Rail Disputes

HC Deb 25 June 1982 vol 26 cc539-48

11 am

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about strikes on the railways. As the House knows, the National Union of Railwaymen called a full strike by its members on the London underground as from midnight last night and has called a full strike by its members on British Rail from midnight on Sunday, 27 June.

Neither of those strikes is necessary, nor will they do anything but damage those who pursue them, hurt the travelling public grievously and endanger many people's livelihoods. In the case of British Rail, irreparable damage will be inflicted on the railways. Yet all that is being asked is that productivity undertakings for which pay increases have already been given for last year, should be delivered.

In the case of London Transport, it is patently clear that the strike decision taken by NUR is a cynical and opportunistic move. There is no redundancy threat, the service cuts are minimal and are anyway necessary for the long term. London Transport management has clearly bent over backwards to negotiate reasonably. However, the union leaders are now switching the strike issue to pay. The union executive is doing this without giving the normal notice and has brushed aside the normal negotiating procedures in its haste to find any excuse for joining in the damage and disruption. It is, therefore, nothing short of shameful that the political leaders of the Greater London Council have given explicit support to this pointless attack on London Transport users.

In view of the serious and immediate impact of both these strikes on London commuters, a series of measures are being taken by the Metropolitan Police from first thing on Monday morning, and it would perhaps be helpful to set these out immediately so that all the travelling public can make their preparations in good time.

The Metropolitan Police will take exceptional measures to keep traffic flowing on all main routes; emergency car parking will be provided on a large scale, and the police will be suspending the enforcement of parking restrictions and parking meters, in all side streets. The police will be giving more detailed guidance to the travelling public over the next couple of days, as will the AA and RAC. The police in other cities will also take all necessary steps to cope with the effects on traffic of the British Rail strike.

We shall be asking all radio stations to perform their invaluable service in providing up-to-date information to help all those who need to travel.

If traffic is to be kept moving, and hardship kept to a minimum, the public must avoid needless journeys. They should make early arrangements for sharing their cars, and should do all that they can to stagger their journeys.

Employers can help by encouraging their staff to organise staggered hours and car-sharing schemes, and by arranging for deliveries to be made outside rush hours.

The travelling public are now under assault for no good reason and the railways now face a disastrous future. Tens of thousands of workers are being led down dark and dangerous paths. They would be wise now to do all within their power to see that the strikes are called off.

Mr. Albert Booth (Barrow-in-Furness)

Does the Secretary of State realise that the House was expecting from him a statement about causes and the Government's reactions to them, rather than a statement about the consequences of the dispute? His statement will be seen as both complacent and disappointing. A majority of hon. Members realise that the travelling public are anxious that the Government should take steps to avert the strike, instead of merely trying to ameliorate the tremendous damage that the strike will inevitably do to the travelling public.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that discussions at ACAS between BR management and unions have revealed that the gap between the two sides is not so wide as to prevent a major breakthrough on the outstanding productivity issues, if only the Government are prepared to demonstrate to the board a willingness to support it in bringing forward the 5 per cent. payment towards its due date?

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the board's inflexible hard line is being dictated by Ministers, who appear to relish the idea of a long and bitter dispute with British Rail? Will he acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of railway workers have demonstrated a willingness to co-operate in the development of a good railway service and that they will back their executive committee to the hilt in the dispute because they believe that that is the only way of conducting a claim in the interests of maintaining a proper public service?

Will the Secretary of State reconsider his decision not to intervene in the dispute? Will he take up the proper role of the Government as the representatives of the travelling public and the railways' bankers and construct some genuine tripartite negotiations to avoid a strike, the consequences of which will not only be immediately damaging to the travelling public, but may be permanently damaging to the future of our railway service?

Mr. Howell

I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's silence on the merits of the strike that he is not prepared to condemn the appalling damage that is to be inflicted on the travelling public, the railway industry and its future.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about causes, but he and the country know what they are. In the case of British Rail, it is the management's rightful determination, which should be supported by all who want to see an efficient railway, to seek the productivity agreements and undertakings for which pay increases have already been accorded and which are now due. In the case of London Transport, the cause appears to be opportunism to maximise the chances of trying to strangle London. The right hon. Gentleman knows those causes.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about intervention by ACAS. That is an independent body and, like everyone else, I hope that it will be able to bring home to the parties, especially the unions, the appalling dangers of the path on which they are set.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to inflexibility by British Rail, but in the past few days BR has offered new arrangements by which some of the productivity difficulties could be overcome. Those arrangements were turned down by the union.

The Government and, I think, the board and most workers in the railway industry want a good and efficient service. We are committed to that good and efficient service. Ten major investment projects are being carried through or approved and another eight are in the pipeline. That makes nonsense of the claim that there is no commitment to a good railway system. The question is whether the unions will allow us to achieve it.

