Southern Rail Crisis

Hello.

Exasperated commuters, unhealthily packed trains,

and companies forced out of business.

Britain's worst rail strike in 20 years has meant misery for hundreds

and thousands of people and tonight we are hosting a debate

on the crisis on Southern Rail.

The train fares are going up but the service has been not

been getting better.

The trains are ridiculous.

I don't know who's right and who's wrong.

Somebody has got to sort it out or something is going to have

to change and negotiate.

I try to empathise with why they are striking.

If the company gets round the table and we can hammer out a deal then

we can call off these strikes and get back to work.

We will try to get you onto the train.

It's really difficult to negotiate with another party who don't

understand compromise.

I don't think the Prime Minister has any idea of the level of suffering

and pain that rail passengers and businesses are suffering.

There is only one body responsible for the current strike.

This is a strike from the trade unions.

Let me start by introducing our panel.

Mick Lynch is the assistant general secretary of the RMT.

Mr Lynch has said he is sorry that people have had to put

up with strike action but it is for the company

to get round the table and we can hammer out a deal.

Well, the man who says he is more than happy to hammer out a deal

with the unions is stood right next to Mick Lynch, and is

Charles Horton, the chief executive of Southern.

Huw Merriman MP is an influential member of the Transport Select

Committee, and we also have Caroline Pidgeon, chair

of the London Assembly's Transport Committee.

Now, without further delay, to coin a phrase, our first question

is from Dominic Morgan, a health care consultant from Hove

who commutes to Hammersmith.

As a daily commuter from Hove to London, I'm forced to stand

on packed trains when services are cancelled due

to industrial action.

The other day I saw an 85-year-old man sitting on the floor

because he couldn't physically get to the priority seats

just a few feet away because the train was so packed.

Do you acknowledge that your industrial action is causing

unprecedented disruption to the lives of ordinary working

people like myself and is also causing far more safety incidents

than would ever happen due to driver operated doors,

and how do you justify this?

Thank you.

This question goes to the very heart of this dispute.

Southern wants to bring in something called driver

only operated trains, DOO, where the driver rather

than the conductor opens and closes the doors.

It is an argument that has been destroying people's lives

for the past eight months because the company,

the union and the government cannot agree whether driver only operated

trains are safe.

Now, Mick Lynch, you note the regulator has said

that it is safe, so why are you striking?

To answer the gentleman's question, I am sorry and I am aware

of the unprecedented disruption and I do not want that to happen.

I want a settlement to this dispute based on a common-sense

approach from both parties, and we think that is available right

now, this afternoon, if Charles wants to go outside

and draft something up with me.

That settlement is available immediately.

What is stopping the settlement is the attitude of the company

towards changing the way that the trains are operated.

There are two modes of operating trains available

to this company to run.

Earlier last year, they chose to implement and then impose

a change to driver only operation.

We believe that is unsafe.

It is not about opening and closing doors.

That is one element of a conductor's role.

It is about an entire suite of safety critical competencies,

including evacuation, emergencies, fires, collisions.

All sorts of incidents which could happen on the railway

where a safety critical second person is vital to the welfare

of the passengers guaranteed to be on board.

That is what the dispute is about.

You have accepted that the rail regulator has said that driver only

operated trains are safe.

I accept they have said they are safe but they haven't

said they are safer.

They have never at any stage in this period said they are safer

than running with two people on board.

Two safety critical people.

But there are trains which already run with just drivers.

How many accidents have been on those trains?

30% of the services in Britain run with a driver only

operation operation.

The majority mode in Britain, the orthodox mode, is running

with two people on board.

The safety critical record of the driver only operation is not

as good as with a second person.

Trap and drag incidents on platforms are going up.

We had the incident at Watford a few weeks ago where trains collided

and the driver was incapacitated and trapped in the cab.

They couldn't move.

Let's put these things to Charles.

The guard evacuated that train, evacuated people, took care

of people that were injured, and coordinated the

emergency services.

