British Rail and Productivity (Hansard, 13 July 1982)

§ Lord Orr-Ewing
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin)
My Lords, on the six productivity measures agreed last year between the railway unions and the British Railways Board, little substantive progress has been made, even though the board paid for these in advance. The unions have accepted the concept of open stations, and some pilot schemes are now in operation. The National Union of Railwaymen and the Transport Salaried Staff Association have accepted and are working flexible rosters, and are thereby enjoying the financial and social benefits which they bring. The remaining measures have not been implemented. In particular, the ASLEF Executive remain stubbornly opposed to flexible rostering for train drivers, against the obvious best interests of their membership.

§ Lord Orr-Ewing
My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that rather disappointing reply, may I ask whether he is aware that Mr. Buckton, on behalf of ASLEF, frequently asks that more investments should be made in the railways? There is no one in Parliament who does not wish to see an efficient railway system. Can my noble friend say how much money has been invested in British Rail since the May 1979 election? Is not it rather unfortunate that with the electrification of the line from Bedford to St. Pancras, 130 all the new rolling stock which has been supplied, costing £150 million, cannot be used because ASLEF have refused to operate these modern methods?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, of course on the latter point it is disappointing; and some might say it is more than disappointing. It has all sorts of implications. So far as the statistics are concerned, £1,500 million have been invested since 1979. Since 1976, that figure is £3 billion.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, would not the Minister agree that this type of Question, in the middle of what could be a disastrous industrial dispute, is hardly helpful to achieving settlement? Can the Minister not agree that over the last 10 years the trade unions in the railway industry have a great record of improved productivity? Can the Minister indicate how much has already been saved by the productivity measures, how much will be saved by flexible rostering on the locomotives only and how much has already been lost by this disastrous strike? Would it not be better if the Minister—not this Minister, but the Secretary of State—instead of making threatening speeches did something about trying to settle the strike which could have been done on an agreement which was reached on experimentation with alternative flexible rostering?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, I think the noble Lord has put to me about ten supplementary questions in one. I am at pains always in answering Questions to be as factual as I can and not to exacerbate situations which are very sensitive. Nevertheless, I think that in the interest of giving a few facts to answer the points that the noble Lord raises, I should say that the board's figures show that productivity between 1974 and 1979 rose by 5 per cent. and between 1979 and 1981 fell by I per cent. The noble Lord asked whether the Secretary of State should not (if you like) step in. I think the answer to that must be that the Government have no intention of intervening in what is a matter for the Railways Board to settle with its workforce. I think the noble Lord was less than his usual evenhanded self when he suggested that it is in any way the responsibility of British Rail for not being willing to talk about this matter when, having made their offer to do precisely that, it was ASLEF who called a strike. In those circumstances, there can be no meaningful discussions and negotiations; so that it is not too helpful.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, whether my noble friend's reply be helpful or not, is it not at any rate more helpful than the recent intervention by the Leader of Her Majesty's Government's Opposition?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, that certainly has not been helpful at all; I agree with my noble friend on that. It is not surprising that the leader of the National Union of Railwaymen has expressed his own dismay at that intervention.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, bearing in mind what was said about sensitivity in this issue, may I ask whether there is not some misunderstanding about what hours actually would be worked under the flexible 131 rostering proposed by the Railways Board; and is there not some residual fear among many railwaymen that they will be asked to vary their starting and finishing time by such wide margins that it will destroy their social life? If this is incorrect, could not some statement of the British Railways Board be published to show what the effect will be on the average railwayman?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, perhaps it would be helpful to say that the ASLEF membership feared the very point that the noble Lord makes; but I would have to go on to say that the report of the Railway Staff National Tribunal proposed a series of safeguards to protect the interests of the drivers and to allay their fears; and that the board accepted these safeguards in full. It is worth pointing out that over 80 per cent. of British Rail guards are now working flexible rostering and that with only one exception all other European railways are successfully and fully operating flexible rostering.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, I asked the noble Lord whether he could indicate how much would be saved per year by adopting flexible rostering for the locomotive men. If the Minister does not have the answer, perhaps he could write to me, because ASLEF have claimed that the saving would be only £2 million a year.

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, I am able to give an indication of that. It is that the benefits which would flow from the introduction of flexible rostering and associated items total over £35 million.

§ Baroness Burton of Coventry
My Lords, may I ask the Minister—although I think he has already answered it in commenting on the supplementary question put by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill—whether, on the question of alternative flexible rostering, I am not right in remembering that this proposal was put forward by British Rail, that it was totally ignored by ASLEF for a period of, I believe, six days and ASLEF then replied with a national strike? We are now told by Mr. Ray Buckton on television that ASLEF wished to undertake flexible rostering and that it is the Railways Board who are being obdurate. Would the Minister agree that if that is correct, we might have it underlined and got over to the general public?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, so far as I am aware, what the noble Baroness has said is correct. I think the public are not being starved of comment and information about what is happening. I am sure they will come to their own conclusions, and they would probably be the ones the noble Baroness mentioned.

§ Lord Tanlaw
My Lords, could the noble Lord give an undertaking that once this dispute has been settled there will be no further delay in the investment programme of railway system modernisation in this country?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, the noble Lord will know that I can make no such comment on that.

§ Lord Orr-Ewing
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of the information given us will be of interest to the electorate as a whole that many millions of people and businesses, too, are suffering grievous inconvenience as a result of what many people believe is an unnecessary strike, and that anything we can do to make the facts known to Parliament and the electorate must be helpful?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, I accept what my noble friend has said as to that.

§ Lord Beswick
My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm one figure from the reply he made to my noble friend Lord Underhill? He said that £34 million would be saved if the flexible rostering scheme had been accepted. Does that apply to flexible rostering for locomotive men, which was the subject of the supplementary question?

§ Lord Bellwin
My Lords, the figure I gave is over £35 million. The figure I have is £35.4 million. As to what it refers, yes, it is to cover flexible rostering and associated items. If the noble Lord would like a breakdown, I will send it to him.