Govia Thameslink and Network Rail

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. Unlike some Thameslink services, this debate has started on time and will finish on time. I am determined that everyone should be able to speak, so I will impose from the first Back-Bench speech a time limit of five minutes. If hon. Members are sparing with interventions, everyone should have that amount of time. Very generously, the Scottish National party spokesman and the Labour spokesman have said that they do not need to take their full allocation. I know that the Minister will want to use any extra time at the end to answer points. I hope to start calling the Front Benchers at 3.34 pm, and then Mr Quin gets another three minutes at the end to sum up the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nusrat Ghani]

I wholeheartedly agree. I want to describe the events on the network in an average week, which Southern itself later admitted in an email was “particularly disruptive for passengers”—for which I read “failing to deliver a service”. Southern cited

“a series of incidents affecting the service each day.”

For that, I read “complete and utter management failure”. We had signalling failures at Norwood, Bognor and London Bridge, a power supply failure at Littlehaven, a major signalling failure at Purley, a train at Coulsdon with door problems, a Horsham-bound service with power issues, a broken-down train at Clapham Junction and, once again, crew shortages. All of that has a knock-on effect on the Uckfield line. Southern has failed on its own baseline public performance measure. I would like to know how the management is being held to account and what the penalties are.

Last year, Southern decided to publish a fantasy timetable—a bit like a fantasy football team, I believe, because it had no bearing on the experiences of the passengers on the line. On 5 January, a rail replacement bus service missed a connection at Crowborough and the train that London commuters had to get instead terminated at Oxted. There were so many passengers waiting that people struggled to disembark from the terminated train because there was literally no room on the platform. Figures from the Office of Rail Regulation just last week showed that the number of stops skipped by Govia has increased to 6,732 and that as many as 200 people are regularly turfed out at Crowborough so that the train going up to London can be on time.

The situation is not just dire; it is unsafe. My constituent Alistair, from Crowborough, wrote last week that

“if a serious incident took place, it would be physically impossible to move to a neighbouring carriage, such is the level of overcrowding in Standard Class.”

We all get regular correspondence on the issue, and the local radio station for Uckfield has a more or less regular slot on constituents’ frustrations with travelling on the Uckfield line. I had to share with my constituents, after a recent summit meeting with GTR executives, the appalling news that the horizon for improvements was to be pushed back again by six months, to 18 months. Wealden would like to know when this journey from hell will end, and I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will join me in calling on the Transport Committee to enter the fray.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Last, but certainly not least, I call Huw Merriman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The figure I gave was for England as a whole, but his intervention encapsulates the point that our constituents have felt the pain caused by rail growth and it would be good to see them get the upside from future investment. It is also important that our constituents can see these data, so that they can believe that better times are around the corner.

The rail Minister has championed the cause that I have just outlined, and I am grateful for the manner in which she has sought to bring these organisations together. However, the recent ice on the lines issue appeared to suggest a breakdown of communication between Network Rail and our rail operators on 12 February. It would be helpful for Network Rail to deliver a post-mortem for that day to show that lessons have been learned to reduce the impact of major one-off incidents.

In conclusion, I recognise the challenges that Southern faces. Some of them are a result of the huge Government investment in engineering and station redevelopment work. However, the constituents in Sussex must receive the better travelling environment that their forbearance deserves.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

All nine Back-Bench speeches were within the five-minute time limit, which is an example that any good train operator would want to follow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister disagrees. I am enquiring, so perhaps she can enlighten and correct me. A number of Members have clearly made that reasonable demand on electronic ticketing, and it seems eminently sensible. We want to know what happened to that investment and how it will be progressed.