That has got nothing to do with doors.

That is about having a competent person on board

to take care of the public in emergency situations.

Charles Horton, are you going to remove that second person

from Southern trains?

We are not.

I will come onto that...

You are.

If I can start by saying, I am deeply sorry for the inconvenience

caused to customers now and I think the union's action is grossly

disproportionate and I also think they are causing immeasurable damage

not only to passengers but also to the regional economy as well

and it is an appalling situation.

Coming back to the question you have asked me, no,

we are not removing a second person from the train.

Yes, you are.

In fact, there will be...

Hang on a second, Mick Lynch.

Let him say his piece and we will come back to you.

There will be a second safety trained person...

Not safety critical.

On more trains...

Guaranteed on every train?

Let him speak.

Goodness sake.

Are they guaranteed on every train?

Let him speak.

There will be a second safety trained person on more trains

than there were at the start of this dispute.

Do you take any responsibility for this crisis?

For this dispute?

It cannot all be the union's fault.

We are doing our level best to take this dispute sorted and right

throughout this whole process we have put a number

of compromises on the table...

What are they?

To try and get...

What are those compromises?

We put an 8-point plan to the RMT which was intended

to settle the dispute.

It gave guarantees around jobs, guarantees around pay,

guarantees for the future about how we would work.

I'm afraid they were unwilling to compromise.

Hang on a second.

Wait a minute.

Because the compromise that has been put to you is that the second

person will be guaranteed.

The second person, according to Charles Horton,

unless you think he is lying, is that a second person will be

guaranteed on the trains.

We will come to the safety critical point in just one moment.

Do you accept that?

Charles Horton will not guarantee a second person on every train.

Tell the public you are going to guarantee a safety critical

person on every train.

Let him answer.

Look into the camera and say it.

What we have guaranteed is that we build roster a second

-- What we have guaranteed is that we will roster a second

safety trained person on as many trains as had them before...

LAUGHTER.

He won't say it.

Will you allow me to finish?

Go on.

A second safety trained person on as many trains as we had

before this started.

In fact, we have recruited 100 additional people to make

sure that we do this.

And on top of that, what we will make sure is that those

second safety trained people are better able to look

after customers, because, freed up from operational tasks,

they are much better able to get through trains

and look after customers.

Collect revenue.

Which is what customers say they want.

Before I go back to the panel, and certainly to Huw Merriman

and Caroline Pidgeon, let's just hear a few more personal

stories from the audience.

If we can go to Emma Green from Littlehampton, who has

quit her job due to the strike.

Can you give us your story?

I started a new job in London, commuting.

I had been a commuter before so it wasn't new to me.

I am a single mum with an eight-year-old son.

In June when I started, literally from the first day,

I experienced horrendous delays, getting home on average 2.5 hours

after I'd left in office, and as bad as 4.5 hours.

With an eight-year-old son, a 3-, 4-, 4.5-hour

journey isn't acceptable.

So by July I had quit my job and taken a job closer to home,

losing myself ?7,000 a year and therefore putting my family

finances at risk as well.

But I did that so I could see my son because you could not get me

home on time to do so.

Right.

So my question to the panel is how many more people's lives

have to be affected?

How many more have to leave their jobs, lose their jobs

and have their family life significantly disrupted

as a result of your services?

May I just add, these are not purely down to strikes?

They were bad before the strikes started.

APPLAUSE AND CHEERING.

Well, you can hear the strength of feeling.

The rights of passengers have got to be far more important than this

cheap political point-scoring that we have heard this evening

and I feel so frustrated, as a Southern passenger myself,

I know the pain, Emma, you are going through,

worrying whether you're going to get there to pick up your child on time,

if you are even going to make the nativity play,

because the driver doesn't show up for the train.

I am living this with you every day, and thousands

and thousands of passengers.

It is really affecting people on modest incomes.

If you are a higher earner, you may well be able

to work flexibly from home, but actually it is those people

who have got to go in to do the shift at the hospital,

the shift at the shop, they are the ones who are so

affected by this and are powerless with this dispute going on.

