Rail Strikes Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton) I need to
inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendment (a) in the
name of the Leader of the Opposition. Under the terms of the
business motion agreed today, the amendment will be moved formally
at the end of the debate. 2.05pm The Secretary of State for
Transport (Grant Shapps) I beg to move, That this House recognises
the vital role of the railways in supporting people and businesses
across...Request free trial
Rail Strikes
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I need to inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendment
(a) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Under the terms
of the business motion agreed today, the amendment will be moved
formally at the end of the debate.
2.05pm
The Secretary of State for Transport ()
I beg to move,
That this House recognises the vital role of the railways in
supporting people and businesses across the UK every day;
condemns the decision of the rail unions to hold three days of
strikes; believes those strikes will adversely affect students
taking examinations, have an unacceptable effect on working
people and a negative effect on the economy; and calls on the
rail unions to reconsider their strike action and continue
discussions with the industry.
The railway is one of the nation’s greatest legacies. The
industrial revolution was forged upon it, and for two centuries
it has been the means by which we have connected north and south,
east and west. It is a proud part of our history, but the truth
is that the railways in this country have fallen behind the
times. When I became Transport Secretary three years ago, it was
clear that our railways were expensive, inefficient, fragmented,
unaccountable and desperately in need of modernising and reform.
There were delays to upgrades, collapsing franchises and busy
lines operating at the very peak of, and sometimes beyond, their
capacity, suffering overcrowding and delays. Some working
practices had not changed for decades. As a result, we have a
railway today that is struggling to keep pace with modern living,
particularly in the wake of the pandemic. Our railways need a new
direction.
Office workers are working from home more often and the railway
has lost around a fifth of its passengers, and also a fifth of
its income. The Government kept the railway running when most
passengers stayed at home. We kept trains available for key
workers and protected the brilliant railway workers who managed
the track and ran the trains. So this Government have stepped in.
We put our money where our mouth is and we committed £16 billion
to support the railways through covid. That is taxpayers’ money,
and it is the equivalent of £600 for every household in this
country. Put another way, it is the equivalent to £160,000 per
rail worker in this country. As a result, the trains continued to
operate, the industry survived and not a single railway worker
had to be furloughed or lost their job—not one. We stepped up,
but the honest truth is that this level of subsidy—which, let us
not forget, is not the Government’s money but the
taxpayer’s—simply cannot continue forever. If our railways are to
thrive, things must change.
As I see it, there are four ways to bring about that change.
First, we could continue to attempt to pump billions of pounds of
taxpayers’ money into the system in the same unsustainable way we
have been doing for the last two years, but that would take money
away from the NHS and schools. Secondly, we could ramp up fares,
but that would price working people off our railways completely.
Thirdly, we could cut services and lines, emulating those
sweeping cuts made by Dr Beeching in the 1960s, making it harder
for people to access our railways. I do not support any of those
options, which leaves us with the fourth option: modernise the
railways, making them more productive and getting the industry
off taxpayer-funded life support.
Make no mistake, as a Government we profoundly believe in our
railways, which is why we have reopened abandoned routes and
electrified thousands of miles of lines—not just the 63 miles
that Labour managed to electrify over 13 years. It is why we have
got behind projects such as High Speed 2, the Elizabeth line and
Northern Powerhouse Rail, and rolled out contactless to 900 more
stations and digital signalling across the network. And it is why
we are transforming the industry through Great British Railways,
ending the fragmentation and putting passengers first, but we
need the industry to help with that transformation.
(Islington North) (Ind)
The Secretary of State rightly says that billions were pumped
into the railways during the covid pandemic. That money kept the
system going, and a lot of people worked very hard to keep it
going. The train operating companies were preserved and
supported, and they did very well during that period, as did many
others in the private sector. Why is he now punishing the people
who kept the railway system working, and who do all the difficult
jobs on the railways, with job losses, inadequate pay and a loss
of morale? Should he not talk to their representative unions
about the real situation on the railways and work with them to
ensure we have an effective, efficient and secure rail system for
the future?
I pay tribute to the workers on the railway who kept things
running, with a lot of taxpayers’ cash, during the pandemic. The
right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that, but he talks
about inadequate pay. I remind him and the House that the median
salary for a train driver is £59,000, compared with £31,000 for a
nurse and £21,000 for a care worker. [Hon. Members: “That’s the
train drivers!”] The median salary for the rail sector is
£44,000, which is significantly above the median salary in the
country. What is more, salaries in the rail sector went up much
faster over the last 10 years than in the rest of the country—a
39% increase for train drivers, compared with 7% for police
officers and 16% for nurses. It is a good package, and we need to
get the railways functioning for everybody in this country.
(Wimbledon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that, coming out of the
pandemic, the railways need to be modernised. Is it not
extraordinary that, just as we are seeing confidence return, it
will be destroyed by these strikes? Does he agree that this is
exactly the wrong time, for both our economy and our railways,
for these strikes to be happening?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These discussions were under
way when, suddenly, the union decided to ballot its members,
incorrectly telling them that a strike would get them off the pay
freeze. Nearly every part of the public sector experienced a pay
freeze and, in any case, it is coming to an end. These pointless,
counterproductive strikes should never have been called, and the
Labour party should recognise that fact.
(Nottingham South)
(Lab)
Precisely because of the potential disruption, and instead of
calling today’s debate, should the Secretary of State not be
taking action to try to resolve these disputes? When did he last
meet industry leaders and trade unions to try to get that
resolution? Has he had a discussion about bringing in ACAS to
resolve this dispute? If he has not, will he commit to doing so
now?
I hear what the hon. Lady says. The Leader of the Opposition
claims to care deeply about this issue, yet he is not with us
today. [Hon. Members: “Where is the Prime Minister?”] The Prime
Minister has already said exactly where he is on this issue, but
the Leader of the Opposition cannot find his way to the Front
Bench when it really matters and when it comes to standing up for
working people, Where is he?
The leader of the RMT, Mick Lynch, said only last month, “I do
not negotiate with a Tory Government.” He does not want to meet
us. That is the reality of the situation.
(Kensington) (Con)
There have been 52 days of tube strikes since was elected Mayor of London,
even though he was elected on a promise of zero strikes. He has
also said:
“Strikes are ultimately a sign of failure.”
Does the Secretary of State agree that Londoners deserve better?
Does he agree that any Opposition Member who backs these strikes
is punishing my constituents and my constituents’ businesses?
[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. It will become impossible to hear what people are saying
if this becomes a shouting match. Perhaps we could take the
temperature down a little.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington () is absolutely right. We
provided £5 billion to Transport for London, and we have not seen
the required level of savings. TfL is behind on providing those
savings. There has to be a fair balance between taxpayers
nationwide and what happens in London, but that has not stopped
the RMT striking in London, which will stop Londoners getting to
work. We are locked into an atmosphere in which, before the RMT
even talks, negotiates or listens to an offer, it goes for a
strike ballot.
Several hon. Members rose—
I will make a little progress before taking further
interventions.
We need the industry to help with this transformation. We cannot
ignore working practices that are stuck 50 or even 100 years in
the past. A modern railway needs to run seven days a week. Right
now, too many operators are left short at the weekend, which
leaves passengers with substandard services. We cannot continue
increasing pay on the railways far above the pay for nurses,
teachers, police officers and care workers. We cannot continue
with the absurd situation where workers can restart their
20-minute break if a manager dares to say “Good morning” at
minute 19. That is insane. We have to change the system, as we
cannot continue to fund such practices from the public purse.
(West Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a very profound
speech—[Interruption.] The Opposition might not like it, but he
is.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason there is no
chorus from the Opposition condemning these strikes is that the
RMT is pouring hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not millions,
into the Labour party? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. We need to be very careful not to descend into
insults.
I think my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset () is a former union member,
possibly even a former RMT member. He worked on the railways, so
he knows what he is talking about. Madam Deputy Speaker has asked
us to stick to the facts, so let us do that.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the RMT has donated almost
£250,000 to the Labour party and constituency Labour parties over
the last 10 years. For the fullness of the record, it is also
worth pointing out that the Electoral Commission registered more
than £100 million of trade union donations to the Labour party
and CLPs over the same 10-year period. Those are the facts of the
matter.
(Glasgow South West)
(SNP)
My understanding is that the RMT is not affiliated with the
Labour party, and I say that as an SNP Member.
We have the strictest trade union laws in Europe, and the
thresholds have been easily surpassed in this particular ballot.
What discussions is the Secretary of State facilitating between
the RMT and the employers to resolve this issue?
First, it will interest the House to know—this is in direct
answer to the question—that the negotiations and talks are going
on almost every day.
(Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Without you!
This is Labour’s level of understanding. There is a Network Rail
company that runs the infrastructure—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. We need to hear the answer.
Network Rail runs the infrastructure and 14 train operating
companies are the employers, and they are meeting on a daily
basis. But that has not prevented the unions from striking. That
has not stopped the leader of the RMT saying that he would refuse
to meet us. So we cannot have this every way.
(Elmet and Rothwell)
(Con)
As my right hon. Friend said, billions of pounds of taxpayers’
money was put into the railway industry and it kept almost
everybody in employment. In my constituency, many businesses
survive by servicing the footfall through the stations. Because
these businesses employed staff and they were people’s own
companies, they were not capable of getting the loans and grants
that were in place, because they had to keep the company alive
and keep the people they employed. So what does he think their
reaction is to hearing about more public money spent on the
railways, on top of the £16 billion, when they are struggling to
get their businesses back on track? This strike will make it even
worse for them.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point that out. Just
as the railways and the country are recovering—after two years of
being locked down, with many of our constituents having lost
their jobs and businesses while coronavirus was going on, without
the kind of £16 billion of protection that the railways have
enjoyed—now is not the time to strike.
Several hon. Members rose—
I will make a little more progress and then I will take a couple
more interventions.
That brings me to the motion. Instead of having proper
negotiations with the train companies and Network Rail, the RMT
and other railway unions have leapt straight for the lever marked
“strikes and mass disruption”. Just as the industry is beginning
to recover from the pandemic and people were starting to be able
to travel once again, the last thing we need now is to alienate
passengers who are returning to the network. The unions do not
seem to recognise that many commuters who before covid had no
option but to take the train now have the option not to travel at
all. Say goodbye to them and we really will be in danger of
losing the jobs of thousands of rail workers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Again, I will make a little progress. Of course for others who
have no option but to travel, the strikes will mean huge
disruption. They will mean thousands of people not being able to
get to work, some of whom might lose their jobs and be added to
the list of those who did during covid. These strikes will mean
families losing money; the economy being dented by tens of
millions of pounds every day, as businesses lose customers;
children unable to get to their exams; and patients unable to get
to hospitals.
(Hayes and Harlington)
(Lab)
The question was raised as to whether the Secretary of State or
the Government had met the RMT, and he basically said, “Let the
negotiations go”. I cannot recall the exact phrase he used. Mick
Lynch, the general secretary of the RMT, has written to him
today, “I am writing to seek an urgent meeting with the
Government, without any preconditions, to discuss the national
rail disputes prior to the planned strike action next week, and I
would be grateful if this could be arranged without delay.” Will
he respond—[Interruption.] We are trying to resolve this matter.
Will he respond immediately to Mick Lynch, positively, that he
will meet the union now?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I know
that it is probably on his record, but for the clarity of this
debate let me note that he has £25,000 from the RMT. I say that
merely in order to have this conversation with all that
information being before the public. If this is a change of heart
from Mick Lynch, I welcome it. As I said, just a month ago he
said that he would not meet “a Tory Government”. Ministers have
and do have meetings with him, but these negotiations are a
matter between the employer and the union. The employer is
meeting the union every single day, and that is the best way to
get this resolved.
(Redcar) (Con)
Before the previous intervention, my right hon. Friend was
touching on the fact that many workers will not be able to get to
work because of these strikes. Does he recognise that someone on
the minimum wage will lose £160 over the course of these three
days of strikes? Should that not be the cause for the Labour
party to condemn the strikes today?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is inexplicable how those
in the party who style themselves as the workers’ party do not
seem to care about the fact that anyone who is trying to get
anywhere will lose pay. It is not just about them; it is about
people trying to get to the 17 public examinations that will be
disrupted. Kids doing A-levels and GCSEs will not be able to get
to them. People will not be able to get to their hospital
appointments. This is a reckless, unnecessary strike and it
should be called off right now.
Dame (Basingstoke) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the excellent speech he is
making. He talked about the people who are going to be affected
by this strike, and in my constituency that will be contract
workers who cannot work at home and young people who are having
to use the trains to get to college to take their A-levels. Is it
not irresponsible of the unions to be timing strikes in the
middle of A-level exams, when so many of our young people rely on
trains to get to college?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Thousands of children
are taking those 17 public exams, including my daughter, whose
transport to get to the exams will be complicated by this strike.
It is surprising that there seems, from the noises from Members
opposite, to be so little care and compassion about this issue.
It is absolutely extraordinary. [Interruption.] This red herring
that the unions have not had anybody to talk to is complete and
utter nonsense. They are talking to the employers and they did
not care about those discussions—they just called the strikes
instead. That is what they did.
This is why the Government’s motion calls on the House to condemn
the unions for their unnecessary actions. It is why we demand
that they get to the negotiating table and work in good faith
with the train companies to find the solutions that secure the
future of the industry. I hope that these common-sense principles
will prevail today. I hope that everybody can agree with that,
but I am not sure, given the performance so far, that we are
going to see it.
(Bracknell) (Con)
Given that the Mayor of London, , appears not to have publicly
condemned these strikes, does my right hon. Friend appreciate
that might be encouraged to waive the
ULEZ—ultra low emissions zone—and the congestion charge for
motorists who are now having to come into London? Many of my
constituents rely on the trains, and this is just another cost on
hard-working families.
Every possible alleviation that can be made should be made. I
have not seen that particular proposal, but obviously the Mayor
will need to look at it. It is extraordinary that this whole
House would not want to stand up for hard-working people
everywhere and would not want to ensure that people are able to
get to their work and job, and that their livelihoods are not
damaged.
(Watford) (Con)
Schoolchildren taking their GCSEs and A-levels have been
mentioned. For the past two years, children have had to go
through unprecedented times. They are in the process of going
through exams that have been more stressful than those for any
other generation, because of the pandemic. It is absolutely cruel
that everybody in this House is not condemning the timing of
these strikes and the strikes happening, because those poor
children have gone through enough in the past two years and now
they are having to suffer in the last weeks of their GCSEs.