Finally, I was heartened to hear many Members from across the territory express, on behalf of their constituents, the need for proper staffing levels to be maintained in our railway stations. Many people spoke about difficulties in accessing ticket machines and computer systems. Often that was beyond their capabilities, whether because of information technology illiteracy, learning difficulties or other issues. That strong message came from Members’ contributions today. Will the Minister comment on how we can secure those reassurances that all members of the travelling public need? They need to see that human interface, and sadly it is clearly lacking in the operation of the franchise.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

If the Minister is kind enough to conclude her remarks no later than 3.57, that will allow Mr Quin three minutes to sum up before I put the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Quin]

rose—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. If Mr Quin will allow me 30 seconds at the end, I will be able to put the motion to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones]

I know the city of Bradford very well, having gone to school there and lived just outside it for many years. I would have expected the hon. Gentleman to welcome the investment that we are seeing in rail. Appley Bridge railway station has only just opened in his constituency, and he has had investment in Frizinghall as well. We are seeing investment across the north, including in West Yorkshire, and there is the ability to keep fares down in the Metro region. I repeat my point about how we have capped regulated rail fares and removed the fare “flex”.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

One of the problems for local bus passengers is congestion and delays. People in Kettering always say that, when the traffic lights stop working, the traffic flows much better. Given that the Minister is responsible for local roads, will he consider undertaking a pilot whereby we can switch traffic lights off and get traffic and buses flowing more freely?

[Andrew Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an ingenious link to the cost of public transport. I am aware, because I hear it quite regularly in my own area as well, that traffic is said to flow more freely when traffic lights do not work. I have major reservations about that argument. At the same time, initiatives are being put in place to keep traffic flowing. I will have a look at what my hon. Friend says, but we should be very cautious about removing traffic lights, as they are a key ingredient in road safety.

Towed Trailers

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Karin Smyth]

I am grateful for that intervention. I agree that sentences are an issue, although the Hussey family do not want to look at them. It is surprising that there are no checks at the moment, and I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to that.

That case was raised in Parliament at the time. Having expressed his condolences, the then Under-Secretary of State for Transport responded to the then Member for Amber Valley:

“Introducing MOT-style tests for such trailers is a possibility that we have considered before, and it is a matter that we keep under review. There have been several such accidents in recent months, and I will certainly consider the matter with officials in the Department to see whether we need to move on that.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 1354.]

As I was aware from that parliamentary record that the Department pledged to keep the issue under review, last August I wrote to the Minister to draw attention to that case. I asked to see any documentation or advice that his Department officials had provided, and I asked whether the Department had considered whether it is now appropriate to introduce MOT-type tests for small trailers. The somewhat terse reply was:

“I am not able to provide information about advice given to Ministers in a previous government.”

It stated that the testing of small trailers had been considered at a European Union level in 2014, but that it would not be mandated. It did not explain why, so my constituents remain in the dark. It concluded, in the fourth short paragraph of four, by repeating that the Minister is not considering introducing MOT tests for small trailers at this time. Again, it failed to explain why. It prompted me and my constituents to ask, what has changed since 2008 and why? Had incidents of trailers becoming detached fallen or ceased? We know that they have not. In 2008, the Government kept the matter under review. Had the active review policy changed? If so, when? Who changed it? Why? My constituents are angry, but they are dignified and tenacious. They have asked me to seek answers. I have tried, but the Minister’s written responses have been unhelpful, in the opinion of those who have read them, because they failed to give answers to those key questions and prompted further questions.

Let me be clear. I am not calling for the Government to introduce a compulsory MOT test for trailers immediately, although I would like the Minister to set out how UK law compares with that of other countries that do have roadworthiness tests for towed trailers. It might be that a change in the law is the right course for the UK, but at this stage I, along with the family whom I represent, want to understand fully why the considerations that were actively undertaken as recently as 2008 have now apparently been dropped. If the process of introducing such a test is felt to be too bureaucratic or too expensive for trailer owners or for the taxpayer or both, what is the evidence base? Perhaps the issue is not considered important enough to justify public expenditure. Will the Minister please explain the sums involved? Speaking of the evidence base, will he outline data showing the number of recorded incidents of trailers becoming detached? If he will not or cannot, will he accept my constituents’ help in understanding the levels, and therefore the extent, of the issue, which would then allow them to contribute in some way to shaping future Department for Transport policy on an issue that has devastated their family and their south Bristol community?