The Government are not prepared to intervene. If it is a question of intervention, it should be intervention by those, particularly in the industry, who are in a position to stop the union executive leading its members over a cliff edge. That is the sort of intervention that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been calling for, and I am sorry that he did not feel it opportune to do so today.

Mr. Terence Higgins (Worthing)

Are not the strikes against the interest of not only railwaymen, but railway users? As the NUR is apparently throwing agreed procedures overboard, does my right hon. Friend recall a phrase once coined by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) who referred to a tightly knit group of politically motivated men"—[Official Report, 20 June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 42.] and should not the members of the NUR and ASLEF wake up to the dangers that they are facing in relation to jobs as a result of the actions of their leaders?

Would it not be rather a good idea if Mr. Buckton and Mr. Weighell went along this afternoon to Victoria and Waterloo stations and explained their position to my constituents and gave my constituents an opportunity to say what they think about the strike?

Mr. Howell

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. The events have happened only recently and it is not yet possible to disentangle the reasons for the decisions, but it cannot be denied that there appear to be no good industrial relations reasons for the decision of NUR's London Transport divisions to strike. That point needs to be made clear, especially to those who are being asked to support the action.

Commuters will be placed in great difficulty. They should be left in no doubt that they are now being challenged by decisions taken by a union executive, or by people in that union executive, which appear to be based on political opportunism and have very little to do with serious industrial relations matters.

Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)

Is the Minister's policy the same as his predecessor's? Does he still adhere to the Government's policy of requiring intercity services to break even and of subsidising London commuters? Could he not give British Rail a bit more money by dropping the subsidy to the prosperous London middle classes?

Mr. Howell

The policy has been pursued by successive Governments and is broadly correct. It is that the inter-city and freight services should aim at profitability—although I am afraid that it is not there at the moment—and that commuter services, rural services and socially desirable services should be supported by the taxpayer.

Although one would never believe it from some of the remarks made by Opposition Members and by critics of the Government, the Government have supported, and are supporting, the rail system, through social grant, at a higher level in real terms than ever before in its history. Last year I approved, and this year I continued to approve, a level of social grant up to £100 million higher, in real terms, than in 1980. That is what the Government wish to do. Whether the unions, through their foolish actions, challenge that purpose and make it impossible to proceed on that course is a question that will have to be resolved over the next few weeks.

Mr. John G. Blackburn (Dudley, West)

Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on the Government's policy in giving more money in subsidy to British Rail than has been given by any other Government in our history? Will he confirm that it is not the role of the Government to manage British Rail and that the dispute should be settled between management and unions within the rail industry? Finally, will he assure the country that the needs of the travelling public are paramount?

Mr. Howell

We shall do all that we can to minimise the hardship that the travelling public will face. Undoubtedly there will be grave difficulties, particularly if the London underground system and the British Rail system continue to be completely on strike.

The British Railways Board is rightly committed to pursuing its search for productivity, and every support should be given to it in its efforts.

The Government subsidy to British Rail has been substantial and has been increased, but it must be realised that the amount of money that the taxpayer is prepared to go on paying into British Rail, in continued investment and new equipment, on top of the substantial programme that has been taking place and in terms of social grant for current costs, is bound to be constrained when it is seen that that investment is not being properly manned and that current costs are not being curbed in the way that they are in the rest of industry. The taxpayer will look for a better performance in those areas if there is to be encouragement to put more money into British Rail in future.

Mr. William Pitt (Croydon, North-West)

Does the Minister agree that it might have a salutary effect on the leaders of the Greater London Council were they to talk to some of the stranded commuters in steaming cars and bus queues this morning? We are in a state of national emergency, and the effects of the strike will be profound not only while it is taking place but for many weeks after. Will the Government use their utmost powers to be conciliatory in the matter and try to bring the unions and management together to effect a proper solution?

Mr. Howell

I think that the Government, together with the public, would wish the strikes not to take place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that the best way for the strikes not to take place is for the union executive members who have set out on this extremely dangerous course and are taking their members along with them—although I read in the newspapers that some of them are not at all willing—to think again and draw back from the precipice. That would be the best kind of conciliation, and that is where reasonableness is required in the face of the position taken by British Rail, which is asking only for what it has paid, and the position taken by London Transport management, which has been extremely conciliatory. It has leaned over backwards to meet the worries of the unions. Two of the three unions concerned—ASLEF, as it happens, and the staff union—were ready to call off the underground strike on the basis put forward by London Transport management, but the NUR turned it down because, apparently, it wants a strike.

Mr. Neil Thorne (Ilford, South)

In view of the unreasonable attitude of the union leadership, will my right hon. Friend reconsider even those projects that are at present under consideration by British Rail involving the use of taxpayers' money? Clearly, the public must have value for money.

