Railway Communities (Job Creation) (Hansard, 11 July 1995)

§ Mr. Hugh Bayley (York)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the creation of alternative job opportunities in communities that have lost a substantial number of railway industry jobs since the passage of the Railways Act 1993; to empower Ministers to provide direct assistance to former railway industry employees seeking alternative employment; to encourage inward investment; to promote new business start-ups in railway communities and to provide new infrastructure for business premises in these communities; and for connected purposes. I should remind the House that I am sponsored by one of the rail unions, RMT, but I speak today on behalf of many of my constituents in my union and others who are affected by rail privatisation.

Later today, on an Opposition motion, the House will debate the merits or otherwise of rail privatisation. I hope that I do not need to tell the House where I stand on that matter. My Bill does not argue for or against privatisation of the railways. It simply acknowledges that the House passed the Railways Act 1993, that the Act is being implemented and that it is causing a significant reduction in employment on the railways. My Bill seeks to reduce the impact on railway workers who have been made redundant and on the economies of railway towns.

There are quite a number of precedents for the Government taking action to replace jobs that have come about as a result of industrial restructuring. In 1984, the Government established British Coal Enterprise Ltd. to bring alternative employment to areas affected by pit closures. Since 1984, British Coal has made 143,300 people redundant. In the same period, British Coal Enterprise Ltd. says that it has created 123,600 new jobs. Some 57,244 jobs have gone to ex-miners, and another 66,000 to other people in mining communities. Similar programmes have been introduced in the steel industry.

When British Rail closed its Swindon works in the 1980s, the British Rail board invested £1.3 million in establishing an enterprise agency to bring new jobs to the town. I would not argue for a new agency for the railways if there was no need. Rail privatisation is still in its early stages, but already British Rail has made 13,600 workers redundant and thousands of other jobs have been lost in private sector rail manufacturing industries. In my own constituency, for example, since 1992 there have been 2,300 job losses. In 1992 there were 4,700 jobs. Since then, British Rail has declared 650 redundancies, and the private train builder, ABB, has made all 1,650 of its employees redundant.

Other railway jobs in York are at risk, too. British Rail's York office of the civil engineering design group will be privatised in a matter of weeks. The York office of a BR subsidiary, Signalling Control UK, is also to be privatised this year. So, too, are the two York-based 752 infrastructure maintenance units, and the two York-based British Rail track renewal units. The east coast main line franchise is due to be let at the end of this year or the beginning of next year.

York needs help. We have already lost some 2,300 jobs as a result of rail privatisation. York is not an assisted area. We do not qualify for EU regional grants, for instance, under objective 2.

On the practicalities of my Bill, since 1984 British Coal Enterprise Ltd. has invested about £165 million. Roughly £100 million of that has gone on economic regeneration in coalfield communities and £65 million on the resettlement of miners in other jobs. In round terms, the 120,000 jobs created by British Coal Enterprise Ltd. have cost £1,350 each. At the present rate of attrition of railway jobs, the railways need to invest £10 million or £15 million a year, assuming that the cost of replacing railway jobs is broadly the same as that of replacing jobs in coalfield communities. It is not a great sum of money compared with the £700 million that railway privatisation has cost already.

British Coal Enterprise Ltd. is a subsidiary of British Coal. I suggest that the British Rail board could and should establish a subsidiary, which might be called British Rail Enterprise. Of course, there is a chance that this Bill will not reach the statute book, but there is no reason why the Government cannot act without legislation. There is no statutory basis for British Coal Enterprise Ltd.

Rail privatisation has come about as a direct result of Government policy. Large-scale job losses in the railway industry have come about as a direct consequence of rail privatisation. The Government have an obligation to do as they have done in other industries that have been restructured as a result of Government policy, which is to invest in alternative employment in the areas most affected by the Government's rail privatisation policies.