My hon. Friend has nailed it. It is completely unfair, it is
totally the wrong timing. It should not be happening and the
whole House would appreciate Labour Members saying more about it,
but they cannot say more about it, because they are divided on
the subject. The shadow Levelling Up Secretary says that Labour
stands united with those who bring the chaos upon our
communities. The shadow Health Secretary, supposedly a rising
star, although he is not on the Front Bench today because he does
not want to be associated with this, even goes so far as to say
that if he was given a chance, he would join the strikes. The
shadow Transport Secretary, styling herself today as the shadow
Secretary of State for strikes, refuses to condemn the RMT’s
plan, which is going to cripple our railways.
What has happened to the Leader of the Opposition? He is not
here. What is he saying about this? The Prime Minister has set
out his position very clearly; I have not heard the Leader of the
Opposition set out his position yet. I do not know whether anyone
else has spotted him. He is not here today. Presumably, he has
been standing up to his shadow Cabinet and defending the people
whose lives will be disrupted by the strike. That is where one
would expect him to be, but no. He has been playing a game of
real-life Twister—his position hopelessly contorted, with one
foot in the RMT camp and the other goodness knows where,
stretching credibility. Perhaps it is a position that he thinks
will appear boring to the shadow Cabinet. In fact, what he is
doing is stretching the patience of the British public by not
saying where he stands.
(Battersea) (Lab)
I have been trying persistently to get the Secretary of State’s
attention so that he would give way, but he wants to play
politics throughout. He talks about wanting to protect
hard-working people like those in London, so why will he not
commit to meeting the Mayor of London to get a proper sustainable
funding plan for Transport for London so that people can use the
transport network and get to work?
I am pleased that I have now taken the hon. Lady’s intervention.
This is a debate about the national strikes, rather than the
future funding of TfL, but since she asks, we have already spent
£5 billion supporting TfL. If we had done what the Mayor had
asked me to do two years ago, which was to come up with a
long-term settlement then, he would have been out of money a long
time ago. He should be pleased we did not settle for that.
As I say, this debate is about the strikes that will take place
next week. Labour Members should get behind the rest of the
country and convince their union friends, who I know give them
millions of pounds, that the strike is not in the interests of
the British public. Although the Labour party is bankrolled by
the unions, we want it to stand up to the union barons, rather
than bringing the railways to their knees. The Labour leader
might claim to be different, but if you scratch the surface, it
is the same old Labour.
Today, the Labour party needs to join the Government and vote for
the motion. It needs to put people above its party coffers. It
needs to vote to condemn the unions for their irresponsible
actions. It needs to stand with hard-working people everywhere,
who just want to get on with their lives after two years of
considerable disruption.
(Bury North) (Con)
Thousands upon thousands of self-employed people throughout the
country will not be able to earn a penny over the period of the
strike. It will cripple the economy and the pockets of our
constituents throughout the country. Will my right hon. Friend
say how much the general secretary of the RMT will lose of his
£124,000 in pay and benefits for crippling the economy of this
country?
My hon. Friend is right to point that out. If I am honest, I am
more worried about the rail card that the general secretary gets
with his job than about his salary, because he will not be able
to use it during the strike. I imagine that will be a problem for
him.
(Heywood and Middleton)
(Con)
Prior to coming here, I was a rail commuter. I stood on platform
14 of Manchester Piccadilly every day, Monday to Friday. That is
why I am so frustrated that our Mayor has said absolutely nothing
about the strikes and that a fellow Greater Manchester MP is
enthusiastically backing them. Has my right hon. Friend consulted
any of the Labour of MPs who have taken donations from the RMT
about whether they will donate to their constituents on low
incomes who will not be able to afford to get to work?
My rail commuting friend makes an excellent point. Every person
in this country will want to know and understand how MPs have
voted in this place tonight. It matters to them and their
families, and it matters for their jobs.
(Bath) (LD)
Is it not the reality that the person who most wants this strike
to go ahead is the Prime Minister?
No.
The choice is clear: we can stick with the same old failed model,
which makes the railways uncompetitive and jeopardises thousands
of jobs as people abandon the rail network, perhaps forever, or
we can come together to overhaul our railway industry, build a
service that people want to use and give the railways a bright
future. It is time for the unions to call off these absurd
strikes. Strikes should be the last resort, not the first resort.
If the unions will not stop, we as Members of Parliament, whose
constituents rely on the railways for their work, to see their
families, to get on and to use public services, must speak with
one voice. People throughout the land will look to this House
today to see how their Members of Parliament vote.
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. It is
unfortunate that he has misjudged the tone of this dispute. We
are talking about—[Interruption.] Shh. We are talking about the
livelihoods of public servants and about their job security. If
he was serious about resolving this dispute, not only would he
insist on coming to the table; he would be open to listening to
what the unions have to say. Why won’t he?
I would welcome guidance on a very serious point, Madam Deputy
Speaker. I thought that Members had to point to the Register of
Members’ Financial Interests when they speak in this House. I
believe that the hon. Member for York Central () has received a £3,000
donation from the RMT. Today’s vote is specifically about the RMT
and its strike, so I would welcome any guidance on that
matter.
I do not agree with the hon. Lady about the tone of all this. It
is incredibly important that people are getting around the table
and talking. Talks have been going on. Unfortunately, even though
talks were going on, the unions sold a strike to their members on
false pretences: on the basis that there would be no pay rise,
when in fact there was always going to be a pay rise because the
public pay freeze had come to an end.
I think that now is the time for this House to come together to
show that we support hard-working commuters, key workers, the
public and the pupils we have spoken about who are taking their
A-levels and GCSEs, each of whom will be unable to go about their
business. Or will Labour Members vote with their union baron
friends, as we were just hearing, in favour of these reckless,
unnecessary, self-defeating, premature strikes? Tonight, the
voting record of each and every one of us will be on display. The
record will show that those on the Government Benches stood
united in favour of the people we represent. The question is,
where do that lot stand? I commend the motion to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, I need to say that
there is likely to be a time limit for Back Benchers. It will
start at five minutes, but it may well be taken down further.
2.38pm
(Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
No one in the country wants these strikes to go ahead. As we have
heard, they would be a disaster for workers, passengers, the
economy and the rail industry. The good news is that at this
stage, they are not inevitable and the dispute can still be
resolved. The bad news is that it requires Ministers to step up
and show leadership to get the employers and the unions around
the table to address the real issues on pay and cuts to safety
and maintenance staff that are behind the dispute. Rather than
demonstrating any responsibility, the only action the Government
have taken so far is to send a petition to the official
Opposition. The entire country is about to be ground to a halt,
and instead of intervening to try to prevent it, the Government
are more concerned with a data capture exercise.
Today, on the eve of the biggest rail dispute in a generation
taking place on the Secretary of State’s watch, it is right to
say, is it not, that neither he nor his Ministers have held any
talks with the unions and the industry to try to settle this
dispute?
(Liverpool, Wavertree)
(Lab)
My hon. Friend is making extremely good points—[Interruption.]
Thank you. Does she agree that it is utterly absurd that the
Government of this country are petitioning the Opposition Benches
to try to resolve these strikes when they would do better getting
round the table to resolve the issues themselves?
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. To Members who are just shouting out while the hon. Lady
is trying to make an intervention, I say, please control
yourselves. I couldn’t quite hear the hon. Lady because of the
noise.
Shall I repeat it?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Why don’t you?
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is utterly absurd that the
governing party of the United Kingdom is so incapable of running
this country that it has resorted to petitioning Her Majesty’s
Opposition to resolve this dispute? Would not its time be better
spent doing its job and trying to get round the table to resolve
this dispute?
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I am afraid that it
is pathetic that the Government have chosen to petition the
Official Opposition when in fact the Transport Secretary has not
held a single meeting with either the unions or the industry for
over two months to prevent this action from going ahead.
Why will the hon. Lady not condemn the strikes?
What difference does the hon. Gentleman think it would make if I
condemned the strike? The only person who has it within their
power to resolve this dispute is sitting opposite me now. The
clue is in the name. My title—
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. Just stop shouting. I want to hear what the shadow
Secretary of State has to say.
My title, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the shadow Transport
Secretary. If the Transport Secretary would like to put his hands
up, admit failure and step aside, I would be happy to take
control. The fact is that the train operating companies have not
been given their negotiating mandate by their Department for
Transport, so they cannot even negotiate directly with the trade
unions now. The Secretary of State has responsibility and he is
completely failing to show it.
(Cardiff North) (Lab)
In Labour-run Wales, train staff are not on strike. That is
because, in Wales, we work in social partnership instead of
creating and fabricating misinformation and not engaging with
England.
My hon. Friend is right. Where we have leaders in charge who are
showing responsibility and stepping in and negotiating with the
unions and employers, we have resolved disputes. This Transport
Secretary has no time to resolve the biggest dispute in modern
history. What has he found time to do instead? Looking back at
his Tik Tok over the past couple of months, I can see that he had
plenty of time for videos, for sit-on lawnmowers, for Spaghetti
Junction, and for impersonating Jeremy Clarkson. He spent a
collective total of three-and-a-half hours on the media covering
the back of his weakened, discredited, law-breaking Prime
Minister. He has also found time to grandstand over this pathetic
motion in front of the House today, but he has spent not one
single second in talks to resolve these disputes. Frankly, it is
unbelievable.
But whether it is the chaos at the airports, with security queues
snaking out the door, and thousands of families missing out on
their hard-earned holidays, or the looming rail strike, set to be
the biggest since 1989—when, coincidentally, the Tories were also
in Government—the response from the Transport Secretary is the
same: to cast around for someone else, anyone else, to blame. It
is nothing short of a dereliction of duty and an insults to the
hundreds of thousands of passengers who depend on this being
resolved.
The truth may actually be even worse than our usual
missing-in-action Transport Secretary. It is impossible to escape
the conclusion that Ministers would prefer to provoke this
dispute and play political games rather than resolve it.
(Worsley and Eccles South)
(Lab)
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the missing-in-action
Transport Secretary. A couple of Conservative Members raised the
issue of schoolchildren taking their GCSEs and A-levels, and that
is a concern to everybody. Ministers will not be forgiven for
failing to prepare for this strike. [Interruption.] I tried to
ask the Secretary of State this question. What contingency plans
has he made and has he called Cobra? What we want to see now is
not more Tik Tok from the Secretary of State, but more common
sense, more planning and more contingency.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Was it not telling that there
was not a single mention of one constructive step that the
Transport Secretary has attempted to take to bring this strike to
a resolution? When is he planning on meeting with the industry
and the unions before the first day of planned strike action?
What safety assessment has he made of the cuts to Network Rail
jobs in order to reassure workers and passengers that their
safety will not be compromised? Has Cobra met to plan
contingencies for the impact on the movement of freight, on
schoolchildren missing their exams and on the wider economy?
Finally, and most importantly, will he immediately call in ACAS
to bring an urgent end to the dispute? That is why we have tabled
our amendment to the Government’s motion in front of us today. It
is to urge them to convene talks with the industry and the unions
and take concrete steps to resolve these strikes.
Labour has been clear, and I will be clear again: we do not want
these strikes to take place. If we were in government, we would
be around the table in talks to resolve this. Members do not have
to take my word for it: in Labour-run Wales, a strike by train
staff has been avoided. Employers, unions and the Government have
come together to manage change and avoid the disruptive action
that this Government are about to oversee.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I say to the hon.
Lady, with the greatest respect—
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Sit down! No! The hon. Gentleman does not address the shadow
Secretary of State. Thank you.
That is what any responsible Government would be doing right
now.
(Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It seems that we have a Tory Secretary of State for strikes—a
Secretary of State giving the green light to strikes. There is an
offer on the table from the General Secretary of the RMT. The
shadow Secretary of State has clearly referred to ACAS. Does she
agree that this is about talk, talk and about negotiation? This
is about all those parties—the employers and the trade
unions—meeting together. Should the Secretary of State not be
taking up that offer from the RMT Union?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Secretary of State could
call in ACAS this afternoon in order to take this dispute
forward, but, instead, despite repeated promises made to the
public, this Government have slashed 19,000 rail services, hiked
up rail fares, and presided over near-record delays. The insane
system that they have created means that private operators,
handed millions of pounds for failing services, will be protected
throughout the strike. Those operators have no incentive to
settle this dispute. They will carry on collecting their fee and
the taxpayer will foot the bill. That is the reality of the
Conservative mismanagement of our railways.
Finally, let me say this loud and clear: the tens of thousands of
workers who keep our railways running are not the enemy. In 2020,
the Secretary of State called them “true heroes”. They kept our
country served and stocked during the pandemic. They are
cleaners, technicians and apprentices—the very same people to
whom the Prime Minister promised a “high-wage economy” before
presiding over the biggest fall in wages in a decade. Just six
weeks ago, the Transport Secretary and his colleagues confected
outrage about the illegal decision to replace 800 P&O workers
with agency staff. He even called on the public to boycott
P&O, but in reality he is acting directly from P&O’s
playbook. The only difference is that he wants to make it
legal.
Today, the Government have shown their true colours: they want to
gut the rights of British workers. How do they think scandals
such as P&O can be avoided or even properly punished if they
are going to take the axe to the limited protections that workers
currently enjoy? Labour will always fight for fair pay and a
decent wage for working people. However, rather than do their
job, desperate Tory Ministers are spoiling for a fight to
distract from their chaotic, discredited and aimless
Government.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I hope this is a serious point of order and not just an attempt
to disrupt the debate. I want to be absolutely clear that it is
very discourteous to the House to keep interrupting with points
of order when colleagues will have the chance to contribute
separately. I look forward to this being a proper point of
order.
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a proper point
of order, because we value a proper debate in this House. Is it a
proper debate if the hon. Member at the Opposition Dispatch Box
refuses to take interventions from this side?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Honestly, the hon. Gentleman should know very well, because he
will have seen it on both sides of the House, that it is up to an
individual right hon. or hon. Member whether they take
interventions. He knows that very well. Quite honestly, that was
a bit spurious. Let us have just a bit of courtesy to each other
in this debate—[Interruption.] Don’t question me. I call .
The public will not forgive the Government next week, when
children are missing their school exams, patients are missing
their health appointments in the face of the biggest backlog in
NHS history and low-paid workers cannot get to work, if the
Government have not lifted a finger to resolve any of it. What
the public need right now is a firefighter; instead they have a
bunch of arsonists. If the Secretary of State is remotely
interested in doing his job, he will accept our amendment, drop
the toxic political point-scoring, and get round the table to
prevent these strikes.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Chair of the Transport Committee, .
2.52pm
(Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Whenever I rise to speak, I always take the energy out of the
room, which in this instance may be no bad thing if we are to get
ourselves a settlement here.
These strikes are such a huge shame to this industry. We have a
situation where diesel is rising to £2 per litre, we have
challenges at the airport and we are going into the summer months
looking at the leisure market. This should be the time when we
can grow our rail market back to the levels it was pre pandemic.
