HC Deb 13 June 2000 vol 351 cc788-90
14. Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)

What recent representations he has received from the RMT union on the provisions of the Transport Bill. [124002]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill)

My Department has received a number of representations about the provisions of the Transport Bill and has met a wide range of organisations and individuals to discuss matters of mutual interest. The organisations include, of course, the RMT, which Ministers meet from time to time. Most recently, on 1 June, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston met the RMT.

Mr. Robathan

I am particularly sorry that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is not in the Chamber at least to listen to this question, as it is really directed at him. Does the Minister believe that the Deputy Prime Minister's tenancy of an RMT flat contravenes both the spirit and the letter of the ministerial code of conduct's provisions on trade unions, which state: care must be taken to avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest … Ministers should arrange their affairs so as to avoid any suggestion that a union of which they are a member has any undue influence … and should receive no remuneration from a union …? Does the Minister deny that the Deputy Prime Minister's action also contravenes paragraph 109 of the code? It states: Where there is a doubt it will almost always be better to relinquish or dispose of the interest. Has the Minister found that the relationship between the Secretary of State and the RMT has in any way enhanced or detracted from the workings of his Department?

Mr. Hill

The hon. Gentleman is trying to make political capital out of something that is old news. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards investigated the matter and rejected all complaints against my right hon. Friend.

Quite frankly, if the hon. Gentleman is seriously trying to make the imputation that the Government have conferred favour on the RMT in our transport legislation, he has utterly failed to do his homework on the matter. While providing for the more effective regulation of the railways through the new Strategic Rail Authority, the Transport Bill falls far short of the RMT's desire for re-nationalisation of the railway industry. The Bill's proposed National Air Traffic Services public-private partnership is also in direct opposition to the RMT's official policy. In that context, I might also point out that the RMT is not exactly wildly enthusiastic about the London Underground PPP.

The truth is that the Government serve the public interest. We need no strictures from the official Opposition, with their long and discreditable record of subservience to vested and sectional interests.

Mr. Robathan

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given the Minister's unsatisfactory answer, I shall raise the matter in an Adjournment debate.