There were issues before.

Let's not beat about the bush.

GTR were very poor in terms of driver recruitment and I have

raised this many times with Charles and I know they are recruiting more,

but the unions have got to get a grip on this and get

round the table and come up with a deal because we are all suffering,

including your members will be suffering with their

pay packet being cut.

May I just say, this is not a choice between having a second safety

trained person on the train or not.

We are saying that there will be a second safety trained person

on these trains and we are also saying that there will be more

trains with a second safety trained person on them.

That is the case.

Before I come back...

When I sit opposite him in the negotiating room,

that is not the case.

What he says is, I cannot guarantee a person on every train and I am

going to run the trains without that second person.

I put it to you, Charles, if you guarantee that second

person on every train, we can get an agreement.

Every train that runs.

Can you guarantee that?

Then what we will do, we will define what that

person does, jointly, together, along with Aslef, we will

define what that person's role is.

Most employers in this country, as far as I know,

when they are paying the same wage for the same job, they want that

person to do as many tasks, take on as many

responsibilities as possible.

Let Charles Horton answer.

They refuse to do that.

They will not agree to guarantee...

Let him answer.

If they do that, we've got a deal.

Can you guarantee that?

So, to repeat what I've said to Mick Lynch in private

and in public is that we are going to have a second safety trained

person on more trains than at the start of the dispute.

That is...

What I will also say is that in certain predefined circumstances,

if we cannot get a second safety trained person to that train,

we will let that train go and we will get that person to that

train as quickly as possible, because what that means is that

customers suffer fewer delays, fewer cancellations, and fewer

disruptions to their journeys.

That is what they tell me they want.

Are those weasel words by Charles Horton?

Are those weasel words or do you think that really

constitutes a genuine offer, a change from what has

been going on?

I do, but I should just say I can understand why

the audience is so confused.

You sound like you're getting two conflicting points here.

What we have come to, and I have a lot of sympathy

with the unions...

I had a huge amount of sympathy with the unions on decision

-- I had a huge amount of sympathy with the unions on this issue

because I wanted a second member on the trains.

But if it is safe for a train to dispatch without that second

person on board then I didn't want my train on Southern to be

cancelled, and that is what this really comes down to.

So what Southern have said is that in exceptional circumstances

they would want that train to roll.

My point to the unions was you should have a sit-down

and draw out an agreement on what those exceptional

circumstances are, but they are refusing to do so.

That is what I find so frustrating.

Exceptional circumstances should be where if the second member of staff

is stuck further down in Dorking and the train has to go

and then pick him up then it continues to roll.

When it comes down to it, if Southern are putting more second

members of staff on board, and not only that, rather than them

being stuck on one carriage, opening and closing doors,

they can go and spend time with customers,

sell tickets, reassure, look after safety, then this

strikes me as better than what we had previously.

But they are not safety critical.

Right, OK, at that point, let's talk to Huw Merriman

a little bit about the role of the government, or the lack

of intervention by the government, as some people would put it.

We asked Chris Grayling, the Transport Secretary,

and the Rail Minister, Paul Maynard, to take part

tonight but they declined.

Should they have been here?

Should they have been here, Huw Merriman, to answer

the questions and the very tragic, actually, in some cases,

stories of people in the audience.

I think one of the difficulties is that if you also have a member

of the government here then you will end up with three people

having quite a bit of a bunfight.

I stand here before you as a member of the Transport Select Committee

to try and bring a little bit of balance and sort of some

technical ideas into this particular debate, so of course I can't speak

for them but, when it comes down to it, we are told this

issue is about safety, it is not about politics.

Therefore there has to be a technical solution for this rather

than a political intervention.

It is certainly the case that the government ministers

are highly focused, they work very closely with Southern to try to come

up with some of these proposals, so this guarantee on jobs,

and this guarantee on pay and indeed pay rises is one such idea.

