HC Deb 01 February 1978 vol 943 cc444-7
13. Mr. Temple-Morris

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made in furthering the Government's policy of encouraging the maximum transportation of freight by rail, in the light of the dispute at Didcot.

27. Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made in furthering the Government's policy of encouraging the maximum transportation of freight by rail, in the light of the dispute at Didcot.

Mr. William Rodgers

Reasonable progress, all things considered. As for Didcot, it is unlikely that the dispute will have a significant effect on the volume of rail freight traffic.

Mr. Temple-Morris

Does the Secretary of State realise that that reply is insufficient for hon. Members on both sides of the House? Does he appreciate that the Didcot centre has been set up now for three years and that during that time it has had only two ill-fated train cargoes of cars from Cowley, which was one of the prime reasons for its being set up in the first place? Does the Minister appreciate that Sid Weighell has described the situation as madness, and that the loss of jobs by British Rail workers in recent years is very unsatisfactory indeed? What does he have to tell the House?

Mr. Rodgers

I agree that the Didcot depot is under-used. [Interruption.] If hon. Members choose to look into this matter, they will find that it is not wholly or even mainly because of this dispute. As for the dispute itself, I totally accept the fact that there is concern on both sides of the House, and I hope very much that the dispute will be resolved. However, it is not basically a reflection on any dispute about road or rail; rather, it is a reflection of the concern felt by many people about the movement away from our ports and to inland depots of one kind or another.

Mr. McNair-Wilson

In view of that reply, will the Minister give instructions to the Transport and General Workers' Union to allow cars to be moved from Cowley to Didcot by train?

Mr. Rodgers

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, my powers do not extend to giving instructions to the Transport and General Workers' Union. [Interruption.]

Mr. Adley

Do not do as I do; do as I say.

Mr. Rodgers

My powers do not extend to giving instructions to anyone else, and I am not proposing to extend them, even if the House would agree to that. But this is a complex and difficult problem. I think that the solution will be found not by my direct intervention but by the good sense of all those involved. I hope that good sense will prevail.

Mr. Ronald Atkins

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Didcot is not an isolated case? There are many other cases where this has happened. Is he also aware that it is a question not of encouraging rail freight but of attacking the central principle of the Government's policy, which is freedom of choice? Is not freedom of choice being prevented in this case? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to invest in the latest techniques for British Rail, they need to be used?

Mr. Rodgers

My hon. Friend has expressed his views forcibly before and I am glad to hear them, because he reflects a strong body of opinion and concern on both sides of the House. It is only fair to repeat that the Question is concerned with the transportation of freight by rail, and, much as we may find the dispute vexatious or even unpleasant, it does not have a significant effect on the overall question of the amount of freight carried by rail.

Mr. Durant

Could the right hon. Gentleman not take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and at least talk to Jack Jones? I understand that the Government have a close liaison with the trade unions. Why do they not take advantage of it?

Mr. Rodgers

I will talk to anyone, anywhere, at any time, but my concern is to see a solution of the dispute as soon as possible in the most effective way. Although we sometimes assume that our decisions and the acts of Ministers are the best way of solving problems, the longer I remain in office the more I doubt whether that is always the case.

Mr. Walter Johnson

Does my right hon. Friend agree that while it is helpful to have knowledgeable and learned advice from hon. Members on both sides of the House, the correct way to deal with this matter is to leave it to the parties concerned? I understand that the dispute is subject to discussions between the union leaders concerned and the industry. Should we not leave it at that?

Mr. Rodgers

I know that my hon. Friend wishes to be helpful, and he has made an important point. We should look at this from both sides. Of course the House is right to be concerned. If it were not concerned, it would be neglecting its duty, but, as I have tried to explain, there are means outside the House of solving such disputes, and my hon. Friend has made an important point.

Mr. Norman Fowler

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply? Is it not common ground between both sides of the House that we want to see conditions of fair competition in the freight transport industry, and does not action of this kind clearly make such competition impossible? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear undertaking that he will seek to use his influence to reconcile the dispute, and will he do so as a matter of urgency, because that is the wish of both sides of the House?

Mr. Rodgers

It is certainly not the case that a dispute of this sort, however displeasing, makes fair competition between rail and road impossible. Let us get the problem in perspective and see it as a problem of industrial relations. I am available in any way at any time to help find a solution, but I do not believe that my positive intervention now would be the most likely way of getting the outcome that the House wants

Mr. John Ellis

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when there are changes in the pattern of working, in whatever area, the people involved, who may believe their livelihoods to be in danger, are likely to react and that exchanges in which hon. Members have been seeking to make an emotive issue of this matter do no good? Is it not better for those directly concerned, as well as for the overall national interest, for the unions to get together to sort things out? Emotive exchanges do not help.

Mr. Rodgers

My hon. Friend puts the matter in a sober perspective. As I have said, it is a symptom of industrial change, which produces dislocation in the lives of many workers, though not primarily in the lives of the rail workers. The dispute has its origins in the problems in our ports.