Will my right hon. Friend hazard a guess as to how many jobs will be lost to British Rail for every £10 million lost in revenue as a result of the strike, particularly if producers find other means of transport?

Will my right hon. Friend urgently review London Transport and make some alternative arrangements for its control?

Mr. Howell

The Government have always made it clear that further support for British Rail must go hand in hand with productivity improvements. That remains the position, whether we are talking about electrification, resignalling, or any of the other major projects in the pipeline. That must be the sensible way forward. I believe that the vast majority of people think that it is the sensible way forward to the modern and efficient railway system that we could have if it were allowed by the unions.

I can make no estimate of job losses, but I remind the House that there are many customers on British Rail who, after the last disruption, were thinking of leaving British Rail, and who will not automatically come back after any further disruption. Indeed, I suspect that many of them will go for all time if the present industrial action goes forward.

As to the future arrangements between the GLC and London Transport, I have to agree with my hon. Friend that recent events tend to confirm the growing doubts about the competence of the GLC to preside over and run the London Transport system—or, indeed, anything else. I have put to the GLC the need to come forward with some sensible plans for the future. The GLC knows that there are no problems on the legal side about the future, because I have said that the Government would consider whether any changes in the law are needed for 1983 onwards.

The Government are ready to accept the need for a substantial subsidy to support a good London Transport system for London's users, so all the necessary ingredients for a sensible system are there, but I fear that the ingredient of common sense at the political end of the GLC seems to be severely lacking.

Mr. Alf Dubs (Battersea, South)

Is the Secretary of State aware that nobody wants the travelling public, especially the people of London, to suffer hardship, and that his statement will be seen as an example of complacency? His only contribution to the great crisis that we are facing, particularly in London, has been to talk about car parking and to blame the trade unions.

Is it not about time that the Secretary of State exercised his responsibility and called together the people in these sad disputes, so that a quick settlement can be achieved?

Mr. Howell

The hon. Gentleman would be better advised to address his remarks to the union executive concerned, which has taken precipitate action without, I believe, the full support and willing co-operation of all its members. I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about London Transport. He should address his remarks to the Greater London Council, whose leaders have given active encouragement to inflaming the strike action. I do not see how people can say that they do not want the London traveller to be hurt when they are prepared to take action which actively inflames the dispute.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)

It is over 50 years since we were threatened with a shutdown of British Rail and of London Transport trains. Does that not illustrate the serious nature of the crisis that the transport system and the travelling public are now facing?

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the decision of the NUR to shift the London Transport dispute on to the basis of pay rather than an argument about timetables means that it has deliberately and flagrantly waived all the negotiating procedures and thrown away the requirement to give three weeks' notice? Does not that emphasise the apparent political motivation of those concerned? If the official Opposition will not condemn the strike, may we invite them to condemn the flagrant breach of the normal negotiating procedures? That might in turn help to produce an early settlement of the dispute.

Mr. Howell

My hon. Friend is correct. The normal procedure is for the NUR to give three weeks' notice of strike over a pay dispute. In the case of London Transport, I am informed that pay discussions were continuing and that no final offer had been made or discussed, yet the NUR decided to waive the normal three weeks' notice and call a strike on pay from Monday.

I repeat the invitation extended to the Opposition by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) to make some condemnation of that extraordinary behaviour. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that combined strikes called on the underground rail system and the surface rail system have not been seen for well over 50 years.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Brent, South)

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his comments make it abundantly clear that he is far more concerned, as a Conservative, to condemn the Greater London Council than to administer the great Department for which he has responsibility? Is he aware, further, that the public servants in the railways and in public transport in general are some of the finest in the world? Why are the Government embarking on a confrontation policy with people such as nurses and the railwaymen in pursuance of an outdated economic strategy?

Mr. Howell

I support what the hon. Gentleman said about the dedication of many people in the railway system and in public transport services generally. That needs recognising and acknowledging fully, and I speak from personal experience when I do so. But when the hon. Gentleman talks about the Government embarking on a confrontation course, he has the matter upside down. I have described as accurately as I can what is happening. It is that the executive of the NUR, in effect, has declared an assault upon the public by calling the strike for midnight on British Rail and by calling the strike, for very dubious industrial relations reasons—in fact, for reasons not connected with industrial relations at all—on the London underground. It is not the Government who are embarking on this course—it is the unions. In my view they are most unwise, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his considerable authority to encourage them to pull back.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that more people travel into London every day from Orpington station—nearly 20,000 of them—than from any other station, and that they will suffer considerable misery and hardship as a result of this strike, but that they want me to tell the Government and the railway authorities to stand firm and resist the blackmail of the rail unions?

Mr. David Howell

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's message.