Have we been let down by the government on this issue?

Shouldn't they have intervened earlier?

Again, you talk about intervention but it is not the government

that is refusing to drive trains which the independent safety

regulator has decreed are safe.

have

have Southern Rail with their track record.

This isn't one of the disputes, look back in the '80s where you had

a similar dispute in terms of time, the miners dispute where

you were looking at jobs being lost and an industry in decline.

This is an industry where passenger numbers have doubled and pay

and jobs have been guaranteed for the length of this franchise.

This is nothing like it.

It's hard for the government to come up with more.

The question may be whether Parliament has to give

the government more powers in legislation to bring

this matter to an end.

Mick Lynch, are you declaring war on the government?

Is this a bigger power play to try and injure or bring

down a Tory government?

No.

As your colleague said, well, the RMT president,

Sean Hoyle reportedly said any trade unionist with any sense wants

to bring down this bloody working class-hating Tory

government, do you agree with him?

Sean Hoyle doesn't speak for the RMT.

This is about this dispute and this dispute is about safety.

Huw wants to give us guarantees about money and jobs,

we don't want those guarantees in this context, we want

a settlement on this dispute.

The dispute is being intervened in everyday by the government

because they are preventing a settlement because they want

to extend DOO all over the network and extend this principle,

set a principle.

They run this company directly, with Charles as their agent.

Are using this as a campaign to protect your jobs

and protect public services?

No.

Sean Hoyle was speaking out of turn?

He is not correct in the context of this dispute, no.

Right, so he was wrong.

Does that stoke the fire of a wider political gain.

He has been quoted out of context.

How can you be quoted out of context?

He was speaking about another dispute a few months ago.

This context is that Chris Grayling is happy for this dispute

to carry on because he wants to smash the unions.

His senior official in the DFT has gone on record in a meeting

like this, saying it.

He used to work for Southern as a director, by the way.

We could get a settlement if they would come to the table

and say they guarantee a second person on every train.

Caroline Pidgeon, you would like to see Southern

stripped of the franchise?

I absolutely would and I would like to see Transport

for London running the suburban metro services over the next

few years and the other franchises within London.

We have seen where Transport for London run franchises in London

they have a company running it at a fixed price and they take

the fares risk, but we get fully staffed stations.

Isn't that what we want to see?

Fully staffed stations is what we want to see,

so people with disabilities can turn up and go.

The audience are heckling about the fact that

there is no evidence that

Transport for London would do a better job.

There have been three Mayors and they have all been dogged by RMT

strikes on the London Underground and it continues.

Absolutely, we have threats of strikes and strikes are happening

all the time but I really think in terms of suburban rail services,

having Transport for London and the Mayor directly

running those services, able to respond to local

concerns and having fully

staffed stations from first to last train it transforms the network

and we don't have that with some of the train operators at the moment

and I would like to see that in London and it really would help

people with mobility issues so they can turn up

and use any rail service like the rest of us.

Let's hear from Tim Loughton who has spoken about the company

and said it is a shambles.

Do you believe that they can resolve this dispute or they should be

stripped of their franchise?

I have no problem with them being stripped of the franchise

but the franchise was defective in the first place, frankly.

Nobody comes out of this strike well.

APPLAUSE.

The franchise is too big to handle, it is almost a quarter of the

train-travelling public in this country.

I doubt whether any of the other train operating companies

could handle it in its current form and it needs to be broken up

and whether GTR remain in control of half of that I don't know

but the thing that is completely undermining any train operating

company running the service at the moment is a completely

unreasonable strike action.

It is crazy when we have Thameslink trains running

between London and Brighton, who are driver door only operator

trains and have been for some time without any safety considerations,

calling at the same stations on the same lines, and yet RMT

and Aslef are saying it would be safe for Southern

and Aslef are saying it wouldn't be safe for Southern

trains to do the same.

It is a complete and utter nonsense and what it comes down

to is a highly political strike.

What do you say to that?