Let us remember that rail services used to pay for
themselves—indeed, back in 2018 they paid £200 million to the
Exchequer—but we have seen that situation reversed to a £16
billion taxpayer subsidy.
In my years both on the Select Committee and chairing it, I have
always tried to engage positively with the trade union movement.
I certainly did when it came to airlines’ cutting staff; I
remember being on the picket line with hon. Members from Brighton
with Unite staff. Indeed, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown
() said that someone had
asked, “Which one of you is the Tory?”, which one would not
normally expect with him.
I have always spoken out where I have felt that the workforce
have been treated badly, but I must say that rail workers have
always enjoyed positive pay. I fished out a release from the RMT
back in 2019 where it congratulated itself on an
inflation-busting pay rise for its members. Rail workers earn 70%
extra on a median basis compared with the typical UK worker. This
is a well-paid workforce, and I will always continue to ensure
that they are supported and well paid, but they must bear in mind
that we need reform on the railway if we are to make it better
and safer for passenger and worker.
(Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Chair of the Select Committee has talked about engaging with
the trade unions, which I know he has done positively. Does he
agree that his Government should get around the table, facilitate
those negotiations and talks and take some responsibility?
I will always support engagement positively. The trouble is that
in order to do that, we need industrial action to come off the
table, since it is only next week. Of course unions will not do
that, because that is their leverage, but it is foolish for a
negotiator on one side to allow those talks to commence without
any certainty that there will be some give on the other side. I
used to work as a negotiator, so I understand how these things
operate: there has to be give and take from both sides. It is not
good enough to write a letter saying, “We will talk immediately,”
without reducing demands or saying, “The strikes will be
postponed so that we can have those talks.” I do not believe that
letter says that, but that is what is required.
It was right during the pandemic that we threw everything at
ensuring the railways operated. It was right then, but if it was
right then to get essential key workers to their places and
people to their hospital appointments, then it is absolutely
right now, given that we have given £16 billion of taxpayers’
money—not our money, but taxpayers’ money—into supporting the
rail system.
I want to talk about safety, because that is bound to come up.
When we ask for reform, which of course will produce savings, we
are also talking about innovation and technology that will make
the railways safer. I will give an example: there is no need for
railway workers to be walking on the tracks to undertake certain
jobs when technology—drones and cameras under the bottom of train
carriages—can do those jobs instead.
I have a report in this folder from the Rail Accident
Investigation Branch looking at a tragedy in Surbiton, telling
Network Rail that it needs to get more of its workforce off the
tracks and make more use of technology and innovation. This is
not just about safety, efficiency, cost-cutting or
manpower-cutting, particularly when we are delivering HS2 and
Northern Powerhouse Rail and Crossrail has just been delivered.
There are jobs in the rail industry, but they must be modernised
to make them safer for all.
(Birmingham, Hall Green)
(Lab)
I come from a maintenance background and I know how maintenance
works. When you get rid of engineers, you cannot replace them.
You cannot decide one day that you have got rid of 500 too many
maintenance staff or engineers; they are specialist workers who
need training over the years. Once they have gone, so has the
knowledge.
Drones and technology can replace people to some extent, but not
to the extent being proposed. How do you suggest that the jobs
that will be affected will not put at risk the safety of the
people using the trains and lead to future crashes that would
cost the lives of transport people?
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. Interventions do need to be short and not directly
addressing the hon. Member.
Following your lead, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will just give one
example: cracks to rail. Technology now allows a sensor camera
underneath a train to click 70,000 images per minute. That
replaces an individual’s eyes or teams of men tracking. I would
maintain that that not only makes it more likely that the cracks
will be spotted, but means it is not necessary to put people on
the asset, which is dangerous to them and means closures that we
do not need when the train is operating.
This is not rocket science related specifically to the rail
industry. Every single industry innovates, moves forward and
develops. This Chamber may seem a funny place to stand and say
that working practices are rooted in the past, when this very
place is all about that, but the way we speak and operate here
does not necessarily impact the lives or enhance the passenger
services that I believe we could do in rail, if the industry as a
whole, working with the workforce, developed and innovated in the
manner I advocate.
I come back to the point about collaboratively working together.
It is essential. I saw to my cost, as an MP in the region that
includes Southern Railway, damaging strikes that went on for far
too long. Passengers could not get to work; it had a huge impact
on the economic community and on the workforce. The crazy thing
about that strike, which was about who opened the doors, the
guard or the driver, was that it ended up being settled with a
pay rise for drivers. Ironically, that was on the ASLEF side; the
RMT side, which started this, did not get that pay rise. The
ASLEF drivers got a pay rise of 25% over three years.
I would say to those on the Front Bench: “Of course take
leadership, make that noise, but you have to ensure that you see
this through.” There is nothing worse than starting this action,
causing industrial relations to decline, and then finding out
that we withdraw; it would be better not to do it at all.
rose—
I will give way one more time because the hon. Lady is my
predecessor on the Select Committee.
The hon. Gentleman knows that I have a great deal of respect for
the work that he does, but what conclusion does he draw from the
fact that there are no rail strikes going ahead next week in
Wales, where there has been an active, responsible Government
seeking to bring people together and resolve issues? Is it not
precisely the point that active government can get the two sides
together and attempt to resolve the issues?
I certainly take that point, but just I heard from another member
of our Committee that Network Rail is still striking in Wales,
and when it is about Network Rail members of the RMT, that tends
to shut the railway down. In my example of when the RMT was
striking in the Southern region, that did not shut the system
down because that only happened when ASLEF drivers were involved.
We will both check the record on that, no doubt, but that is how
I am informed.
(East Yorkshire) (Con)
rose—
I will take one last intervention and that is it.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. I should perhaps explain that if two interventions are
taken there is extra time, but after that there is not, so I am
afraid that the hon. Gentleman has run out of time.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I took your advice to
the previous Member who raised a point of order not to do it in
the thrust of the debate, which is I waited until this moment,
but I thought it right to put it on the record that I was not
aware that the shadow Secretary of State declared in her remarks
that she had received over £30,000 in donations from the unions.
Given that Members’ entries in the Register of Members’ Financial
Interests are under particular scrutiny at this time, it is right
that in a debate about unions and strikes, all Members are clear
about their entries in the register.
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have
never received a penny from the RMT.
This is about unions and strikes, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the
hon. Lady has received £30,000 from the unions since 2015. That
is a matter of fact according to the Register of Members’
Financial Interests.
Madam Deputy Speaker
This is rather descending into how I hoped a debate on a very
serious issue might not be governed. The hon. Gentleman has said
one thing and the shadow Secretary of State has said another, but
I reiterate that the responsibility for registration lies with
individual Members and not the Chair, and I think we need to
adopt that practice, frankly. If there are any complaints to be
made, they should be submitted to the Parliamentary Commissioner
for Standards. That is the appropriate course of action. Perhaps
we should now move on with the debate and address the issues in
front of us in some detail, as I am sure the SNP spokesman,
, will do.
3.03pm
(Paisley and Renfrewshire
North) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think the rather febrile
atmosphere on the Conservative Benches rather gives the lie to
the Conservative approach to workers’ rights in this place.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his motion, because
after his part-nationalisation of railways during the pandemic
and his—on the face of it, at least—very un-Conservative response
to the actions of P&O, his ideological re-education has been
a roaring success in the form of this utterly regressive motion
before us today. Let us face it, no Tory Cabinet Minister has
ever seen their stock drop through a bit of good old-fashioned
union bashing, and that is exactly what this motion is.
[Interruption.] I am happy to give way to the Secretary of State
if he wants. His motion talks about the “effect on the economy”
that next week’s proposed action will have. I find that
incredible when his Government have set the British economy
ablaze in the name of “taking back control”. Is that control only
to be taken back when it has a wee Union Jack on it as opposed to
a union banner?
Some Conservative Members and their comrades in Holyrood moved at
lightning speed recently in their attempt to blame the Scottish
Government for the issues experienced with the newly nationalised
ScotRail regarding rest day working, but they have gone a little
more quiet after ScotRail management and ASLEF worked through the
issues and came to a negotiated outcome that the union leadership
have today recommended to their members.
rose—
I had a feeling that my colleague on the Transport Committee
would intervene at this point.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree, though, that the SNP Scottish
Government have absolutely failed in managing the situation in
Scotland? Only a week ago, the SNP said that it would not buckle
to the unions, but it has done. It has given a 5% pay rise, plus
profit share, with no improvements at all, and the strike coming
from the RMT will still affect Scotland in the coming days. So
does he agree that perhaps the SNP Scottish Government are not
quite as brilliant as he makes out?
It will come as no surprise to anyone that I completely disagree.
We are unlikely to have strikes in Scotland, other than the
Network Rail issues, which are entirely reserved to this place. I
am not entirely sure why the hon. Gentleman does not want people
to get a fair wage in this day and age when inflation, partly
caused by his own Government, might run at near 10% by the end of
this year. I think that 5% is a good deal for the workers and a
good deal for ScotRail.
(Na h-Eileanan an
Iar) (SNP)
What I am discerning from this debate is that where you have
Tories you get strikes. That is the lesson from Scotland and
Wales. It is always instructive to find out from the Tories about
market forces. Market forces apply only when it comes to bankers;
workers should just suck up the cost of living crisis and not use
their force in the market to get themselves a decent wage. If
this was about bankers’ bonuses, there would be no problems for
Conservative Members whatsoever. They should be doing something
about the inequality that is driving this. We saw yesterday from
the SNP’s prospectus for independence that the UK has the
greatest inequality of any of the north-western European
countries. That lies at the doorstep of the Tory Government, and
Transport Ministers and other Ministers do nothing about it.
I could not agree more. I knew my hon. Friend would manage to
shoehorn yesterday’s statements on independence into this debate
on rail strikes, and I wholeheartedly agree.
I was talking about the difference in approach between the Tories
in Scotland on the ScotRail issue as compared with the current
issue. The Scottish Conservatives’ Twitter account said that the
SNP Government
“must sort this mess out and address the travel misery facing
commuters.”
called for the Scottish
Government to get involved and get round the table. is a Scottish Conservative
transport spokesperson in Holyrood. When he was on “Good Morning
Scotland” on 20 May, he was asked seven times how he would
resolve the rail dispute and he could not answer on any of those
seven occasions. That is the difference in approach we get from
the Conservatives in Scotland and the Scottish Conservatives in
this place. It would be nice to think that the same energy and
vim would be directed towards the Secretary of State and his
Ministers for their role in the UK-wide dispute next week, but I
somehow think that their social media output will instead absolve
the Government of any blame, after throwing the kitchen sink at a
Scottish Government only weeks after nationalisation.
Perhaps there is something to be said for real public control of
our railways, because under the DFT’s fragmented and privatised
system, next week will be catastrophic for our rail network. It
would be churlish to point out, but I will anyway, that for years
the Scottish Government have called for Network Rail to be
devolved to Holyrood and come under the auspices of the Scottish
Parliament so as to operate a fully integrated railway bringing
together track and services. Indeed, former Rail Minister , now an HS2 Ltd board member, advised the Williams
review that Network Rail should be devolved when he was a member
of the expert challenge panel, but, as per, the Scottish
Government, and the rail sector in Scotland, were ignored.
Perhaps if that were the case, and given the likely resolution of
the ScotRail dispute, we would have services operating next week
in Scotland instead of an almost complete cessation of any rail
operations across the country for a week.
At least ScotRail tried to give some certainty to passengers,
despite the disruption to services, by publishing an emergency
timetable outlining which services were running. As of today, we
are promised an emergency timetable on Friday for the disruption
starting next Tuesday, and that simply is not enough time for
people to plan whatever trips they might have to take. This
industrial action has been known about for weeks, yet passengers
are waiting until days beforehand to find out what skeleton
services will be in place. Whatever other lessons are learned by
the DFT from this dispute, a key one will have to be that early
information is crucial in allowing potential passengers to make
informed decisions about how, where and when they can travel and
what alternative arrangements they might need to make.
I was stunned to see the Secretary of State appear to call for an
overtime ban for striking rail workers. The entire railway can
only function on overtime. One thing that the ScotRail rest day
and overtime issue has highlighted is the antiquated rostering
system we have in rail systems across the UK. ScotRail has been
working to phase that out. That job has been hindered by the
pandemic and the impact it has had on driver training—130 new
drivers would be in place on the network right now if covid had
not hit. Training and recruitment is back on track, with those
drivers now scheduled to finish training and be deployed over the
next 18 months.
That will go hand in hand with the agreement that ASLEF is now
recommending to its members, which will bring Sundays into the
working week and put a truly seven-day railway in place over the
coming years. That agreement also includes, as highlighted by my
colleague on the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for West
Dorset (), revenue sharing for all
ScotRail staff when revenue targets are met. That kind of
initiative—giving workers a stake, not just in their job roles
but across the service—should be considered across the industry
and taken to the negotiating table by the Secretary of State.
Elsewhere in Parliament today, there is a debate on fire and
rehire secured by the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). I was
keen to take part in that debate, but my Front-Bench duties have
brought me here. One of the key points in the speech I would have
made there is equally valid here: modern and progressive
industrial relations must involve dialogue and collective working
between management and the workforce. It is clear that the
Secretary of State appears to have been doing everything possible
to run far away from the very thought of even appearing
progressive or modern. He suggested that striking rail workers
should be banned from getting overtime, despite the reliance of
the network on overtime and rest day working—a situation we are
working on in Scotland.
The Secretary of State wrote a column for The Sun about
“rapacious union barons”
and the RMT executive holding
“a gun to the industry’s head”,
while
“ministers are determined to ensure strikers cannot milk the
system”.
He used veiled threats to bring in unqualified, untrained staff
to bust strikes, which simply poured even more fuel on a fire of
his own Department’s making. That might go down well around the
Cabinet table or at the next meeting of the 1922 committee—at
least when it is not trying to change the rules for the next
leadership election—but that is not the way to show actual
leadership, and it certainly is not the way to negotiate with
workers who are at the end of their tether with a Department that
has used rail to grab headlines when it suits, but quietly dumps
the negative stories when it suits, too, whether that is HS2 to
Leeds and Bradford, the Golborne link or the truncated Great
Western electrification.
Passengers and rail workers all want to see a better railway that
delivers efficiency, punctuality, value and convenience. The
Government’s attempt to drive a wedge between those groups and
their ambitions are as predictable as they are regressive. They
are the behaviours of the past and of those with their heads in
the sand. Ministers must meet transport workers and trade unions
to resolve this dispute before mass disruption affects us all,
and in doing so commit to no redundancies, as the Scottish
Government have.