Finally, will the Minister agree to meet my constituents, should they wish it, so that he can explain personally, face to face, what the Government can do to address this serious issue? My constituents believe that it cannot be long before there are further fatalities and, based on my research, I agree with them. They know that they cannot rewrite history, but they want to help shape a better future and to do all that they can to help avoid any other families suffering as they do. As a minimum, the Government should publish any evidence they have considered around trailer safety and allow further consideration of how tragic deaths from unsafe trailers can be avoided in the future in this country.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I should advise the House that my information is that there are likely to be two Divisions at 4.20 pm, in which case the sitting will be suspended, the clock will stop on the Minister, and he will have to come back to finish his remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

I will come on to further points, so perhaps we can pick up some of the issues then.

One issue that came out clearly in the hon. Lady’s speech was MOT-type testing. As I said earlier, smaller trailers are not subject to MOT testing, although larger ones are. There is no statutory or comprehensive national database to identify small trailers or to detail when they were built, so any such MOT scheme would prove difficult to implement.

A more universal testing regime for smaller trailers, such as those with the O2 category, was considered as part of a 2013 debate on the European Union roadworthiness directive. At the time, EU member states were in agreement that a scheme to register and test those vehicles throughout Europe was disproportionately burdensome—that was the phrase used—to establish and operate. Unless a registration scheme for such vehicles were established in advance of any testing scheme, it would be hard for enforcement authorities to check effectively that a trailer, such as a caravan, had its own authentic test pass certificate or, indeed, documentation on who owned it. It would be too easy, for example, for a certificate to be used for another, similar vehicle.

It might help our debate if I detail some accident data—I am aware that the hon. Lady’s opening speech included a request for more data to be published and, if I can find more, I will certainly write to her with that information. The number of accidents and casualties involving towed vehicles, compared with other types of vehicles, is low, at about 1% of all accidents. If we take 2014, the latest full year of data, 268,527 vehicles were involved in road accidents of all severities on the roads in our country. Within that total, 1,257 vehicles were towing a trailer, which equates to less than 1% of all vehicles involved in reported road accidents. Obviously that is absolutely no comfort whatever to families who have lost someone in any kind of incident, including the Husseys.

Furthermore, in many of those accidents the trailers are of the larger type, over 3.5 tonnes. Such heavier trailers are used by the operators of HGVs and for many years have been registered and tested under the DVSA’s heavy vehicles plating and testing scheme. The drivers are also used to towing trailers day after day, in the normal course of their jobs.

In respect of large and small trailers, much of the work on road safety, including in relation to careless driving, mobile phone use, drug-hindered driving and drink-driving, is also relevant to those vehicle combinations and applies to drivers irrespective of what they are driving. In the case that we have been discussing, I understand that the failure was to do with coupling the trailer to the Land Rover, which was an error by the driver. It is therefore unlikely that that type of failure would be picked up in a test designed for equipment, such as an equivalent to the MOT test for trailers.

The available data suggest that most accidents involving light trailers relate to driver behaviour, such as inappropriate driving behaviour for the conditions or breaking the speed limit. Indeed, the national speed limits for vehicles towing trailers, including caravans, are lower than standard national road speed limits. That is because of the handling characteristics of those vehicle combinations. Sixty miles per hour is the legal maximum on motorways and other dual carriageways, with 50 mph being the maximum on single carriageway roads, subject to the national 60 mph limit for general traffic.

I want lessons to be learned from the sad case that we have been discussing. We should all bear in mind the comments made about the family’s aspirations. I have met many families who have lost loved ones in road accidents, and I am happy to meet with the Husseys, should they wish to do so. We are always seeking to learn lessons, so I will spend a little time on what we can do with driver behaviour.

I will ask the DVSA to review all the advice it publishes about trailer safety. That will include in relation to trailer coupling—[Interruption.]

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House on the Opposition day motion. I think there will be another Division straight afterwards, on the Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, so I will suspend the sitting until after the second Division, when the Minister will have five and a half minutes remaining.

