Chris Williamson criticised for saying there is ‘merit’ in exploring idea as way of cutting number of sexual assaults on public transport

This article is more than 3 years old

This article is more than 3 years old

Shadow minister Chris Williamson has been criticised by female colleagues and union chiefs for suggesting there was “merit” in introducing women-only train carriages to help cut the number of sexual assaults on public transport.

Williamson, the shadow fire minister, said he was open to the idea first proposed by Jeremy Corbyn when he was running for the Labour leadership in 2016.



But the idea was criticised on Wednesday by the leader of train drivers’ union Aslef and female MPs, who said that it would normalise attacks.



Williamson, MP for Derby North, tweeted a BBC graphic showing the increase in the number of sexual assaults, along with an accompanying blog post suggesting Corbyn had been right to suggest female-only carriages.

“It would be worth consulting about it,” Williamsom told PoliticsHome. “It was pooh-poohed, but these statistics seem to indicate there is some merit in examining that.

“Complemented with having more guards on trains, it would be a way of combating these attacks, which have seen a very worrying increase in the past few years.”

Williamson said he was not wedded to the idea “but it may create a safe space” though he stressed women would not be obliged to use it.

Mick Whelan, general secretary of Aslef, said women-only carriages were not the answer to the growing number of sexual assaults on Britain’s railway network.

Whelan said the separate carriages would “normalise these attacks” and said women had a right to sit wherever they wanted. “It’s up to the privatised train operating companies to make sure every space is safe on every train,” he said.

“That’s their job – and their responsibility. Let’s make all carriages, on all our trains, safe for all passengers rather than restricting where people can and cannot sit. Because we don’t want gender apartheid on Britain’s railways.”

Whelan said train companies needed to ensure the carriages were properly staffed so women felt safer. “I am calling on the train companies to stop taking staff off trains and stations, putting profit before passengers, and ensure our railways are safe,” he said.

Labour MP Stella Creasy also said she did not welcome the revival of the idea. “Can we make all carriages safe for all passengers rather than restricting where we can go?” she tweeted.

“Doesn’t keep women safe to restrict their movements – it normalises attacks. We need to be clear they [the attackers] are problem, not women’s seating plans.”

Jess Phillips, Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, called the policy an “absolutely terrible idea”, tweeting: “It is essentially giving up on trying to prosecute assaults. Also, men should be incredibly annoyed by suggestion they can’t control themselves.

“Sexual violence isn’t about urges, it’s about power. If you take your feminist cues from Saudi Arabia, you’ve gone wrong.”

The most recent statistics from British Transport Police, show 1,448 sexual offences on trains were reported in 2016-17, compared with 650 incidents in 2012-13.

Women-only carriages have been rolled out in other countries such as Japan and Mexico but activists and other MPs have said the move was tantamount to admitting that assaults could not be prevented and could also lead to more victim-blaming if women chose not to use the segregated carriages and were subsequently assaulted.

When Corbyn first floated the idea in 2015, the Labour leader said he was not wedded to the concept. “However, I would consult with women and open it up to hear their views on whether women-only carriages would be welcome – and also if piloting this at times and [on] modes of transport where harassment is reported most frequently would be of interest,” he said.

The idea was criticised by his leadership rivals Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall. Kendall called it “an admission of defeat, rather than a sustainable solution” while Cooper said it was “turning the clock back, not tackling the problem”.