This motion—in fact, this whole approach—is all part of the Tory
culture war to cripple unions, undermine strikes, ban disruptive
protests and end pickets with temporary agency staff, and it
highlights yet again why the Tories are unfit to govern. Rail has
a bright future. In Scotland, after decades of underinvestment
and gradual decline, electrification and decarbonisation have
been a core part of the Government agenda for every party that
has been the Administration, whether Labour, Liberal or SNP.
Sadly, we have not had a Conservative Government in Scotland
yet.
Not sadly at all.
It was ironic. Electrification and decarbonisation are a key part
of the drive towards a net zero society and a more balanced and
sustainable economy, but that modernisation has to be accompanied
by a modern, mature industrial relations strategy. That maturity
and modernity was demonstrated by ScotRail and the trade unions
in Scotland this month in coming to an agreement that benefits
staff and the network, and the contrast with the utterances of
the Secretary of State and his team could not be clearer.
The Secretary of State is a dinosaur stuck in the dark ages of
industrial relations, retreating to his ideological instincts
instead of looking elsewhere to see how to manage a railway and
work collectively with staff and unions to plot a path for the
future. It is not too late for him and this Government to see
sense and join the rest of us in the 21st century, to learn
lessons from elsewhere on these isles and in Europe, and to take
heed of the voices in the industry, unions and management who
want a grown-up discussion about where the industry goes. This
motion is not grown-up. If the Secretary of State is serious
about a new start for railways, he should seek permission to
withdraw it immediately.
3.15pm
(Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale
and Tweeddale) (Con)
I want to bring the debate back to passengers and rail users,
because my constituents do not just face the strikes next week;
they have faced months of industrial action by the RMT affecting
the Transpennine network.
We have seen weekend services completely and utterly disrupted.
We have seen regular cancellations of weekday services because of
the issues around rest day working and working to rule on that
issue. We have the conductor dispute, which means that there is
essentially no reliable Sunday service. As someone who has worked
for 20 years to improve services at Lockerbie station and to
encourage people to get on the railways, I can say that these
issues undermine confidence in the railways. Lockerbie station is
the hub for the rural south of Scotland. There are, particularly
for journeys to Edinburgh—
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
No, I will not, because the hon. Gentleman would be well advised
to learn about the south of Scotland and services that connect
Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom.
We have faced the undermining of confidence in rail travel, but
we have also seen—this has not been touched on enough in this
debate—disruption to individuals. Constituents of mine travel to
hospital appointments on these services. They sometimes have to
travel 40 miles to get to the station, only to find that the
train has been cancelled at the last minute and they cannot get
to a cancer appointment in Edinburgh. They cannot carry out the
normal activities that people would want in terms of shopping and
leisure, and they cannot carry out their work, and it is totally
and utterly unacceptable, and it has gone on for months. The
strike and the industrial action have not brought the issue to a
resolution; they have simply affected adversely all those people
who want to use rail services, and it is not acceptable.
I am not saying that Transpennine and others
are not without blame in this. One of my constituents’
complaints, which I have raised with the Rail Minister, the hon.
Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (), is that through something
like Traveline, people can actually buy a ticket for a train that
has been cancelled, and that cannot be right. It cannot benefit
anyone to undermine confidence in rail services. I have worked
hard to ensure that my constituents have a full and comprehensive
timetable that allows travel not only from Edinburgh and Glasgow,
but importantly into the rest of the United Kingdom, and that is
being completely and utterly disrupted and undermined.
I travelled to London by train last Monday, because something
important was happening in Parliament, only to find that two
cancelled trains had to be combined with the Avanti service that
was coming to London. The guard threatened to cancel that train
too, because there were too many people on it for health and
safety. Passengers who wanted to get on the service at Penrith
were refused. That is not the way that our rail services should
be operating, and it is not the way that the unions, which should
clearly want our rail services to not just continue but expand
and grow, should support those services.
To conclude, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North
() did not mention it, but
ScotRail does not run all rail services in Scotland; there are
other services that connect Scotland to the rest of the United
Kingdom. Let us not have such a blinkered approach from the
Scottish Government that merely focuses on rail services within
Scotland. People in Scotland want to travel across the whole
United Kingdom.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. As hon. Members can see, there is a lot of interest in
this debate. The winding-up speeches will start no later than
4.45 pm, with 10 minutes each for the Front-Bench spokespeople.
is next for five minutes,
but to get as many people in as we can, we will then drop the
time limit to three minutes.
3.20pm
(Hayes and Harlington)
(Lab)
Let me clarify one point if I may. There has been reference to
RMT donations to individual Members and the declaration of
interests. I thought the declaration of interests was annual, but
I make it absolutely clear that the RMT contributed to my
constituency party during the general election, which I declared
properly and of which I am proud. RMT members were the first to
move at the TUC that the Labour party should be established; that
union is part of our movement. I am proud to be supported by it
and I am proud to be part of the RMT parliamentary group. That
gives me a relationship with workers in the railway estate in my
constituency, which enables me to speak with some authority—I
try, anyway—on rail matters. Let me put that to rest: I am proud
of the support that it gives to my constituency party.
(Winchester) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
If it is on that, no, because there are more important points to
be honest.
We need to return the debate to what the dispute is about. I
refer to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (). The union has three demands in the negotiations so
I will make three points. The first demand is for no compulsory
redundancies—compulsory is the key word. There has never been a
time when the RMT has not negotiated job losses, but there has
always been a principle that they should not be compulsory. I
remember that Bob Crow never lost a dispute, and neither has Mick
Lynch, because they are sensible about the nature of the disputes
that they get into.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Let me press on.
The union’s second demand is to get some form of inflation
proofing of members’ incomes, and who can blame it when inflation
is rising by anything between 7% and 11%? That is what ordinary
working people want.
(Workington) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Let me press on.
Let us also be clear about wages in the industry, which are
linked. The median wage is £31,000. Drivers are largely
represented by ASLEF, so the vast bulk of people who we are
talking about are station staff, cleaners and others whose wages
range between £20,000 and £30,000. We are not talking about
people on very high wages, so inflation proofing is important to
them at the moment
The third demand is where we have some problems—I understand
that. It is that when there are changes in jobs and conditions of
work, they should be subject to negotiation and—this is the
difficult bit—agreement. We know that this dispute will be
settled at some stage, so the issue is how bloody it will get.
What we all have to do, as I say on the RMT parliamentary group
as well, is to facilitate an exchange that enables a
resolution.
That is why today’s letter is important. The hon. Member for
Bexhill and Battle is right to say, “Well, it was unconditional”,
but it is unconditional from the Government as well. At the
moment, it is important to just get everyone through the door.
The Government have not put conditions on and neither has the
union. The union has not asked for conditions from the
Government, and nor should the Government ask for conditions from
it. Often, in organising a ballot about industrial action, time
limits are in place. At this time, when we are faced with the
disruption that is there, an act of good faith such as sitting in
the same room is important—it might not work.
I am in danger of agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman, who
makes a very good point. It may well be, in return for giving way
a little in saying, “Okay, we’ll sit down with you and then not
strike”, that the RMT needs to hear that there will not be a need
for compulsory redundancies, because the way the workforce works,
voluntary redundancies should probably be taken up anyway and
then that could be the natural progression.
The hon. Gentleman knows what these negotiations are like. My
background is the National Union of Mineworkers, then the TUC and
so on—I have been a trade unionist for the last 50 years—and in
every sort of negotiation, the key issue is just getting through
that door. Once we get through that door and are face to face
starting those negotiations off, anything can happen. We have all
been there, and we can have a bloody great row, but at least we
are talking. That is all the RMT is asking for.
Let me just say that Members need to know the atmosphere at the
moment. I have been talking at various union conferences—I was at
Unison yesterday and all the rest—and there is a concern that we
are going back to the 1980s, and I saw what happened in the
1980s. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (), who is here, was an active miner at the time, and I
was a member of the NUM head office. What happened then was that
there was a Government will to somehow take on the trade union
movement, and we got described as the “enemy within”.
If anyone thinks it is to their advantage politically to start
taking the RMT on as the enemy within in this situation, they are
sorely mistaken, because it is not just about the RMT. At every
union conference I have been to, there is a real anxiety. There
is an anxiety about protection of their members against this cost
of living crisis, and I have to say that there is an anxiety
about protecting themselves against some of the threats that have
come from the Government—minimal services, bans on overtime and
all the rest—which is inflammatory when we are trying to get a
negotiated settlement.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
I do not have time, to be honest, or do I get a second extra
minute? [Interruption.] I will give way.
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is
it not ironic, or does he not think it is ironic that, with a
Prime Minister who talks about a higher-wage economy, the minute
people start—
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. Can the hon. Gentleman face the front, please?
I am trying to do that and face the right hon. Gentleman, which
is not easy, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Surely it is ironic that, with a Prime Minister who talks about a
higher-wage economy, the first time people come along just
wanting to maintain wages—not let wages go lower—his Government
are opposing it, with the right hon. Gentleman having to make a
very reasonable case in this House pointing out why trade union
members have to do what they are doing.
Perhaps I pointed in the wrong direction, but I meant no
disrespect to the hon. Member.
I have talked at several trade union conferences and I have been
consulting trade unions in my own constituency, and the big fear
at the moment is that their members are facing a potential
avalanche of costs coming at them, and they have had their wages
largely frozen for 12 years, with some having in effect had a
wage cut. They do not see any light at the end of the tunnel, and
they see a Government now threatening intimidatory legislation to
undermine trade union rights further, so then we ask the
question: what do they do? All they can do—this is all that is
left to them—is to withdraw their labour, and that is what we are
seeing.
This is not just in the RMT. Unite has 100 disputes taking place
at the moment. The general secretary of Unison has for the first
time—I have never heard this before—said to Unison members, “Go
back to your branches and prepare for action.” The PCS is in
dispute as well. If we look at what is happening, it is because
we have working-class people frightened for their futures and
deeply insecure about their futures. They are faced with a
Government who, to be frank, on this particular issue will not
even open the door for a meeting. That is why the atmosphere has
been so fouled at the moment. I just think that Conservative
Members should know that this is not the time for braying
speeches; it is a time for consideration and an element of
responsibility to be introduced into this debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. There is now a three-minute limit.
3.28pm
(Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
To go back to close to the final comments of the shadow Secretary
of State, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (), she said she was looking for
a firefighter—well, here he is. I was a member of the Fire
Brigades Union when it was thrown out of the Labour party because
we were too militant, so I have been around this circuit many
times.
I found the speech of the right hon. Member for Hayes and
Harlington () quite frightening, because
we can reverse that argument about the trade unions going back
and getting ready for a fight. That is turning round to the
British public and saying, “You voted Tory, so we’re going to
punish you.” That feeling is as strong in my constituency now and
in other parts of the country as it has ever been. This dispute
does not need to take place, because it is too early to call this
sort of strike. It is really early—we are right at the front. Why
now? Why call a strike at such an early position? [Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar () has been chuntering
away from a sedentary position for about the last two hours. Shut
up! We are fed up with it.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. Let us be much more conciliatory—[Interruption.] That is
my job, not that of the right hon. Gentleman. Let us be
conciliatory and use moderate language throughout this debate. It
doesn’t need any more heat.
What I am trying to get across is that there is anger here, on
both sides, and my constituents will not be able to go to work,
because people are on strike who did not have to go to work
during the lockdown when the unions were getting their money.
What is going on here is that we are being punished. My
constituents are being punished by the Labour party, which will
not come out against this strike.
rose—
No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has been
chuntering away for the past two hours, and that’s enough for
anybody. Labour Members could contribute to this. They could turn
around and say, “This is the wrong time; this is not the right
time”. Instead, because they are so petrified of their
paymasters, they have to condone it.
(West Ham) (Lab)
rose—
I will give way to the hon. Lady. She is a good friend of
mine.
Ms Brown
I know, and I am very fond of the right hon. Gentleman. His
constituency is not completely dissimilar to mine. We both know
that we have additional people using food banks, and that those
people are in work. There is a huge amount of fear—reasonable
fear—within our communities about people not being able to afford
to put food on the table and pay their rent. Does he agree that
the Government have a responsibility to get round the table,
protect livelihoods, and show some respect and concern for those
who are suffering from the cost of living crisis?
That is why it was so appalling for a trade union leader to turn
around and say that he will never deal with a Tory Government.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington () could come up with a letter
on the day of this debate, when there is almost nobody on the
Opposition Benches, even though the unions pay for them, almost
completely—[Interruption.] I said the Benches; I did not direct
that at the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown). What can my
constituents say when figures come out that a train driver earns
50-odd-thousand pounds a year? On my council estates people dream
of that sort of money every day of the week. [Interruption.] Yes,
they do get paid less than me, but people can put their name on
the ballot paper and have a go as well, which is why I beat a
Labour MP for my seat. Those sedentary comments from the Back
Benches are not useful.
We do not need to have strikes or the cancellation of train
services for my commuters all the time. Southern rail, which we
spoke about earlier, caused chaos in my constituency. Week in,
week out I listened to the local radio, and trains were cancelled
because they did not have the staff. The jobs are there. What is
going on? Let’s stop the strike now, and then discussions can
take place. This is not a nationalised railway; these are
employers and that is a completely different situation. We are
not in the days of the miners’ strikes; we are not in the days
when the Government ran the mines. Railways today are different,
and I passionately believe that they are going to try to punish
my constituents, and particularly those in the northern seats,
because the British public dared to vote Tory—dared to vote
Tory!—and the union barons hate it and so does the Labour
party.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. Let us try an experiment and see whether we can get
through the next three minutes without any shouting on either
side. I call .
3.33pm
(Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. After the challenges of the
pandemic, the rail industry is just starting to bounce back, and
with working from home now a much more accepted working practice,
we might have to accept that passenger numbers may not return to
pre-pandemic levels. Numbers are trending upwards, as people are
returning to work in person or looking to get away for a family
holiday, but that recovery risks being a fragile one if the
strikes go ahead as planned. Too many passengers have been
plagued by delays, cancellations and general disruption to their
journeys over the past year. First that was down to the pandemic,
then the “pingdemic”, and they are now facing the biggest wave of
industrial action in over 30 years.
In my constituency of Chesham and Amersham, more than 6,000
people rely on rail to get to work every day. Those passengers,
and others like them who commute into London from the outermost
stops on the underground, are facing a double whammy of
overground and underground disruption, with strikes in London on
21 June.
The right to strike is fundamental, but that does not mean it is
right to strike next week. The RMT should realise that wreaking
havoc with the UK’s transport system at a time like this will not
make people more sympathetic to their cause. Indeed, I spoke with
a transport user group in my constituency this morning and it
made that point to me quite emphatically. What we need is for the
Government and the unions to get back around the table, as has
been mentioned previously, to resolve this dispute before it
starts to impact on passengers. And by passengers, I mean
patients, students, workers and, as the hon. Member for Bury
North () mentioned, self-employed
people who will not get any lost earnings back. Those are the
people the strike will hurt: the people who rely on the
railways.