Transport for London Funding

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. I have before me three of London’s finest Members and we have half an hour before I call the Front-Bench spokesmen, which I want to do no later than 10.30 am. If all three hon. Gentlemen want to speak, and to be fair to each other, I ask them please to take no more than 10 minutes each.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am sure that the Minister will have heard that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) made some fascinating points. The point about the cruise terminal was new to me, but I hope that others will hear it. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) continued his fantastic campaign on the Transport for London Bill, reiterating points that were made in a debate a few weeks ago and that, doubtless, will be made again. I will return to those.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) took me back to my childhood: I used to be driven by my parents from south London through the Blackwall tunnel when there was only one tunnel. I remember the pong, which I think was from a dog biscuit factory. Some things do not change, really, and there is clearly much more work to be done. His points about the unfairness of potentially charging his constituents to cross the river were well made.

I want to talk a little more generally about London’s transport system. As someone from outside London, I have to say that London’s system is widely admired as a model of excellence. There are now more passenger journeys in the capital than in the rest of England combined. In the UK, other metropolitan areas—including Manchester, notably—are keen to bring in Oyster-style, multi-platform, integrated smart ticketing. Indeed, I understand that Singapore’s Land Transport Authority last year announced a new Government contracting model after explicitly studying the bus systems of London and Australia; they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and that is clearly the case here.

We all know that the Department for Transport took a huge hit in the comprehensive spending review, as did the Department for Communities and Local Government. I fear that the repercussions will reverberate through the quality and connectivity of the transport system across the entire country. I am also sure, regrettably, that the savage reductions in funding and subsequent cuts to transport services will be keenly felt by all those who rely on them to go about their daily life. It is distressing but simple: cuts to central Government funding and local authority budgets mean that services will suffer.

Let us remember that in 2013 TfL’s operational funding was slashed by a quarter, requiring it to identify £16 billion in savings by 2021. Last month it was announced that the grant worth £700 million in 2015-16 will be phased out by the end of the decade. The Department for Transport said that this may be mitigated by “new commercial freedoms” for TfL. The implications of those commercial freedoms are potentially significant, and I will largely focus on them.

Along with funding for cycling nationally, London’s dedicated transport funding has been deliberately targeted in the spending review. As of 2014-15, a record 8.6 million people were living in the capital. By 2030, that figure is forecast to reach 10 million, rising again to 11 million by 2050. The pressures on the capital’s transport system will only intensify. TfL has already been making fierce and highly controversial cuts, but even it said in its annual budget last year:

“It is becoming progressively more difficult to achieve this without compromising our core services.”

I would be grateful if the Minister could offer some assurances about how the cut to TfL’s revenue support has been planned. It is well known that before the late 1990s, London Regional Transport was plagued by a pattern of annualised budgets and sudden funding reductions, which in turn created huge inefficiencies. TfL has more long-term financial certainty under Labour’s Greater London Authority Act 1999, but can the Minister really guarantee that additional costs will not be created—for example, in variations to TfL’s commercial contracts—as a result of this decision? We need further assurances.

Since October 2013, the bus service operators grant, which was previously paid to bus operators that were running bus services under franchise to TfL, has been incorporated into the general grant paid to TfL and the Greater London Authority. Now that TfL’s grant is being snatched by the Treasury, so too is this important grant that pays bus operators to keep costs down and helps to subsidise fares for ordinary people. BSOG was already cut by 20% in the previous Parliament, with the total value of the grant across the country falling from £469 million in 2009-10 to £298 million in 2013-14. Now the Government are quietly removing it from TfL entirely. That is unacceptable, and we will not let it go unnoticed. I would greatly appreciate the Minister’s assurance that BSOG will again be allocated to the capital on a separate basis; otherwise, this is clear discrimination against London.

TfL passes part of its grant to the boroughs to spend on local road maintenance and improvement. I am sure that those boroughs would be pleased to be told how that will be funded when TfL’s operational funding is soon reduced to zero. We have heard about the other possible method that TfL might use to alleviate the loss of the grant and to raise revenue to invest in London’s transport network. That method—the so-called commercial freedoms—is proving especially controversial, and many of my hon. Friends have already raised concerns about the wider implications.