It's a nonsense and you are exploiting the situation according

to Tim Loughton and other members of the audience.

Our members that live in Eastbourne and Horsham

and all the other depots are not raving militants,

the way they have been described, they are ordinary men and women,

career railway workers, who worry about their passengers.

That is why they are on strike and why they have been out for 28

days now and why they have turned down Charles Loughton's bribe.

days now and why they have turned down Charles Horton's bribe.

What the gentleman asked over there...

Why is it a bribe?

He said if you go away and be quiet we will give you ?2,000.

But that's not what he said.

But that's what he offered with his eight-point plan

we wouldn't take it.

Is that a bribe?

In the end is this a wider discussion for you and the unions,

about protecting jobs that aren't being taken away?

We'll go to Charles Horton and then come back to you. We made a

comprehensive eight-point offer which covered guarantees on jobs

and guaranteed methods of working and talked

about the training that we would give people.

Part of it was an offer...

We didn't ask for those.

If I may.

To help people through the transition.

We did say you can have a payment of ?2,000 to help you

with the transition.

Do you think you owe an apology to all the users of these routes?

I do apologise, but Charles must apologise as well.

He apologised at the beginning.

I do apologiese for the disruption.

If you go back to the beginning of this year there was no dispute

on Southern and Charles came forward with a plan to remove guards.

We told him before he did that, if you do that there will be trouble.

Aslef told him the same thing.

He chose to go forward.

The DFT try to get the Scottish Government to do the same thing.

The Scottish Transport Minister looked at it and said

"I'm not going there, I don't need to replace guards."

It said he's not going to make any money out of it,

he could have left the guards in place, had an efficient

service and run the system the way he wants to.

On the basis of Southern's performance, I've already read out

some of the statistics, you and some of your Conservative

colleagues and also Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, and Peter Carr,

the Labour MP, have said that Southern is a disgrace.

It has an appalling record.

Caroline Pidgeon is calling for the company to be

stripped of its franchise.

Why has the government not done something about a company

whose fare money it takes and whom the taxpayer has to fund

when you have to compensate commuters who do not get to work

or get home on time?

APPLAUSE.

The way franchise agreements all work is they have a clause

within them that if the poor performance is not down

to the rail operator but down

to either Network Rail or unofficial orofficial industrial action

to either Network Rail or unofficial or official industrial action

and you cannot strip a franchise operator of that franchise.

The irony of the union action is we cannot tell whether this poor

performance is down to Southern's management, yet, because it is

currently still being investigated by the Department for Transport.

If the unions gave away on this issue and returned back to work

we could really see if Southern are capable of running the system.

We can't right now.

If I go to this gentleman in the second row.

Yes?

My name is Steve and I'm from Eastbourne.

I'm an ex-train driver, up to about six years ago I worked

for Southern Rail who were a very good company to work for.

I worked at different depots and I have worked DOO and non-DOO

and I can say categorically you can run a train service DOO

but on the events that have happened to me over a period of years,

the travelling public are far less safe on the DOO train

that they are when there is a guard on-board.

I have had stabbings which couldn't be investigated early

enough and mass gang fights and inconvenience.

What you say about the 30% of trains and services in Britain

that are run on DOO?

In an ideal world they should all have a safety trained

guard and I think Charles is being economical with the truth

because you say you will put a second member of staff on board

but in exceptional circumstances it may not happen, well, I take

Huw's point that perhaps the union and Southern could decide

what is exceptional and what isn't otherwise it is subjective.

More importantly, please, at the moment the guards are safety

trained to a very high level which can include, for example,

leaving the train to late emergency protection, I believe.

leaving the train to lay emergency protection, I believe.

In the current climate, with the fear of terrorism,

will the new OBS be trained to exactly the same safety levels

that the current guards are?

What are the OBS?

On-board supervisor.

Not relevant to the role, which I've heard your spokespeople say before.

What you say about being able

to state categorically what the exceptional

circumstances might be?