This is not a problem the unions alone can solve. It is all very
well for the Government to condemn the decision to strike, but
that does not address the key problem. The Secretary of State’s
effort to solve the problem, suggesting that agency staff will be
able to fill such gaps in the future, will not cut it. I also
wonder just how the Government would find 50,000 agency workers,
when the UK has a record number of vacancies and not enough
workers to fill them. The Government cannot allow people to lose
jobs because they cannot make it into the office. They cannot
allow the NHS to be disrupted as doctors and nurses are unable to
reach hospitals.
It is time for the Government to come to the table and work with
the unions to avoid disruption. They need to thrash out a way
forward that is fair for workers, fair for the taxpayer and fair
for passengers.
3.36pm
(High Peak) (Con)
I declare an interest of sorts: I am the son of a trade union
rep. I am very proud of the work he did in standing up for the
people he worked with to secure them better conditions and safety
in the workplace. He always said to me that if trade unions did
not exist, we would have to invent them. They play a very
important role in our society, and I am certainly not someone who
comes to this place as a natural union basher. I will say this,
though: I think the RMT has got this strike badly wrong in both
timing and tactics.
On timing, it will have a huge impact on a huge number of people
across the country, particularly as it falls in the middle of
exams and after the horrendous two years young people have had.
This will make things even worse. It will have an impact on
businesses not just in terms of the huge number of lost hours of
work, but for those reliant on footfall from passengers,
including Twig at Glossop station where I get my Monday morning
coffee every week and Edwards Wine Bar in Hadfield where I often
enjoy a drink on my way back from meetings. It will also have a
huge impact on workers who cannot get to work, including doctors
and nurses. And let us not forget the self-employed, who will not
be able to earn money because they cannot work due to the
strikes.
The strike is also bad in terms of tactics. It is a
self-defeating tactic by the RMT. We are at a very critical
moment for public transport and the rail sector. It has had a
very difficult two years due to covid, with plummeting passenger
numbers and record levels of subsidy just to try to keep the
service above water. We are now in a position where we face the
need to modernise and deal with the drop in revenue. The strike
will only harm that work towards modernisation and
sustainability. In the long run, I fear that that will have a
huge impact on the industry and the workers the RMT professes to
represent.
As a number of train operating companies are urging the public
not to seek to travel at all by rail during the week of the
strikes, is there not an overwhelming case for requiring road
congestion charging and similar schemes to be suspended until the
rail network is back to normal?
I sincerely hope that that is a proposal the Government and
Mayors look at very closely in their areas.
We are currently dealing with very reduced rail services as a
result of staff shortages. The three lines I represent are
currently running on very reduced timetables, which are causing
massive amounts of problems. The problems we see with this
industrial dispute will only make that worse. We have seen this
go on for months. There has been a large number of cancelled
trains, particularly on the Glossop line. We have seen a lot of
work to rule and disputes over rosters, which in fact led to a
High Court injunction from Northern to ASLEF only a couple of
weeks ago. We are already seeing some problems due to industrial
disputes and they desperately need resolving.
I really think the RMT has got its tactics and timing very badly
wrong. I hope it can reconsider. I sincerely hope we are able to
avoid what I believe would be very damaging and self-defeating
strikes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I remind hon. Members that everybody taking part in the debate is
expected to be here for the wind-ups and should stay for
substantial amounts of the debate and at least for the next two
speakers after they have spoken.
3.39pm
(Liverpool, West Derby)
(Lab)
As a proud trade unionist, I start by paying tribute to all rail
staff in Liverpool, West Derby and across the country. I stand in
absolute solidarity with them and am fully behind their demands
for improved conditions, terms and pay and to safeguard the
safety of the public. To be absolutely clear, the industrial
action that will take place next week is the result of the
political choices made by this Government, who are calling the
shots. They are a Government who have shown every day they have
been in power, throughout the pandemic and in this cost of living
crisis, their complete disdain for rail workers and their
disregard for their pay and conditions, job security, safety and
welfare. It is shameful.
We can see where this Government’s loyalties lie from the way
that they were so quick to bail out the private operators who
continue to make vast profits while on the other hand bringing
this despicable motion to Parliament to attack key workers who
are demanding fair pay and conditions. The strikes are absolutely
a last resort and the RMT has been talking to employers and
Ministers for almost two years to find a resolution. A key part
of the dispute is that employers will not withdraw the threat of
thousands of compulsory redundancies pushing many rail workers
into poverty in the middle of the worst cost of living crisis in
living memory. For passengers, that will also mean increased
risks to safety and critical infrastructure with fewer staff on
the trains, including the removal of guards and catering staff,
cuts to cleaning and the closure of all ticket offices. That is
not modernisation; it is a managed decline of our railways. The
public should also be aware of the consequences of the proposed
cuts that are being fought by the RMT: that our railways would be
less safe. How can that be acceptable in the world’s fifth
richest country?
It would be interesting to know how many Members across the
Benches have been on strike to ensure their families’ wellbeing
and future. How many realise what it entails to go out on strike
as an absolute last resort? I was on strike for six months,
locked out of my factory, to save jobs in the printing industry.
It is a time of stress and worry about the future and what it may
hold for your family. The absolute hypocrisy of a Prime Minister
and Government who trumpet soundbites about an economy built on
highly paid and highly skilled jobs while bringing motions to
this place that go against protecting the jobs he desires.
Members vote to go on strike as an absolute last resort. It
happens when everything else has failed. In the strike action
planned for Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, I will show my
solidarity by joining trade union members wholeheartedly. Would
Government Members do the same and show solidarity with the
working class?
I agree with my hon. Friend. Why did we not see the same urgency
in calling out British Gas for using fire and rehire? Where was
the anger and the motion calling out P&O for its disgraceful
sacking of its entire loyal workforce by Zoom? There has been a
total absence of leadership, a total absence of standing up to
those rogue companies and a complete absence of any legislation
in the Queen’s Speech to protect workers.
Trade unions are a force for good, unlike the Conservative party,
which is responsible for the worst living standards in living
memory and continues to let millions of people shiver and starve
in their own homes because of the political choices it makes.
I am a former trade unionist and I have probably been out on
strike more than most people on either side of this House. I
recognise the fundamental right to withdraw labour, but does he
not also recognise, as I did, the moral duty not to interrupt
others going about their daily business and earning fair day’s
pay?
I have listened to the hon. Gentleman and I am glad that he was
not a trade union rep who I worked with.
I know what side I stand on. I know and I believe that the trade
unions will act in the best interest of people in this country,
unlike the people we have heard for the past two hours denigrate
trade union members and trade unions.
3.44pm
(Bexleyheath and Crayford)
(Con)
I express my strong support for the motion, which
“condemns the decision of the rail unions to hold three days of
strikes”
that will cause significant and needless disruption for many of
my constituents. I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
State for his sensible and reasonable speech.
I am very disappointed with Labour Front Benchers, who are stuck
in the past. They always support the unions against the general
public; they have no interest in thinking about the suffering
that constituents will face if there are strikes next week. The
actions next week will harm our economy at this vital time, cost
businesses millions of pounds and disrupt vital NHS services and
GCSE and A-level exams. If the strikes go ahead, the disruption
will be unforgivable. The electorate in my constituency and
others will never forget those who did not care and who showed a
lack of concern.
There will also be a loss of earnings for the workers and rail
companies involved with the walkout, much-reduced spending by
those who travel by rail, a knock-on effect on tourism spending,
and the potential to significantly intensify the disruption of
existing supply chains. Greater London is now recovering
financially, economically and socially from the covid pandemic,
but the strikes will set back our recovery in our capital city.
The Centre for Economics and Business Research estimates that on
the first day of the strikes alone, when the mass walkout is set
to have the greatest impact, about a quarter of a million people
will be unable to work. It predicts that the cost to the economy
will be £100 million, with London suffering about 60% of the
economic hit.
I understand that on the Southeastern network alone, most
stations and routes will be closed, with services severely
restricted and a maximum of 20% of trains running. That will
cause huge damage to the economy and the travelling public. My
Southeastern service is not the best normally: the Secretary of
State well knows that it is unsatisfactory, with cancellations,
delays and poor information.
Reform of the railways is essential to make them fit for the
future. “Modernisation” must be the key word. The Government have
provided great support to our railways, keeping trains running
for key workers and ensuring that nobody at the train operating
companies or Network Rail was furloughed. That was a real
investment and achievement by the Government to help the people
who work in the industry, which is so vital. It is therefore so
disappointing to see the situation that we are in today.
It is still not too late to call off the strike, so I urge the
unions to sit down with the industry, take on board the misery
that their actions will cause, and act responsibly—maybe helped
by Opposition Front Benchers. My constituents deserve nothing
less than a service next week.
3.47pm
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
We come to this situation in very challenging times, with the
cost of living biting hard for working people. There are vast
numbers of rail workers in York, as the Minister will know, and
they are really struggling at the moment. I have been talking to
them about the challenges that they have been facing. They
obviously want to see the dispute resolved as soon as possible,
because they are the ones who are really struggling, with threats
not only to their job security, but to their livelihood, as house
prices, food prices and energy prices escalate. These are members
of the public as well.
The reality is that when we get into a situation of industrial
dispute, we need not hyperbole, but humility. We need to come
into the industrial space with fresh thinking, ready to listen
and engage. I have heard a lot of shouting today, but not a lot
of listening. When the general secretary of the RMT is willing to
enter that space, take the first move and meet the Government and
employers, it is the responsibility of the employers and the
Government to come into the space, listen and engage.
In industrial relations, people have to change the direction of
their talks to reach a result. If the Government take a step
forward, we can see the pathway to resolution. The traditional
approach that the Government take to industrial relations is so
deeply damaging, so I ask the Minister to really consider the
actions that she could take to make such a difference in this
dispute.
Many things that the Secretary of State put out were not included
in the statement. I could think of a fifth, a sixth and a seventh
thing that could be on the table: the long-term stability needed
across the rail industry; long-term planning around industrial
relations and workforce, in order to get smoothing so as not to
have to go down the road of redundancy, let alone compulsory
redundancy. There are so many issues. The Government are
concerned about the fall in patronage, yet they have not put
forward a patronage plan to increase rail travel across the
board, which is absolutely essential with the climate crisis that
we are facing.
Resolution can be found for this dispute, to provide the
long-term security needed across our rail sector. If we are to
truly build back better—something that the Government seem to
have forgotten—they need to think about how they build strong
industrial relations for the future. I trust the Minister is
listening, and will act after today’s debate.
3.50pm
(West Dorset) (Con)
It is absolutely right that the Government have brought this
motion to the House of Commons today. I heard the cries of Labour
in yesterday’s business statement not to bring the motion to the
House, suggesting that we should just get parties around the
table, but how is that remotely possible when the RMT’s strike
ballot date—the date of the declaration of the intention to
strike—was 24 May, two days before the pay negotiations even
started on 26 May? It confirms a rampant appetite for industrial
action that tells us everything we need to know about the RMT—a
union so addicted to striking that it was determined to do so
before the pay talks even began. We know it is an addiction,
because only a few months ago it was even striking against
itself, with a picket line outside RMT HQ in north London.
Before being elected to this place, I worked for the railway for
20 years. I left school and worked my way up through the ranks on
the stations and on the trains. I was an RMT member as well. But
if anyone in the House needs convincing that they should support
the Government’s motion today, against the RMT’s series of
strikes, let me tell the House about something called RMT Broad
Left—the hard left faction of the RMT union.
In order for the present RMT general secretary to be elected, he
did a deal with the hard left of his union that in return for
their backing, two communists were given leading jobs in the
union, including the presidency. And they were not just any
communists; they are on record as being anti-Ukrainian,
pro-Russian separatists. They protested outside the Ukrainian
embassy in London in 2015, following Moscow’s invasion of Crimea,
while wearing the black and orange ribbon, a symbol of Russian
military valour. I could go on.
This is very, very serious. This country faces being brought to a
standstill by Putin apologists—Russian-sympathising, militant
communists who are bankrolling the Labour party to the extent
that they have bought its silence. We cannot allow that to
happen. There is a deeply sinister element to these strikes, and
it is this Conservative Government, and this Secretary of State,
who are on the side of the taxpayer, the passenger and the staff,
because we want to see staff on the railways have a pay rise, but
we also need to ensure that we make the railway fit for
purpose.
3.53pm
(Wansbeck) (Lab)
I first draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’
Financial Interests. I received support from the RMT union at the
2019 general election. Anybody reading the right-wing press all
the weekend would have thought that that was something to be
ashamed of. Well, I want to tell everyone in the House clearly
that I am not ashamed; I am extremely proud of it. If I asked
every hon. Member sitting here where they got their support from,
we might find that there were some very difficult questions to
answer. I am proud that I have got support from people in the
RMT—the train drivers, ordinary people, the taxpayers.
(Ashfield) (Con)
rose—
I will not give way.
The right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford ( ), who is no longer in his
seat, suggested that the members of the RMT and the unions were
against the general public. The RMT—the members of the RMT, the
members of the trade union movement—are part of the general
public. They are workers of this nation, and in this case, we are
talking about key workers. I am proud to represent the unions. I
am proud to have been a trade union member all of my life. And
just for the record, I want to avoid any dispute next week—but if
there are disputes next week, I will be standing shoulder to
shoulder with representatives of the RMT.
I concur with the hon. Gentleman that we should try to avoid
these strikes, but could he help us to understand why the
declaration of the intention to strike was made two days before
the pay talks even started? That does not show spirit on the part
of the RMT to avoid strike action.
I heard what the hon. Member was saying before, but these
negotiations have been going on for two years. This is not just
about train drivers; basically, it is about the cleaners, the
people who work in the ticket offices—as he probably did—the
people who work on the tracks, the people who look after people
in the trains and the conductors. It is about the track and about
health and safety; it is about everything connected with the rail
networks. We need these people. These were the key workers. We
need these people to support a strong, healthy and safe railway.
We need to be careful what we ask for. There have been
negotiations for two years now, and that is the frustration.
A letter was sent to the Secretary of State this morning, asking
for discussions. He dismissed it, and at the Dispatch Box today
he basically laughed when he was asked if he would be trying to
facilitate arrangements to avoid the strikes. He laughed! Why
does he not accept that the best way to address the situation is
to get everybody around a table, lock the door and get it
resolved? We are talking about health and safety, about
compulsory redundancies and about inflation-proof pay rises.
These are basic human rights, to be perfectly honest.
