HC Deb 10 February 1982 vol 17 cc963-5
9. Mr. Madel

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Railways to discuss further modernisation of the rail network; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Howell

I meet the chairman frequently to discuss matters of mutual interest.

Mr. Madel

Does my right hon. Friend take the view that if disruption continues on the railways, future modernisation and investment are bound to be at risk? Will he bear in mind the competing needs of the road network for more public funds? Will he also bear in mind the need for more bypasses to be provided in my constituency, to name but one area?

Mr. Howell

To take one area—the bypass in my hon. Friend's constituency—I am aware of the discussions about the possibility of our paying a 100 per cent. grant for the Leighton—Linslade bypass. I hope that we shall be able to do so. However, I can make no promises. With regard to the broader question of resources, it is correct that deep damage is being caused by the wretched rail strike. There will be a clear necessity to press ahead with a great many measures to overcome the losses on the railways.

Mr. Cook

May I bring the Secretary of State back to the question on the Order Paper? Is he not aware that any investment and modernisation of British Rail will have to come out of the external financing limit, which he has increased by a rate that is substantially less than the rate of inflation anticipated by the Treasury? Is he also aware that that entire increase in the EFL for next year will be wiped out by the borrowings of recent weeks? As his Government encouraged British Rail to go ahead with that borrowing in recent weeks, will he at the least make sure that British Rail is not penalised by an unreaslistic level of EFL next year, which will mean that there will be no modernisation, no investment, and little maintenance of the railway network?

Mr. Howell

The value of the EFL for next year has been maintained in real terms. The real need is for all concerned, including those in the other railway unions, to urge the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen to end its destructive strike and to recognise, along with those other unions, that increased pay, productivity and investment go hand in hand. That is where the future of the railways lies. That is the way that we were going, although not at a speed that everyone wanted, before this wretched strike. There is no doubt that the longer the strike continues, the more it will jeopardise the jobs of many people on the railways and the future of many projects.

Mr. Adley

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be extremely unfair on the majority of railwaymen in the National Union of Railwaymen, on the British Railways Board and on the travelling public if ASLEF's tactics were to result in the long term in the jobs of NUR and of most of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association members being put at risk? There is some doubt about this matter. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the British Railways Board, ASLEF, NUR and TSSA all signed the same document, and that all except ASLEF are willing to abide by what they signed? Is that not the reality? Has my right hon. Friend any reason to believe either that the four signatories were not sober or that they were not aware of what they were signing?

Mr. Howell

As the inquiry is meeting now, it is wrong for me to comment on the merits of the dispute. There is no doubt that the strike is causing deep damage both in the short and longer term. As the future of the railways depends on its customers, and as the customers are at present in an awkward plight, particularly the long-suffering commuters, all that spells "bad" for the railways. The sooner that all concerned press ASLEF to lift its silly strike, the better.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I propose to call two more Back Benchers before I call Front Bench Members.

Mr. Les Huckfield

I shall revert to the question on the Order Paper. How can the Secretary of State say that an increase in the EFL of only £30 million maintains the value of that limit in real terms? If he wants to make a constructive intervention in the current dispute—he has obviously been using this question to make an intervention in the dispute—why does he not tell the British Railways Board to stick to the law, because every successive piece of transport legislation requires it to adhere to the existing machinery of negotiation? By going outside that machinery of negotiation the British Railways Board is breaking the law.

Mr. Howell

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also make a constructive intervention. The most constructive intervention that he could make—I believe that he realises this—is to urge ASLEF to end its damaging strike, which is benefiting no one on the railways, no one in the unions, none of the railways' customers, and no part of the future of British Rail. He should urge ASLEF to recognise that increased pay and increased productivity must go together. That must be where the future of the railways lies.

Mr. Ward

When he next meets the chairman of British Rail, will my right hon. Friend tell him that many people have managed to do well without the services of British Rail over the last few weeks, a position that is likely to continue after the strike is over? Will he impress upon him that many people, certainly in the area that I represent, are fed up to the back teeth with being led by the nose by a small group of people in ASLEF who are apparently determined to destroy the livelihoods of people in my constituency?

Mr. Howell

I recognise that there is strong feeling and that many commuters have been extremely long—suffering and have gone through difficult times. However, my hon. Friend's question also reminds the House that the future of the railways depends on its customers. If the failure to increase productivity and to maintain the progress that was beginning to develop last year continues, customers will go away, which will damage the railway system. It is the customers whom the railways are designed to serve.

Mr. Booth

Will the Secretary of State respond to the point that I put to him by letter earlier this week, drawing his attention to how highly damaging it was to the already slim prospects of resolving the current rail dispute for him to leave uncorrected the newspaper reports that suggest that the Government are considering a further curtailment of British Rail investment in the light of the dispute? Will he tell those of his hon. Friends who suggest that railway investment is being curtailed as a result of the dispute that they are grossly misrepresenting the facts and that the Government had curtailed railway investment long before the dispute? Will he tell them that the dispute is now proceeding on an issue that has been put before an inquiry in which a union is properly contending that a major nationalised industry has failed to carry out its obligations within the railways' negotiating machinery?

Mr. Howell

There is a perfectly realistic message, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will convey to those who are causing disruption on the railways. It is that if they pursue that disruption, and if they believe that higher pay can be achieved without productivity, or that new investment and equipment can be provided without de—manning and new work practices, they will cause untold damage. ASLEF would be wise to desist from its disruption.

As an inquiry is now taking place, it would be wrong to discuss in detail the merits of the dispute.

Mr. Les Huckfield

But the right hon. Gentleman has gone into the merits.

Mr. Howell

I hope that the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) will make quite clear the view that I hope he shares with me that the ASLEF disruption being imposed on the railways and other railway workers is deeply damaging to the future of our railway system, and that ASLEF should desist.