That was part of the offer we made to be RMT but they weren't

willing to talk about it.

Right.

Steve is right...

They are not trained safety critical staff.

They have the same status on that train as a passenger.

They cannot intervene with the protection of the railway,

they can't go on the track.

That is simply, simply untrue.

The on-board supervisors are trained in all emergency and evacuation

procedures on the train.

The only thing they are not trained to do is to use a very old-fashioned

procedure which involves going onto the track and laying

detonators after walking a mile and a quarter down the track,

which is a procedure which is rarely used now, if ever,

and actually has been superseded by trains now having a modern GSR

radio on there where the driver pushes one button and can

stop all trains around and about his train so that is

the reality of the situation.

I am sorry, when Mick keeps saying, safety trained, safety

trained, safety trained.

We are training our people...

Are you listening to each other?

When you speak, are you listening to what the other person says?

APPLAUSE.

We listen to each other but we don't agree.

Do you listen with hands over your ears and say

you have an entrenched position and you are not moving.

This is both of you.

We can't go any further with the dilution of safety

regulation on the railway.

We are not prepared to be party to diluting safety

standards on the railway.

How do you get round this?

This is the incredibly frustrating piece.

Back in the summer, when I spoke to the leader of the RMT,

and I take my hat off to you, you negotiated a really good

deal for your members.

You've got job guarantees, but it must be right if the train

can safely move in exceptional circumstances, and that can't be

because there aren't enough second crew members employed,

it has to be that they are stuck somewhere else, then

surely we can sit down and write it, and I will help you write it.

To me we are not that far apart and yet we have 300,000 people

unable to get to work or study each day and it's madness.

How would you, if Transport for London were to take

over the running of these suburban

rail lines, how would you resolve

the London Underground strike action

that's happened with the RMT?

Clearly we need to have good industrial relations and they broken

down clearly between Southern and the unions and that is

for the Mayor of London

and TFL to develop good industrial relations and clearly at the moment

with threats of the strike on the Underground we

are not in that place.

With this dispute, would you accept Mick Lynch's proposal and demand

for a safety critical person, a second person in that role

on every train on Southern.

We have heard very clearly from Charles Horton that there

would be two people on every train.

The trains I am on don't have a second person and actually

I think we need to move forward and I think binding arbitration

should be legislated for so actually when we get these disputes

they should be resolved quickly.

You would be in the same position if you were in this

dispute, you accept that.

Charles, I say to you, if you give us that guarantee

and you guarantee a second person on each train,

we jointly define their safety critical competencies

and you guarantee they will be there we can go out the back

now and write a deal.

I've given you the papers already.

You can hear how much they want this to happen

and they have waited long enough.

Mick Lynch and Charles Horton, if you now have the opportunity,

as Mick Lynch has just said, there is a room just

to the side of the stage where you could thrash this out.

Would you do it?

Would you do it now, with Huw Merriman could sit

there and Caroline Pidgeon to join you and adjudicate.

Would you thrash out a deal?

APPLAUSE AND CHEERING.

You're a lawyer by trade, that could be helpful.

Could it work, seriously?

Absolutely.

It is incredibly frustrating for you all and for me because you hear

a lot of differences but then you see they are not that far apart

but the reality is when you take them separately it

doesn't go anywhere so I absolutely agree that it would be fantastic

if the two parties could sit down but would also just put

things behind them and be reasonable with the approach,

which means if it is safe to have this practice then accept it

and if there is more that can be done to get the unions

where they need to be and make stations extra safe, then let's

accept it, it is possible.

At this point I would like to thank the panel and the audience

and you can continue the debate on BBC Radio London with Duncan

Barkes from 10pm tonight and all have your say now on the BBC

London Facebook page and on Twitter Southernstrike.

From all of us here, thank you and goodbye.

Hello, I'm Riz Lateef with your 90-second update.

Too many people go to A with minor problems.

That's according to the Health Secretary.

He said the target in England of seeing patients within four hours

was only meant to apply to urgent cases.