I just want to say: do not believe anybody who is criticising the
RMT—do not believe for one second that they will not come for
you. Do not think that they will not come for your job, your
pensions, your income and your future. As Pastor Martin Niemöller
said,
“First they came for the Socialists,
And I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
And I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
And I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out
for”—
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order.
3.57pm
(East Surrey) (Con)
I represent a commuter-belt area and many of my workers need the
trains to go to work. On the strike days they will get no service
at all and on the days in between they are going to get a Sunday
service. If the trains are not running, at best those people will
work from home. They might be forced to use a car, but we all
know the price of fuel at the moment. At worst, they cannot work
at all. Worst of all—as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the
Member for High Peak () and my right hon. Friend
the Member for Hemel Hempstead ( ), both of whom have trade
union backgrounds—the unions have jumped the gun. This is way too
soon to cause this kind of damage to the economy and to the lives
of individual people, and it will be millions of low-paid
workers, and exam students, who will pay the price.
I believe in the power of unions. I think it is right that
workers should be able to organise, have a collective voice and
increase their bargaining power, but where unions are disrupting
services that are already losing money hand over fist, demanding
pay rises that are undeliverable and resisting modernisation,
they are only doing their own workers harm. Any one of my
constituents who uses the train will tell you that the railways
are struggling to keep pace with demand and the needs of
passengers, post-pandemic. Passenger numbers are down a fifth and
train revenues are at about 60%. That is causing havoc with train
services.
The taxpayer has stepped in. To give some sense of perspective,
the Office of Rail and Road put the total industry income at
£20.7 billion in 2020-21, of which £16 billion came from the
taxpayer and just £2.5 billion came from passenger income. That
is clearly not sustainable. The RMT argues that wages should go
up by an inflation-proof 11%, but what private sector industry
could withstand that logic when revenues are down 60%? Which
member of the public—the public are not getting an 11% pay rise,
by the way—should pay higher taxes for this increase?
I understand that workers are worried about inflation, but our
cost of living package, which independent organisations such as
the Institute for Fiscal Studies and of MoneySavingExpert have
said is very generous, will apply to rail workers, too. People on
means-tested benefits will receive £1,200 of support this year to
help with the cost of living.
I also understand that workers are worried about job losses. If
people stop using ticket offices, however, how is it possible to
keep increasing pay over time for a service that is being used
less and less? Surely it is best to match workers with jobs and
services that are in demand so they have a sustainable path to
higher wages.
Five members of Network Rail staff died on the tracks last year,
with three of them being directly hit by trains. Does my hon.
Friend agree it is right that the Government and Network Rail
look to find ways to reduce that risk, including through industry
reform? That would also help with some of the issues she has
articulated.
I wholeheartedly believe that workers and unions have the right
to try to ensure safety. The RMT has been around for a long time
and, particularly when the railways were very dangerous during
its early decades, it did a huge amount of work to push for
safety, which is a good thing. The problem is that the RMT is now
leading its members down the garden path. It is driving down the
use of trains, which will reduce train revenues and therefore
mean less money in the industry for the wages it is trying to
achieve.
Opposition Members have not been very clear about their position,
but I hope they will clarify in their speeches whether they agree
that the unions should delay these strikes and allow time for
negotiations, that these strikes are not fair on ordinary
commuters in low-paid jobs who will not be paid for work they
cannot get to, that an 11% pay rise, funded by taxpayers, is not
fair when those taxpayers will not get an 11% pay rise, and that
the system needs to be modernised if the RMT wants ongoing pay
increases, as these vast Government subsidies are not
sustainable.
4.02pm
(Leeds East) (Lab)
Nothing excites Conservative Members more than the chance to give
the trade unions a good kicking. Some of their speeches have been
chilling in their anti-trade union bile. Why do they not get as
passionate about the number of food banks in this country as they
do about bashing the trade unions and bashing working people who
are trying to defend their pay, their jobs, their terms, their
conditions and, of course, public safety? As a trade union lawyer
for 10 years before being elected to Parliament, I know something
that many Conservative Members do not seem to know: working
people go on strike as a last resort, not a first resort.
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I have been on strike
a few times myself. Does he think that any Opposition Member who
has received a donation from the RMT should put that money in a
pot to help people who suffer during next week’s rail strike?
Does he also think that other MPs who have stolen money from the
mineworkers—165 grand in the case of the hon. Member for Wansbeck
() —should pay it back?
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. Please withdraw that remark about stealing money.
No.
Mr Deputy Speaker
You have to.
No, he stole it.
Mr Deputy Speaker
No, you have to. I implore you to withdraw the remark. Please,
Lee, withdraw the remark and sit down.
I withdraw the remark.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Thank you.
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You have been in the
Chair three times when the hon. Member for Ashfield () has made allegations. He
withdraws his ridiculous remark and consistently comes back to
say it again. As Deputy Speaker, you are not protecting the likes
of myself. I need your protection.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Do not make allegations against the Chair, ever. You saw
how I treated Mr Anderson. You just leave it with me—I don’t need
lectures on how to do my job.
I will leave it there.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Thank you very much.
The only time we seem to hear Conservative MPs worrying about the
future of our children, our public services, nurses, doctors and
other workers seems to be when they are condemning a potential
strike. Isn’t it funny that they do not seem to have this concern
for working people at any other point?
Today, I was looking at an interesting letter, dated 27 May 2020,
from the Secretary of State for Transport to the RMT. There was a
handwritten flourish at the end of the letter in the handwriting
of the Secretary of State, and it said:
“Thank you for your continued engagement with and me as we try to
bring services back together. Your members have been true
heroes!”
Those are the words of the Secretary of State for Transport,
written in his own hand, to the RMT.
Many self-employed people have been heroes throughout the
pandemic. They have gone out every day to provide services. As a
result of this strike, they will not be able to go to work, earn
money and eat. So what does the hon. Gentleman say to those
people, who will not be able to earn money to put food on the
table for their families as a result of the actions of the
RMT?
What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that the Transport
Secretary should reply positively to the letter from the RMT
today, which is in the public domain and which asks for a meeting
with him and the Chancellor, without preconditions, to try to
sort this out. The RMT does not want this strike to have to go
ahead.
The truth is that the Conservatives are living their Thatcherite
revivalist fantasies; anybody would think we were back to the age
of the “enemy within”. Let me tell them this: train drivers,
cleaners and people who work on our railways are not the enemy
within. They are true heroes. They are the people who keep our
society running and who bring our communities together. They
deserve to be treated with respect. The Secretary of State put in
his own hand that they are true heroes, and I agree. If they are
true heroes, why move this politically contemptuous motion today?
This is from the same repugnant right-wing box as that sick
Rwanda policy. It is all about kicking migrants, kicking workers
and seeking to cling on to power. This motion, just like that
vile Rwanda policy, is red meat for rabid Tory right-wing Back
Benchers. That is why the Conservatives have got so excited and
so red-faced on those Back Benches today, shouting about unions
and treating them as the enemy within.
Politics is about which side you are on. I am proud to be a
supporter of the trade union movement and to be supported by it.
The people who should be ashamed are those whose politics are
framed not by mass movements of the working class but by the
billionaires and those at the very top, who have done very well
in this crisis. So I say: meet the RMT, agree to no compulsory
redundances, agree that all rail workers should receive a fair
pay rise that takes into account the rising cost of living, and
agree that working conditions and jobs are subject to
renegotiation and agreement with the RMT. Let us also stop
lecturing rail workers on modernisation. They want to modernise,
but we are not in the best place to lecture them about that, in
this Ruritanian palace of powdered wigs, buckled shoes and
swords. It makes us look out of touch. I will tell you this: the
railway workers earn their pay; not every MP does.
4.09pm
(Stourbridge) (Con)
I recognise the vital role that railways play in driving the
midlands engine and condemn the disruptive strikes planned for
next week. Excuse the pun, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the question
is: who is the Fat Controller? Is it Labour or the unions? I am
deeply concerned about what Labour’s motives are for not coming
out and publicly condemning the strike and about the unions’
motives for having this strike now. They appear to thrive on the
disruption the strikes will cause. It is as though they wish to
destabilise the country for their own gain. The contempt they
hold for the public concerns me greatly.
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only the Secretary of State
tabling this motion today that has forced the RMT to write to him
to ask for a meeting in the first place?
I completely and utterly agree. This is the first time we have
had sight of that.
What will the strikes do? They are a gut punch for people and
businesses. Industrial action will not just torpedo our economy;
it will wreak havoc with people’s plans and livelihoods: pupils
unable to take their exams, festival-goers and sports fans unable
to see their favourite acts and teams, and a grieving family in
my constituency who have campaigned tireless for justice for
their son now unable to travel down to London next week to meet
the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the
Member for Corby (), to discuss how he can better support victims’
families. It is an indulgent strike with a human cost.
What is Labour’s position on these strikes? Well, they cannot
make up their minds. As has been said, the shadow Health
Secretary said he would vote to go on strike if he were an RMT
member, the Leader of the Opposition has his head buried in the
sand, and his deputy dodged a question in a BBC interview on
whether she supported the strikes, saying that she had a train to
catch. Next week, there will be no such trains for Labour Members
to use to run away from the simple question: are they for or
against the strikes? The British people deserve an answer.
Others have spoken of the donations to the Labour party by the
RMT. Labour Members say they are on the side of the workers and
preach solidarity, but solidarity with whom? Not with workers;
not with businesses. The only people Labour Members are in
solidarity with are their union puppet masters. It seems like the
RMT and Labour are at platform 9¾ when it comes to the strike and
its impacts, yet back in the real world it is working people,
businesses and pupils who will bear the brunt. While global cost
of living pressures continue to bite, this strike is deeply
damaging. We cannot have a railway system that is a steam
locomotive in an electric age. Times are changing and the rail
system needs to change too. I call on Labour and the unions to
side with working people and stop this strike.
4.12pm
(Easington) (Lab)
Before I begin, I would like to declare a couple of interests: I
am a member of the RMT parliamentary group and I serve on the
Select Committee on Transport. In fact, I am a member of numerous
trade union groups that I am very proud of—the National Union of
Journalists, the Public and Commercial Services Union, the
bakers’ union, the justice union—and I have the great honour of
chairing the Unite parliamentary group. When I first started
work—when I had a proper job—I worked on the railways at a time
when they were part of British Rail. It was not the RMT in those
days; it was the National Union of Railwaymen. That was my first
paid employment.
I want to emphasise how important it is that we take the heat out
of this situation and think about how we can move forward and get
a negotiated settlement. It is absolutely clear that the unions
are doing this as a last resort. After two years of talks and
discussions, they want to find a resolution to the problems their
members face. This issue is not simply about the pay scales for
train drivers, although I would say that that is a group of
workers we rely on every day—they keep us safe, they are highly
skilled and they should be properly rewarded. It is about people
who clean the trains, the signalmen and the people who maintain
the track. Those are all vital jobs that keep our railways
running.
The talks have revealed that the employers—the privately owned
train operators and train companies—have an agenda that is being
driven by the Government. That will be disastrous for rail
workers and passengers alike.
It has become clear that the Government, and the Treasury in
particular, are calling the shots and directing employers. They
are, in fact, underwriting the costs of the strike. The Transport
Secretary referred to modernisation and safety-critical
infrastructure, but what we are looking at here are: fewer staff
on trains, including the removal of guards and catering staff;
cuts to cleaning; and the closure of nearly all ticket offices.
That is absolutely no good at all for anybody with disabilities
or for individuals who are vulnerable.
rose—
I will give way to my good and honourable friend.
Surely the fact that the industrial action ballot has overcome
the threshold that the Conservative party put in legislation
tells us the depth of feeling among RMT members on these
issues.
The feeling is very strong. I believe the margin was 71%, which
is well above the Government’s threshold. Indeed, the treatment
of the RMT Union and its members seems to be part of a wider
agenda to weaken employment rights. I was one of many Members,
including my friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West
(), and my hon. and right
hon. Friends around me today, who were pressing the case for the
Government to act on fire and rehire.
I was in the joint hearing of the Transport and the Business,
Enterprise and Industrial Strategy Committees when we were taking
testimony from the bad bosses of P&O Ferries who were
boasting about their lack of consultation and their intention to
drive down terms and conditions. We expect rather more from our
own Government when it comes to the way in which the railway is
being run. It is a huge and important national asset.
I want to put on record, so that there is no doubt, my solidarity
with the RMT Union and with all the trade unions. Basic rights
that govern pay and conditions at work were hard fought for and
they were won through collective action; they were not handed out
freely.
Let us not forget some of those appalling accidents at Ladbroke
Grove, at Paddington and so on. One of the proposals that has
been put forward is for 3,000 redundancies among people who
maintain the tracks—
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. I call .
4.16pm
(Bury North) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey () is no longer in her
place, but I would like to associate myself with every single
word of what she said in her brilliant speech. It was a lesson in
reality given the financial situation that faces us at this
time.
We were asked by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby
() whether we had ever been out on
strike. My answer is no, because I had the temerity to be
self-employed. If I went out on strike, I would not have been
able to eat. So when I am asked why I stand here and make this
speech and whose side I am on, I have to say that I am on the
side of the self-employed worker. The hon. Member for Easington
() talked about a person with
disabilities who cannot get treatment, or the older person who
cannot get to their cancer treatment, because public transport is
cut off to them.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
No, I will not give way.
I am on the side of the pupil who is taking their exams and who
has gone through an appalling period during the pandemic. For all
of these people who will suffer in what will almost certainly be
six days of action, the Labour party—certainly those we have
heard from today—could not care less. My constituents can suffer
at the altar of the Labour party, which is not able to stand up
to its friends in the trade union movement. I have not heard one
Opposition Member say the very simple words, “Do not go on
strike.” If people go on strike, they will destroy people’s
livelihoods, destroy people’s jobs and put even more financial
pressure on the rail companies that are struggling with a drop in
income at this moment in time.
I had a meeting with representatives from the North-West
Partnership regarding the west coast main line. The gentleman I
spoke to said that the level of business travellers using trains
is at 20% of pre-pandemic levels. Why would anybody look at this
course of action and say, “No, I am going to rely on travelling
by train when I need to go to work, when I need to go to an
important meeting, when I need to go somewhere.” I know the
Labour party does not like to hear this, but I had the temerity
to try to create wealth, to employ people, to pay my taxes and to
create a better situation. What we have here is a train system
that has gone through a very difficult period. It has seen a drop
in income, a drop in revenue.
We must approach this situation with reality. We must also
approach it with compassion for everyone, and the compassionate
way to deal with this matter is for the RMT to make an immediate
statement saying, “We are calling off this strike”—not suddenly
to produce on a mobile phone on the day of this debate a letter
that none of us has seen regarding a meeting: utterly, utterly
counterproductive. It is not in the interests of our
constituents, and on the Government side of the Chamber we will
stand up for those who are hard-working, who need to get their
health treatment or their education, who have done nothing wrong,
but who will be punished by the Labour party and the RMT.