The Department for Transport has stated that TfL could save the necessary £700 million a year by generating additional income from the land it owns in London, or with the “additional financial flexibility” that the Government will provide it with. TfL is one of the largest landowners, owning 5,700 acres of land in the capital and more than 500 potential major development sites. Against this backdrop of cuts, it is only natural that TfL wants to plug at least partially the gap that the grant will leave by selling off existing or underused facilities. We support making good use of assets, but there are certain issues that really must be addressed.

First, we need to be sure that forced sales will not, paradoxically, have an adverse impact on the very transport system that they are trying to fund. Selling off land might seem like a good deal in the short term, but it might not look so bright a few years later, when it transpires that the land is needed to expand transport services to meet increasing demand. If TfL land is to be used for housing, let us at least ensure that it is housing at a price that ordinary Londoners can afford. We need a pledge from the Minster that there will be a strong affordable housing element in such developments—particularly important given the disastrous general housing policies being pursued by the Government. Sadly, I have little confidence that that will be achieved.

We are deeply sceptical of the Government’s motives and fear that the asset sell-offs will be all about short-term gain at the expense of securing a future transport system for ordinary Londoners. I do not have time to go into the nitty-gritty of the argument, but the proposed mechanism for property development—namely, the provision allowing limited partnerships—is deeply worrying. I am sure that there will be time enough to discuss that controversial element when the Transport for London Bill wends its way back to us from the other place. Ultimately, a long-term investment strategy aimed at raising money to reinvest in the transport system is one thing, but short-term profiteering on property development is quite another.

In conclusion, TfL’s transport system works, and it ought to be protected, but it is at serious risk from a Government who seek short-term savings and do not understand the importance and value of a widely admired but pressured system that keeps our great capital city moving.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

It would be appreciated if the Minister would be kind enough to allow Mr Thomas just a few minutes to sum up at the end.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

We have made money—£125 million—available to the Welsh Assembly. I have met Edwina Hart to discuss this programme, and I am also in regular contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. It is, however, for the Welsh Assembly to come forward with its plans.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his confirmation that the midland main line will be electrified to Kettering by 2019. Will he assure the House that the lessons learned from the Great Western electrification will be applied to that line so that its electrification can be delivered quickly and efficiently?

[Mr Speaker]

That was a neat body swerve by the hon. Gentleman to ensure that his question was definitively in order—a textbook example to colleagues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

The last time a major upgrade was done by the Labour party, it set out as a £2 billion scheme and ended as a £12 billion scheme—and then was, I think, scaled back to a £9 billion scheme. It would be wrong of me, therefore, to say exactly what the future course of action will be until I have Sir Peter Hendy’s report—he starts work today. However, I am committed to seeing the electrification as laid out, and to the 850 miles that we will be putting in place over this period of electrification, as opposed to the 10 miles of electrification that the last Labour Government put in place in their full 13 years.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State ensure that the pre-electrification line-speed improvements on the midland main line, which will be hugely welcomed and increase the number of trains out of St Pancras from five to six an hour, will have the knock-on effect of reinstating the half-hourly service northwards from Kettering which was taken away by the last Labour Government?

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend has been forceful in that campaign, and I will certainly look at whether those opportunities will arise as a result of what I hope will be the increase in frequency of services between St Pancras and the midlands.