Mr. Neville Sandelson (Hayes and Harlington)

Is the Secretary of State aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I share his concern about the competence and motivations of the Greater London Council in this area? Will he accept that we condemn the proposed strike action, that we deplore the intransigence that is bringing it about and that we hope that even at this late hour common sense will prevail?

Mr. Howell

I am glad to hear the clear condemnation by the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends of this senseless action. The more people, regardless of party, who can bring home to the union executive what a disastrous course it is set on and how damaging it will be to the public—for no good reason at all—the better, and the better hope there will be in this very difficult situation.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I propose to call three of the hon. Members who have been seeking to catch my eye and then, at the end, the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) before moving on.

Mr. Timothy Smith (Beaconsfield)

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that commuters in my constituency will have to go through hell over the next few days and weeks? Does he appreciate, further, that they will be prepared to go through that hell if, at the end of the day, major changes in working practices on British Rail are the result? Therefore, does he agree that this dispute should not be limited to one narrow issue but should be widened to embrace all the problems of productivity with which we have been grappling over the past few years, so that at the end of the day we can settle all these difficult problems?

Mr. Howell

I know that the British Railways Board is determined to secure the productivity improvements necessary to a modern railway. It has suggested ways in which that can be done. It linked last year's pay offer to that and produced an increased offer in line with productivity undertakings. Those undertakings have not yet been met by the unions. The British Railways Board is right to insist that now they should be, and it should receive full support in doing so.

Mr. Martin Stevens (Fulham)

Does my right hon. Friend accept that he has the full support of Government Back Benchers? Does he recognise the pleasure that he has given by saying that he and his Cabinet colleagues will examine the political links between London Transport and its present masters? In seeking to hasten the moment when a decision about London Transport's political future can be taken, will he consider taking powers to entrust at least part of the London underground and bus network to private enterprise?

Mr. Howell

I note my hon. Friend's views on this matter, which are of great interest. As he knows, the Select Committee on Transport is looking at the future organisation of London Transport in the context of the best way in which to serve Londonders and their needs. I believe that private enterprise and private capital probably can play a larger part in that respect in the future, but we must await the report of the Select Committee.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole country will have noted that the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) utterly failed to use this opportunity, with his colleagues, to condemn this mindless militancy which will ruin our railway system for many years to come? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that commuters in my constituency and elsewhere resent strongly this attempt to destroy the system which they have used for many years to get to their places of work? Throughout the next few days, will he remind the British public constantly that the only future for public transport must be through increased productivity?

Mr. Howell

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. He talks about mindless militancy. I am sure that everyone in the House—certainly the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and members of his party as well as the other parties—feels equally strongly about this dangerous tendency. Whatever the difficulties—and I realise that there are political difficulties for them—I hope that they will seek opportunities to join in the condemnation of the threats, of which there seem to be some signs, to our party system and to normal and sensible ways of conducting industrial relations.

Mr. Booth

Will the Secretary of State realise that the Opposition have been protesting to the Government for more than a year that the financial framework that they have set for both the GLC and British Rail inevitably would lead to a crisis and a breakdown of services? Will he come clean about the actual drop in rail investment expenditure over the past two years? Will he tell us of the drop in rail investment expenditure between 1980 and 1981, and the drop that will occur as between 1981 and this year unless a major change is brought about?

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the railway unions which he is condemning have co-operated with British Rail in enormous manpower savings over the past two years? Will he at least acknowledge that 14,000 posts have been saved in that period? If he joins and encourages his Back Benchers in calling these people mindless militants, he will do nothing to resolve this dispute, but will inflame it, deepen it and make it more bitter—which is the very reverse of the role of a Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Howell

One of the real problems is that, in speaking to the trade unions about the Government's commitment to investment in British Rail, the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have not stated the true facts. Some statements made by the Opposition have been a perversion of the truth about the Government's commitment to investment in British Rail, about the fact that the investment ceiling has been maintained at a high level and about the fact that, if there has been a lack of investment, it is because resources have been drained in pointless disputes and in soaring day-to-day costs. Those are the messages that should have been given to the trade unions so that they know where their true interests lie, rather than the demoralising gloom that the right hon. Gentleman chose as his medium.

The unions, especially the NUR, have co-operated in demanning and have delivered on some of the productivity undertakings. However, the NUR has not delivered on some of the main undertakings, such as the guards, freight trains or single manning on passenger trains. It is again a perversion for the right hon. Gentleman to shut his eyes to that and not to emphasise to the unions the dangers of dragging their feet on productivity, because that is where the future of a modern railway system lies. Pay awards have been made on such deals, but the productivity has not been delivered. The right hon. Gentleman owes it to himself, to his party and to Britain to be much more forthcoming in telling the unions and the nation where he and his party stand on the matter.