4.19pm
(Coventry South) (Lab)
This House has just discussed the Government’s disgusting Rwanda
deportation policy. On Monday I attended a demonstration against
that policy, coming directly from a debate in Parliament on the
Government’s similarly disgraceful refusal to ban trans
conversion therapy. That debate, the debate on the Rwanda
deportations and this afternoon’s motion on the rail strike are
connected: they are all about this Tory Government’s attempt to
divide our communities and distract from their failure to serve
the British people.
That is clear with the Rwanda policy, which has nothing to do
with tackling people-smuggling and everything to do with whipping
up hate, demonising marginalised groups and pitting people who
were born here against people who seek asylum here. That is what
the refusal to ban trans conversion therapy—letting abusive
practices against trans people go unpunished in order to pit cis
women against trans women—is about: division and distraction.
That is also what the demonisation of railway workers and the RMT
Union is all about: threatening anti-democratic and anti-worker
legislation; vilifying workers who are standing up for jobs, pay
and conditions; and pitting those railway workers against other
workers. It is all an attempt to distract and divide, at a time
when this Government are overseeing a cost of living emergency
and a growing poverty crisis across the country.
Railway workers are clear: this strike is a last resort, no
matter what Conservative Members say. The union and the workers
have been calling for the dispute to be resolved for two years,
but Ministers have refused to do so. Ministers have refused to
get employers to withdraw the threat of compulsory redundancies
against thousands of railway workers or to end the pay freeze for
workers, which is really a pay cut, worth thousands of pounds per
worker, when inflation rises to 10% and beyond. This dispute is
not about modernising the railways or whatever else people say;
it is about attacking workers, declining standards and worsening
services for passengers.
These workers—we should applaud them for it—are standing up for
their jobs and pay, but are being scapegoated by a Tory
Government who would rather distract and divide.
My hon. Friend must be aware of the anger that many people who
work in the rail industry feel—those who clean and repair the
carriages, those who repair the track and those who provide the
catering that many Members of this House enjoy—at being told
basically to take a pay cut and face compulsory redundancies at a
time when billions has been poured into the train operating
companies, which have done very nicely out of their cosy
arrangement with this Government.
I absolutely agree. These tactics from the Government are to stop
us talking about the fact that private rail companies take more
than £500 million out of the railway system every year in private
profits. It is the richest in the country who are truly raking it
in, from the Chancellor, who is one of the wealthiest people in
the country, to the record number of UK billionaires, one third
of whom donate to the Conservative Party—[Interruption.] Tory
Members can make all the sounds they like, but the facts are the
facts.
That is all while working people are experiencing the biggest
squeeze on living standards since the 1950s. Tory Members want us
to believe that railway workers are the problem. They want us to
blame refugees, not Tory cuts, for the crisis in public services
and why they are at breaking point. They want us to think trans
women are a threat to cis women. This House should be clear: the
problem is not railway workers, it is not refugees and it is not
trans women. The problem is this Tory Government and the
billionaires who back them.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Right. We have just over 20 minutes and there are 11 people
standing to speak. If there is discipline, they will all get in;
no discipline, and some people will not get in.
4.23pm
(Winchester) (Con)
That was interesting, but my constituents are not really
interested in the greatest hits of the left bank on the
Opposition Back Bench. They are not interested in the enemy
within or talk of the 1970s and 1980s. They do not care much.
These strikes are a totally unnecessary indulgence on the part of
the RMT; its actions will have very limited impact on its
members, but will have a huge impact on my constituents. They
will miss work, hospital appointments and precious time with
their family and grandchildren, and it will add very unwelcome
stress, as many hon. Members have said, to young people at exam
time. Let us not kid ourselves: the strikes will affect all of us
next week. Rail services will not be back to normal, my rail
company told me, until the week commencing 27 June—Monday week.
It is worse than that: the RMT has a six-month mandate from this
ballot. Will my constituents travel next week? Some will. Those
who have to be in London who are just one hour from Winchester
into Waterloo will probably drive, adding to the congestion, and
with the eye-watering petrol costs at the moment. I agree with
the several calls we have heard about suspending the congestion
charge during this unnecessary strike.
That is not to say that there are no services from my
constituency into London next week—there are. South Western
Railway, which serves my constituency, will have just over 2,000
colleagues—guards, depot workers, drivers and so on—who will be
swept up in the strike next week. The company briefed us this
morning. I too have a good relationship with my local rail
workers and my local rail company; the difference is that they do
not pay me to have that relationship. The company has worked
extremely hard to run a service next week. It is trying to match
the key worker flows with the capacity. It has trained up
managers with supply at the front to give my constituents a basic
service between Southampton and Waterloo, albeit that the first
train will not be until 7.30 am and the last train leaves at 5
pm, and my constituents in Micheldever and Shawford will be cut
out entirely. I am also concerned about the concessions at
railway stations, which, as many have said, have had a horrible
time over the past few years.
So where to now? If the RMT wants to talk, then call off the
strike. Let us take the heat out, because strikes will only up
the heat. It is a dereliction of duty for the RMT to say that it
does not talk to Tory Governments. It is a disgrace if that is
what is being said. We have, “Do not travel next week”, messages
going out to my constituents. Let us stop the strikes now, not on
Sunday at the last minute, which will not avert travel disruption
next week. This motion is very easy to support, because it
supports my constituents.
4.26pm
(Hastings and Rye)
(Con)
Railways have always been an integral part of our country’s
economic and social fabric contributing immeasurably to national
prosperity, progress and development.
The support delivered throughout the pandemic totalled £16
billion of emergency funding to ensure that the railways were
kept running, but none the less there has undoubtedly been a
significant drop in railway usage, which will perhaps not return
fully to pre-pandemic levels as we once expected. Strikes caused
by the RMT will not encourage the use of trains at a time when
increasing passenger numbers is vital. The funding thankfully
ensured that none of the 100,000 staff directly employed by the
railways were put on furlough, as were many millions of people in
other industries around the country. It is unfortunately not
sustainable to continue that level of Government subsidy
indefinitely, especially given the current financial difficulties
and pressures faced by many people, families and businesses
across the country, including in my constituency of beautiful
Hastings and Rye.
On the serious question of rail strikes, fairness or the lack
thereof must be an essential consideration. Having already
subsidised the industry through the pandemic to the sum of £16
billion, is it fair that taxpayers will now have their lives and
livelihoods hit by these strikes? Strikes will disrupt British
businesses, including the small and medium-sized enterprises that
form the country’s economic background, and cost them a
significant amount. For those that rely on tourism, as many do in
my beautiful constituency, the impact will be all the greater,
particularly on more disadvantaged people on low incomes—the very
people Opposition Members profess to support. We know otherwise,
because Opposition Members continue to encourage the RMT to play
political games while the British public struggle.
We have already felt the impact of rail strikes on tourism
industry businesses in 2017, with huge drops in visitor numbers
as a direct result of those strikes. Reforming our railways now
is key to making them fit for the future. Only through proper
thought and consideration can fairness for both the taxpayer and
those who work in the industry be achieved. The Government have
my full support for their motion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
There are eight Members standing to speak and we have 15 minutes.
Do the sums, if you want to be friendly to colleagues.
4.29pm
(Meriden) (Con)
The hon. Member for Leeds East () spoke about chilling
speeches from Government Members, and I have to say that I have
found the speeches from those on the Opposition Benches
incredibly chilling. I must be grateful to them, because every
time they mention their support for this strike, they remind my
constituents what could have been, had they the authority and
were they in power.
When hard-working families are facing challenges with the cost of
living, and when we are still recovering from the effects of the
pandemic, the upcoming strikes will wreak havoc on my
constituents. Thousands of my constituents commute to work by
train. As a proportion, it is almost double the regional average
due to our great connectivity to London, Birmingham, Warwick,
Coventry and the surrounding areas. That is not to mention the
knock-on effects to the rest of the public transport network and
the road network.
Due to the strike action by the RMT, Chiltern Railways has
announced that it will be forced to run a significantly reduced
timetable, as will Avanti West Coast, London Northwestern and
West Midlands trains, all of which run through my constituency.
As has already been said, that means patients missing hospital
appointments in Birmingham, family days out in London postponed
because of the pandemic being put on hold once again and
children, who had a hard time through the pandemic, sitting their
GCSE and A-level exams with the added stress of getting to school
on time. Hard-working families and hard-working people are being
held to ransom by the unions and the Labour party.
What does the Opposition have to say to my constituents? The
shadow Health Secretary said:
“if I were a member of the RMT…I would be voting to go on
strike”.
The shadow Levelling Up Secretary said that she would be standing
up with the striking railway workers who will bring our network
to a standstill.
Why do the Opposition find it so hard to back hard-working
British people and British families? No matter how hard they try
and reinvent themselves, they have had more than £100 million in
trade union donations over the past decade, and they remain
beholden to the trade union barons holding our railways to
ransom. That is on top of the news that a shadow Justice Minister
said that a Labour Government would take us back into the EU. It
is the same old cynical, opportunistic Labour party that backs
unions and undermines the British people.
4.31pm
(Sedgefield) (Con)
First, like many of my colleagues and even more members of the
public, I am deeply disappointed by how quickly this situation
has arisen. The RMT has admitted that it is striking before it
even knows the final plans for pay and conditions. How can anyone
engage in constructive discussions with an organisation that has
decided that pre-emptive strikes are the way to do it?
The timing of the strikes is particularly inappropriate, given
the ongoing pressures on the UK’s economic recovery as a whole,
particularly in the rail and travel industries, and gives no
consideration to the fact that many in supply chain businesses
had to rely on furlough at best and so did not get full wages for
the year.
The RMT says there is never a good time for strikes, but it is
its choice. Some times are clearly worse than others. Choosing to
strike when students are sitting their A-levels and GCSEs is a
particularly bad choice. When the first festivals are being held
since the summer of 2019, it is incredibly inconsiderate to say
the least. It is an attack on our young people trying to get on,
and on so many of the population wanting to finally enjoy some
respite from covid.
It is also disappointing that Labour cannot decide whether it
supports the strikes. If it supports working people as it claims,
how can it have difficulty deciding whether it supports the many
in the population or the few in the RMT who are spoiling for an
early fight? The strikes will also have an impact on levelling
up. I have spent much of my time and energy since becoming an MP
advocating for more investment in the rail sector, especially in
the north, including Ferryhill station, the Leamside line and
other such places.
I sincerely hope that the rail unions will reconsider their
actions and that the Labour party will encourage them to do so.
They will clearly impact the weakest in society most. It is so
disappointing, but not surprising, that those on the Labour
Benches are doing nothing to discourage their paymasters from
these excessive and premature actions, which will frustrate
levelling up, frustrate climate change improvements, frustrate
students and frustrate people recovering from life after covid.
Do they really want to be responsible for that?
4.33pm
(Stoke-on-Trent South)
(Con)
This strike is a great threat to the ordinary working people who
depend on rail services for work and especially to those now
undertaking exams. The reason that this action is so unjustified
and reckless is that we have already seen the rail sector on life
support following the huge challenges faced during the pandemic.
Services have become increasingly dependent on taxpayer
subsidies, and that trend started before covid. Between 2015-16
and 2019-20, the National Audit Office identified that the amount
of Government funding for operating and maintaining the rail
network doubled.
Now more than ever, it is important that we get people back using
the railways so that services remain sustainable. At a time when
rail operators are trying to encourage and convince people back
on to the trains, we see the country being held to ransom by the
unions and the Labour party. These reckless actions will harm
ordinary families already struggling with the cost of living.
Wage levels in the sector are already far higher than in most
others. The average rail worker now earns £44,000 a year,
compared with an average salary of just over £27,000 in
Stoke-on-Trent South. Many working practices in the sector are
also stuck in the dark ages. The driver rulebook has changed
little since the 1960s.
(Glasgow East) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
No, I will not.
If anything is to come from the unions’ outrageous actions, I
hope that they will influence the Government to finally overhaul
those archaic working practices. Unfortunately, I feel that the
culture in parts of the rail industry works against the necessary
reforms and improvements, particularly in Network Rail, as we
have experienced in Stoke-on-Trent in trying to deliver our
transforming cities fund to improve local rail services.
The Government are focused on reinvesting in our railways,
particularly on making them more accessible to communities across
the country. For Stoke-on-Trent, which lost much of its local
connectivity under the Beeching axe, improving local rail
services through schemes such as the restoring your railway
programme and the TCF is absolutely vital for levelling up, as my
hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield () said.
Locally in north Staffordshire, I hope that the Government
support our levelling-up bids for reopening Meir station and the
Stoke-Leek line, which we are working on as part of the restoring
your railway programme. But these reckless actions by the trade
unions and the Labour party undermine all that and threaten to
undermine the levelling up of this country and the investment
that we are putting into the railways.
4.36pm
(Rushcliffe) (Con)
As has been said, there is only one question that each and every
Member of this House needs to ask themselves today: “Whose side
am I on?” On the Conservative Benches, we are on the side of the
British public and our constituents—workers trying to get to
their jobs, the businesses that rely on them to be there,
students travelling to sit their GCSE exams, and veterans wanting
to mark Armed Forces Day. Over the pandemic, our constituents
supported our railways with £600 from every family in the UK,
because public money is not Government money; it is our
constituents’ money.
It is now time for the rail unions to support our constituents by
accepting that working patterns and demand for rail travel have
changed. Our constituents cannot continue to subsidise the status
quo when passenger numbers are down by three quarters and 94% of
commuters are not going back to commuting five days a week. The
way we all work and the jobs we do are changing at a faster and
faster pace. No sector is immune. We need to be honest with
workers. We do not hide from modernising the railways because it
is difficult; we are making huge investments in massive
infrastructure projects, overhauling ticketing, putting more
staff on platforms, and reopening closed routes.
Conservative Members of Parliament will vote to support our
constituents today, but what will Labour Members do? Will they
side with their constituents or with their union barons? I accept
that it is hard for them to bite the hand that feeds them. The
RMT donated nearly £250,000 to the Labour party in the last
decade, so why would Labour Members vote to condemn rail strikes
when they are on the union gravy train? Today, they have a chance
to prove where their loyalties lie. Whose side are they on?
4.38pm
(Hertford and Stortford)
(Con)
I had intended to go through each element of the motion, but I do
not have time, so I will focus on the second element, which is
that we condemn
“the decision of the rail unions to hold three days of
strikes”.
Precisely as my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe () said, I know whose side I am
on.
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Absolutely not.