Network Rail

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I accept that what passengers had to put up with earlier this year at London Bridge was unacceptable; I do not think anybody would argue with that for one second. I will certainly look at the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestions on how passenger services can be improved, but the refurbishment taking place at London Bridge means that passengers will see a hugely better-built station with more capacity. It will be a great enhancement to passenger services once it is finished, but I accept that some of the delays and the way in which information was given out was absolutely unacceptable, and both Network Rail and we have learned lessons from that incident.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

A pause in the electrification project for the midland main line is not good news from my Kettering constituents, especially when the rate of return on the project is greater than that for the Great Western electrification, where all the delays and problems have occurred. What effect will that have, if any, on the timing of the franchise renewal for the midland main line? Given that my right hon. Friend has just told the House that better services can be achieved before electrification, will he do his best to reinstate either before or in the franchise renewal the half-hourly service north from Kettering, which was halved under the previous Labour Government?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will certainly look at what my hon. Friend asks for and see if it is possible. The extended franchise that I have set out, and which we will look at, for East Midlands Trains is on target, but when we go out for re-franchising there will be an opportunity to look in greater detail at some of the improvements that my hon. Friend has just called for.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2015 Commons Chamber

The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

6. What proportion of waste on the parliamentary estate was recycled in (a) 2010 and (b) the most recent period for which figures are available.

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)]

The percentage of all waste arising from the parliamentary estate that was recycled or recovered in 2010 was 52.1%. In 2014, it was 62.8%. This shows a fairly considerable improvement; however, we are a little below what we need to be to make sure we are on track for our 2020 target.

[Mr Hollobone]

Which recyclable waste streams are in practice the least recycled, and what are the plans to improve that in the next Parliament?

[John Thurso]

My hon. Friend asks me a question to which I do not have an accurate answer—or, rather, to which I do not have an answer. I am sure that an accurate answer exists, but I just do not have it. I should make that distinction quite clear. However, what we do is operate to the waste hierarchy, of which I am sure he is aware. First, we try to ensure that the waste does not happen. When it does happen, we seek to recycle it in the most effective way possible. We only dispose of it if it is absolutely necessary.

Harvey’s Law

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hayes]

With her usual perspicacity, my hon. Friend anticipates the final commitment that I wish to offer. The Highways Agency is of course responsible for large roads—the key arterial routes—but it is my estimation that the majority of fatalities among cats and dogs are on local roads. The Highways Agency looks after our motorways and major trunk roads, but I believe that we can go further. Following this debate, I intend not only to communicate with Transport for London but to write to all local highways authorities throughout the country to draw their attention to the Government’s position and invite them to reflect on their own local policy. That would not only take us back to where we were in respect of the mandatory obligation to collect, record and notify owners; it would take us further than we have ever been if we were able to bring about a circumstance whereby we were doing the right thing on roads throughout the country.

I was describing Dickens’ claim that there is no greater love than the love of a cat or dog, which brings me, finally, to Hemingway. He is not one of my favourite writers—that might be for political reasons—but he did sum up what I said at the start of this debate about why animals have the effect on us that they do. He was speaking of cats, but he might well have been speaking of dogs too, when he said:

“A cat has absolute emotional honesty: human beings, for one reason or another, may hide their feelings, but a cat does not”,

and dogs do not either. Today, Members have not hidden their feelings, and neither should they have. I am a Minister who never hides my feelings.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

It is my great misfortune to have missed most of this debate, but I need not fear, because Mr Derek Twigg is going to sum it all up in the next few minutes.

London Bridge Station (Redevelopment)

Philip Hollobone Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Clive Efford, the second in the trio of south-east London’s finest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dowd]

Indeed I do, but while communications are one thing, people want to rely on performance. If trains are running properly and with enough capacity, they do not need explanations. Communication is needed when things go wrong, and they are going wrong far too often via London Bridge. There is much else that I am tempted to say, but I have gone beyond the time that we agreed, so I will leave it there.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

There is only a slight delay on the line, Mr Dowd, so I would not worry too much.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman is aware that that is a temporary reduction in the service, designed to let the new timetable, which is more disruptive for Southern operations rather than Southeastern, bed in. The hope is that those services will be restored as soon as possible. I am very aware of the concerns.

Let me put it on the record that all of us realise that many people at London Bridge station are working very hard on a daily basis to deal with the disruption. These are people on the front line—operational staff. We would all like to pass on our thanks to everyone out there who is trying to maximise convenience for passengers.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The debate has come in a few seconds early, so it will be my job to suspend the sitting until half-past 2 this afternoon.