arm tied behind our back, unable to limit people coming from within the EU. Why should a skilled worker coming from Australia or India be excluded in favour of an unskilled migrant from Italy or Romania? Reducing pressure on school places, housing and hospitals can still mean attracting the best people. Introducing a points-based system for people from all countries would provide both effective control and greater fairness.
At present we are bearing down heavily on those seeking to come to the UK from outside the UK, but can do nothing about people coming from within apart from checking to see whether their passport is in date and genuine. We need migrants to do many different types of jobs but with three times the number staffing our NHS coming from outside the EU, than from within, we need to have a fairer structure.
Two worries people have is how it would affect EU citizens already here and about British subjects living abroad. The answer is likely to be very little for the former and possibly change for some of the latter. It is rare that British law is changed retrospectively. Therefore those EU citizens living and working here would be able to obtain Indefinite Leave to Remain and stay. Most British people abroad will either be working or have independent means themselves or through the support of family and friends and so should changes be introduced in their country of residence, they would see little change. If we are asking for a fairer system, it is reasonable that other countries seek the same so anyone that is dependent on welfare in another country may need to review their situation. However none of these changes will happen overnight so there is plenty of time.
If we stay in the European Union, immigration would remain unchecked, leaving us unable to stop those with EU citizenship settling in the UK. Turkey, Serbia, Montenegro and Albania are seeking membership of an expanded EU. We hear that Turkey will likely not be able to join for sometime. However the UK alone is paying £2 billion towards pre-accession changes to help these countries enter. If there is no prospect of them joining, there seems to be no point in spending UK taxpayers’ money on this. The decision must be unanimous at an EU level so we do have a veto on this. David Cameron has said on a number of occasions that he is supportive of Turkey joining but now says that France would veto their membership. It is not enough to push the blame onto another country. There has been no clear statement as to the current UK government position on this recently.
I have been contacted by constituents about an amendment to the Immigration Bill, proposed by Lord Dubs calling for the Government to relocate 3,000 children from Europe. There is no doubt that the Syrian crisis has had devastating consequences for the children of the region. I worry about them, as you do.
Instead of taking children from mainland Europe, the Government has decided to take 3,000 children as part of a resettlement scheme focused on the children at risk in the Middle East and North Africa, which is supported by the UNHCR. I think this is the right decision. The Government’s focus has been on how it can play the most effective role in an extremely difficult situation and not make matters worse. The children in Europe are in safe countries, and we can help them to be cared for where they are. The children in the region are sometimes in extreme danger. It is also critical that any action we take does not lead to inadvertent consequences where people traffickers encourage more children to put their lives at risk by making the dangerous sea crossing to Europe.
No other country in Europe is doing more than us to help solve this crisis. Unaccompanied children in Calais with relatives in the UK are quite rightly being reunited with their families. The Department for International Development (DFID) has now committed £46 million to help support refugees. This will include a fund of £10 million which has been created to focus specifically on the needs of children in Europe. The fund will support reunification with family who are already in other EU countries, including the UK. It will also identify children in need, provide safe places for at-risk children, set up a database to help trace children to their families, and offer services such as counselling and legal advice. Separately, I understand that seventy-five UK experts are being deployed to Greece to facilitate more effective reception screening and processing of newly arrived migrants. This approach will also help identify children and see that they are given appropriate support and care at the earliest opportunity. I am all for helping our European neighbours wherever we can, but I do not see value in moving children from safe countries whilst there are others who need our help in the zone of conflict.
As a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), I serve on its Committee for Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons. This migration crisis dominates our discussions with member countries closest to the conflict zone including Turkey, informing our conversations. In our January session, the Council of European Human Rights Commissioner explained to the British delegation how, in hindsight, our approach in tackling the issue as close to the conflict zone as possible was the right one.
I believe all Members of Parliament are committed to doing the right thing for children affected by this conflict. I continue to follow this matter closely and will always get involved whenever I can. At the end of May, I am due to travel to Greece in my PACE role, to see the situation there first hand. I am proud of the contribution the UK is making and the good we have already done. While I understand the view of those who speak in support for the Lord Dubs amendment, I do believe that the approach set out by the Government provides the best way to help the most vulnerable.