I am on the side of my hard-working constituents—employed and
self-employed—going about their ordinary business on a day-to-day
basis who want to go to work next week, who want to see friends
and family next week, who want to go shopping next week, and who
may want to go to urgent and important GP and hospital
appointments next week. I am on their side, and when I speak to
the residents of my commuting towns of Bishop’s Stortford,
Sawbridgeworth, Hertford, Ware and St Margarets, which serves
Stanstead Abbotts, I say, “I am on your side.” I do not want to
see these strikes because I think they are profoundly unfair.
I do not believe that the unions are working in the best
interests of the heroes who have been supporting our rail network
and our rail industry over the last two years. I have written to
my rail networks to thank them and their staff for everything
they did during the pandemic. I would categorise this even more
strongly: I support those workers, as well as all the other
workers in my constituency, because they are hard-working people.
They are not being served well by the union, and I would use that
old adage of saying they are lions. They are lions, but they are
led by donkeys.
4.40pm
(Peterborough) (Con)
Peterborough is a rail city, and it has been since the 1850s,
when the Great Northern line opened going up to York. We have
literally thousands of commuters who have moved to Peterborough
because of our excellent housing and because of quality of life
issues, who commute to London each and every day.
I do feel qualified to be able to talk about this issue. My
father was a trade unionist for many years—he was the chair of
Peterborough Unite—and like my hon. Friend the Member for
Winchester (), I have an excellent
relationship with railway staff in my constituency. They want
reform in many ways, because the argument for reform is
unarguable. Seven-day working practices are the norm elsewhere,
and ticket office reform is obviously urgently needed. These are
decent, hard-working people who want to serve the public. They
are keen for reform, and they want a resolution to this dispute.
They are not interested in communism or ideology; they just want
to work. But the RMT—the union bosses themselves—do not want
that, and neither does the Labour party.
I just want to refer to the excellent speech by my hon. Friend
the Member for Bury North (). He claimed to be on the side
of those who are self-employed, on the side of those young people
who want to sit their exams, on the side of those who want to go
to hospital to access cancer treatments, and on the side of
ordinary, everyday, hard-working people. I echo those sentiments
entirely, because it is they whose side I am on—the hard-working
people of Peterborough, be they people who need to get to work or
the railway workers themselves. I am not on the side of these
railway RMT bosses who put ideology before the interests of their
members and ideology before the interests of the public, and the
people who they pay for—and they are the Labour party MPs. This
could be resolved tomorrow if the Labour party, the Labour
leadership and Labour MPs appealed to RMT bosses to stop this
strike. Will they do it?
(Aylesbury) (Con)
rose—
(Clwyd South) (Con)
rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I apologise to Mr Baynes, and I call Mr Butler. We will take the
clock off for you, but please resume your seat at 4.45 pm.
4.43pm
(Aylesbury) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my right
hon. Friend the Transport Secretary on grasping the nettle not
just of recognising the needs of a modern-day railway, but of
acting to secure a sustainable, efficient modern-day railway. It
was right that public money supported the railways during the
pandemic, but it is surely also right that public money is now
focused where it is most needed, not least in the NHS and
education. Unlike the Opposition parties, the Conservatives
recognise that there is not a bottomless pit of money—taxpayers’
money, I would add—and the answer to every question is not spend,
spend, spend without thinking how we would manage costs or how we
would improve productivity.
It was abundantly clear during the speech of the shadow Secretary
of State, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (), that the Labour party has
absolutely no answers, because she simply refused to take
questions from this side of the House. I know that her
Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), is
about to speak, and I would ask him two very simple questions, so
that my constituents are absolutely clear about the attitude of
Labour Members. First, will they condemn the strikes—yes or no? A
one-word answer should not be too difficult.
The shadow Secretary of State said that if Labour was in power,
which I have to say is a thought that sends shivers down my
spine, Labour would sit around the table with the unions. In that
case, would Labour give in to all the unions’ demands, and if
not, which ones would it reject? Just so we are absolutely clear,
that is what she said she wanted to do. What would her stance be?
My constituents want to know because the workers who need trains
to get to their jobs next week, the pensioners who need to get to
their hospital appointments next week and the schoolchildren who
need to get to class next week cannot do so because of these
totally unnecessary strikes. Will Labour condemn them?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Thank you very much. I call the shadow Minister.
4.44pm
(Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to wind up the debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s
Opposition, and I thank all those who have contributed to what I
can definitely say has been a lively debate.
There is no doubt that our railways, and the committed workforce
who run them, are of huge importance to our country, and we can
all agree that the tireless efforts of our rail community in
keeping the country running throughout the pandemic and beyond
should be commended. That is precisely why the significance of
the proposed strikes cannot be underplayed. But they can be
avoided. It is good that we are debating this issue, and
Conservative Members should take heed of the Labour party
amendment to the motion.
The rail industry has arguably seen more turbulent times
throughout the pandemic than most industries. Service and
revenues stopped, funding structures changed, and the franchise
system was ditched. No one is arguing for things to return to the
way they were before, but instead we should build effective and
collaborative change for passengers and the industry. Our rail
network faces issues such as pay, job losses as a result of cuts,
safety and maintenance, but instead the Government seem busy
playing politics—mud slinging, and trying to start Twitter wars.
They are spoiling for a fight. That is precisely what this debate
is about, and precisely what the intended strikes are about,
rather than doing what is in the best interests of the British
people. But we can see through all that.
Blaming the Labour party for strike action that has been driven
from Tory policies and mismanagement just will not fly. Perhaps
Conservative Members need reminding who is in government, and who
have been in government for the past 12-plus years. As my hon.
Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley () said, if they put just half
that energy into getting around a table with the unions to
negotiate, we could have avoided the situation in which we find
ourselves today.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the RMT has refused to come to
speak to the Government? The only reason why the Secretary of
State has received a letter from the general secretary of the RMT
is that this very debate has been called in the House of
Commons.
Mr Dhesi
I thank the hon. Gentleman, but the true fact of the matter is
that the Secretary of State has not even tried. He has been
missing in action. The unions, including the RMT, have been
asking for negotiations. Indeed, there have been discussions over
the past couple of years, but the unions have been highlighting
that many of their members have not received a pay increase for
the past couple of years. As I said, they have not met since
March. The Secretary of State needs to show leadership and hold
an urgent meeting between Ministers, employers and the union.
Sadly this behaviour is indicative of wider incompetence when it
comes to managing our transport network.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the unions called a strike
before they saw the finalised deals of a pay plan?
Mr Dhesi
As I highlighted, they have been in negotiations for the past
couple of years. I am talking about wider incompetence, so let us
take Transport for London and the Government’s failures in
securing a long-term funding deal. That has left Transport for
London in limbo, leaving it no choice but to make cuts to
services in the face of a lack of Government support. Ministers
are playing political games, where the only losers are the
hard-working British people.
Why are the Government choosing to cut when they should be
choosing to invest? Instead of delivering on a rolling programme
of electrification, they are scrapping huge parts of HS2. I see
the Rail Minister, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills
(), laughing from a sedentary
position, but the Government scrapped the eastern leg of HS2 and
Northern Powerhouse Rail to boot. Why are they choosing managed
decline, when they should be choosing growth? Why are they
cutting services, when they should be cutting fares, as many of
our European neighbours are doing?
We could have a rail network with affordable, reliable services
where more people want to travel by rail, helping us to address
the climate emergency. Instead, the Government are focused on
punishing rail passengers, punishing key workers on our railways,
and presiding over the managed decline of our railways with £1
billion-worth of cuts imposed from the top. A decade-plus of Tory
government has driven our transport systems into the ground, and
the pandemic has catalysed that process to crisis point.
The Labour party will always stand to defend the rights of
working people, the British people, who currently face a
blistering cost of living crisis in the wake of a global
pandemic. Workers are looking to the Government for answers, but
the Government simply do not have a plan: no employment Bill,
which has been promised for the last three years; and no progress
on fire and rehire.
I have just been in a debate in Westminster Hall, which I managed
to secure, on fire and rehire. Not one single Conservative Back
Bencher managed to attend that debate. They simply do
not—[Interruption.] They say they were here. Many other Members
from the Labour party, the SNP and the Democratic Unionist party
attended, but not a single Conservative Member from the
Government Benches was there to support their Minister, because
they do not believe in workers’ rights. They do not believe in
supporting the British people who are going through this cost of
living crisis.
Now, the Transport Secretary seems intent on jeopardising the
right to strike at all. If his Department wants to move forward,
I suggest that what it should be doing is negotiating, ending the
strikes next week, and giving our transport system the attention
it rightly deserves.
4.52pm
The Minister of State, Department for Transport ()
Let me start by thanking right hon. and hon. Members who have
contributed to this very important debate, although I note the
rather empty Opposition Benches and I contrast that with those on
the Government side.
Given that we are just six days away from the biggest rail
strikes in decades—strikes which will disrupt examinations, Armed
Forces Day, NHS operations and huge cultural moments like the
Glastonbury festival—it is perhaps not surprising that so many
Members have been here to contribute today. I share the
disappointment expressed by Members on the Government Benches
that the RMT has called this industrial action. Strikes should be
the last resort, not the first, and I truly believe that the RMT
is thoughtlessly jumping the gun by striking when talks with the
industry have only just begun.
Many people watching our proceedings today will be worried about
next week. They will be worrying about how they will get to work,
see their friends, or access vital public services. We have heard
many examples of that from the Government Benches today. While we
urge the trade unions to talk to us to find a solution, we are
also planning for the worst.
Will the Minister give way?
I want to make some progress first.
I assure the House that, together with industry, we are looking
at how to keep vital freight, medicine and fuel running. We
should be in no doubt, however, that if the strikes go ahead,
they will cause huge disruption. That is precisely why the
Government have tabled this motion today. We believe that it is
important that we stand as one House—[Interruption.] I give way
to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset ().
I thank my hon. Friend, the excellent Rail Minister, for giving
way. Does she agree, given that in 2018 the shadow Secretary of
State stood on a platform and supported the RMT’s strikes for
Northern Rail, that we will never see the Labour Front Bench
condemn these strikes?
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but this evening
the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley () and her colleagues have the
opportunity to stand with Members on this side of the House and
support the motion. We believe that it is important we stand as
one House and condemn the unions for their reckless and
irresponsible decision to grind our network to a halt next
week.
I really do hope that the Opposition will finally put aside their
funding interests to vote with us today. I do not think that our
constituents will accept being told that their lives and jobs are
being disrupted because Labour has sided with a militant group of
union leaders who belong in the 1970s—leaders such as Mick Lynch,
who admitted that this strike action would make the cost of
living situation worse for people and who refused to rule out
working towards a general strike; and leaders such as RMT deputy
boss Eddie Dempsey, who admitted that the unions were striking
before even knowing the final plans for pay and conditions.
Just yesterday, we saw more rail unions moving toward strike
action, this time cynically timing their walkout to coincide with
the Commonwealth games. That will not just impact on the sport
but will put at risk the legacy the games are looking to create
in the west midlands. If Opposition Members deplore those actions
as much as I do, they must vote to condemn the unions.
As a result of the pandemic, our railways are facing an
existential crisis. Many people can now choose to work from home
or just to travel into the office a few days a week. Passenger
journeys in recent months are still a fifth lower than in the
equivalent period in 2019 and it is no exaggeration to say that
the industry is now facing the biggest challenge in its 200-year
history. The Government have earmarked more than £16 billion of
funding for passenger services since the start of the pandemic to
keep the railways running and to protect jobs. That is the
equivalent of nearly £600 per household. That just cannot
continue, so our railways need to change.
The Government are doing our bit. We are simplifying the railways
under the Great British Railways brand and ending franchising. We
are investing in large infrastructures such as HS2 and Northern
Powerhouse Rail. We are overhauling ticketing and offering
passengers discounts and promotions such as the hugely popular
Great British rail sale. We are addressing historic issues in the
railways through the Williams-Shapps plan for rail, delivering
more punctual and reliable services and tackling franchising. The
time to act on this is now and we need railway employees to work
alongside us in order to deliver a network fit for the 21st
century—
Then talk to them!
There is one thing on which I want to be really clear, because I
can hear the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley chuntering from
the Front Bench. Let me be absolutely clear that when we talk
about industry talks, the Government are not the employer here.
That is a fundamental thing that Opposition Members need to
remember. We cannot intervene between the rail companies and the
unions. Industry is offering daily talks to the unions and we
absolutely encourage the unions to stay at the negotiating table
and call off these strikes.
The unions must talk to the employers. Getting stuck in endless
disputes will not solve anything, nor will it bring back the
passengers the railway so badly needs—quite the opposite. The
only solution is for everyone who takes pride in the railway to
come together and agree a new way forward. Outdated working
practices must end. It is time for the railways to modernise.
If we get this right, we can create a future in which our
railways thrive, passenger numbers grow and Britain’s economy
rockets as we better connect up our towns, cities, communities
and people. The prize is huge—Labour Members might not agree or
like me saying this—but the consequences of these strikes will be
severe: passengers may disappear for good, businesses will be
damaged and lives will be disrupted. It is time for the Labour
party to get off the fence and stop defending the union bosses
who fund their political activities. The Opposition might not
like this, but it is time for us to put working people first. I
commend the motion to the House.
Amendment proposed: to leave out from “House” to end and add
“does not want the national rail strikes to go ahead; and
therefore urgently calls upon the Government, operators, network
rail and the union to get around the table and resolve the issues
on pay and cuts to safety staff to avert industrial action.”—(Mr
Dhesi.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
[Division 14
The House divided:
Ayes
174
Noes
286
Question accordingly negatived.
Held on 15 June 2022 at
5.01pm](/Commons/2022-06-15/division/1F1BCF24-D130-40A1-9388-512C8A751AB2/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
Main Question put.
The House proceeded to a Division.
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Standing Orders of
the House state that a Member’s vote should follow their voice.
No doubt people will have noted that the hon. Member for
Wellingborough (Mr Bone) shouted “No.” Would he be in breach of
the Standing Orders if he did not vote no?
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I do not know who shouted “Aye” and who shouted “No,” but the
hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the vote should follow
the voice.
[Division 15
The House having divided:
Ayes
293
Noes
15
Question accordingly agreed to.
Held on 15 June 2022 at
5.15pm](/Commons/2022-06-15/division/D0A94BDB-9937-4273-AB5D-C9C5F7D72E00/CommonsChamber?outputType=Names)
Resolved,
That this House recognises the vital role of the railways in
supporting people and businesses across the UK every day;
condemns the decision of the rail unions to hold three days of
strikes; believes those strikes will adversely affect students
taking examinations, have an unacceptable effect on working
people and a negative effect on the economy; and calls on the
rail unions to reconsider their strike action and continue
discussions with the industry.
|
