British Rail: Manning (Hansard, 22 March 1989)

§ The Parliamentry Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
My Lords, British Rail informs me that the total number of group employees was 181,782 in January 1985 and 148,316 in January 1989. Excluding employees in subsidiaries such as BREL, the numbers of rail employees were 144,261 and 127,686, a reduction of 11.5 per cent. over the period. It is not possible to give an exact figure for staff employed solely on maintenance duties, but the numbers employed by BR's three engineering divisions fell by 10.6 per cent. in the same period, from 60,936 in January 1985 to 54,497 in January 1989.

§ Lord Jay
My Lords, is there not a risk that the undermanning of our public transport services enforced by the Government's financial targets may become a threat not just to efficiency but to the safety of those services?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, British Rail makes safety its first and highest priority. It would not reduce staff numbers if that were compromised.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, is it not a fact that for some years now concern has been expressed by the unions and others about excessive overtime that has to be worked by many members of British Rail staff? Is it not correct that, as reported recently, there is a 10 per cent. shortfall of drivers in Network SouthEast? As regards excessive overtime, while one cannot comment on the results of the three rail inquiries now taking place, is there not some concern at the evidence given of the excessive overtime that is worked and of the bad morale that exists due to the loss of skilled and technical staff, arising from low wages, to other concerns such as British Telecom?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, overtime is a management matter for British Rail. It is obviously being carefully considered, as the noble Lord said, by the accident inquiries now taking place and it would be wrong to speculate on the inquiries' conclusions in advance. I understand that British Rail is considering a range of measures to encourage recruitment and the retention of staff in areas where there are shortages. That should help to reduce overtime.

§ Lord Orr-Ewing
My Lords, can my noble friend say how the figures for British Rail compare with the manning of Continental railways, taking account of the proportions of rail track in use? Are British Rail's figures higher or lower for manning than that of our Continental competitors in France and particularly in Switzerland?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have figures to compare our manning levels with overseas operators. I shall endeavour to ascertain whether comparable figures are available and perhaps write to my noble friend.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, the Minister said that British Rail puts safety as a priority. If British Rail were to be nationalised, would not profit be given priority over safety?

Noble Lords
Privatised!

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, if British Rail were privatised and private companies returned to the railways, would it not be their duty to put profit before safety?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
No, my Lords. There is little that I can add to my reply to the debate just before Christmas. If British Rail were to be privatised, safety would continue to be paramount. We would obviously have to ensure that is so through rigorous oversight by an independent inspectorate.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, did my noble friend observe that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, referred to the move of labour from a nationalised to a privatised industry? Has my noble friend any comment to make on that?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned privatisation in his question.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to British Telecom.

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
I apologise, my Lords. The noble Lord did mention British Telecom. However, as I said in my previous answer, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that privatisation would affect safety one way or the other.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is far from the subject of the original Question? I referred to the position where there is a transfer of technical staff to illustrate the bad morale that exists in sections of British Rail due to the low wages. That is the point that should be considered and I hope that the Minister agrees with that.

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I have already said that British Rail is considering a range of measures to encourage recruitment and the retention of staff.

§ Lord Glenamara
My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered the point put by my noble friend Lord Jay. Has the noble Lord noticed that as the Government have raised the financial targets the number of men employed on maintenance has fallen? There is a clear correlation between the two. As one graph has gone up the other has gone down.

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, the responsibility of British Rail is to run a safe, economic and efficient railway. It is obviously right that it should look at staff numbers in that context. I remind the noble Lord that although subsidy to the railway system has gone down—which must be a good thing—at the moment railway investment is at the highest level for 20 years.