Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the legal opinion from Michael Ford QC on the legal powers of the
Secretary of State for Transport in respect of the rail
dispute.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport () (Con)
My Lords, we have noted the advice from Michael Ford QC. Train
operators are required to agree how they manage industrial
relations risk, including risks from industrial action, through
their contracts with the department. Before incurring costs such
as pay increases or changes to terms and conditions, the
Secretary of State needs to be satisfied that these are
affordable and in the long-term interests of the taxpayer, and
take steps to protect the public purse.
(Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply, as
she clearly accepts the legal advice obtained by the Trades Union
Congress on this point. However, it gives the lie to statements
made by successive Ministers—including her noble friend in the
answers he just gave. Where there is responsibility, the
Government dodge it; where there is law, they tend to ignore it
and mislead the public and Parliament. What is the concern of the
Government in this dispute other than petty party-political
manoeuvring? When will they take serious action? What is their
strategy for resolving this in the interests of rail users and,
ultimately, the country? So far, we have seen no sign of that,
despite the clear legal obligations and responsibilities placed
on the Transport Secretary.
(Con)
There were many questions there, to which I will try to respond.
The real prize in all this, for both rail passengers and rail
freight, is long-term transformation to a modern and efficient
seven-day railway, where services align with demand and adapt to
current patterns of travelling and rail freight, from the
perspectives of both location and time. The Government absolutely
want the employers to be able to reach an agreement with the RMT.
We are clear that it is for the industry to conduct the
day-to-day negotiations with the RMT in this dispute. Under the
Labour Government of some time ago, there were strikes by both
firefighters and postal workers; they took exactly the same
approach and asked the employers to negotiate with the
unions.
(Lab Co-op)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us who owns Network Rail?
(Con)
The Government, and therefore the taxpayer.
The Lord Speaker ()
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will now contribute
remotely.
(LD) [V]
My Lords, over 30,000 passenger-facing rail staff have completed
the disability training required by the Office of Rail and Road.
As a wheelchair user, travelling by rail is noticeably safer as a
result of the excellent assistance train staff provide. The
Government want to allow the use of agency workers in place of
striking station and train staff. If agency staff have not
completed the regulator’s required safety assistance training,
would that breach the public sector equality duty? Would disabled
passengers be safe in such circumstances?
(Con)
I can reassure the noble Baroness; there seems to be some
misconception that the Government plan to recruit lots of agency
staff who have no training whatever for the task they are being
asked to perform. That will not be the case at all. We have very
safe and increasingly accessible railways, and we will continue
to do so. If we ask any staff to do anything beyond their normal
role, they will of course receive the appropriate training.
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for pre-empting some of my
questions by agreeing with Michael Ford QC. In his opinion, he
says:
“Train operators are not free to agree terms and conditions with
their employees without the involvement of the SoS.”
However, being a bit apprehensive about lawyers—because all too
often you just get another lawyer—I went to the essence of the
powers, which is found in the national rail contracts. I looked
at the one with South Western Railway. On page 38 of its 522
pages, in paragraph 5.2 of chapter 2.2—the section on industrial
action—it states:
“The Operator and the Secretary of State shall use reasonable
endeavours to agree how the relevant Industrial Action shall be
handled, bearing in mind the Dispute Handling Policy, provided
however that the Operator’s handling of such Industrial Action
will be subject always to the Secretary of State’s
direction”.
This is not a limp-handed agreement, but a very powerful one.
Before I researched it, I did not know that the department
essentially indemnifies the losses to train operating companies
during industrial disputes. The way it enforces this agreement is
by withdrawing such support. Does the noble Baroness agree that
the Secretary of State can, and indeed must, involve himself in
this dispute? Given that he has absolute discretion over the
terms of the dispute, this is a dispute between the Secretary of
State and the rail unions. Should he not embrace that
responsibility and sort it out?
(Con)
That is an awful lot of questions about who meets who, and why.
Let me explain exactly why the current negotiations are set out
in the way that they are. The RMT asked that negotiations be
conducted at a national level. The Rail Delivery Group has the
mandate to conduct the negotiations. The talks are therefore at
the Rail Industry Recovery Group level. The industry has bent
over backwards to negotiate in a way that the RMT demands, and
will continue to do so. The industry is offering daily talks and
Ministers receive daily updates.
(Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, during the last Labour
Government, there were disputes with the rail unions, and former
Labour Secretaries of State did not negotiate directly and very
much left negotiations to Railtrack, and then Network Rail?
(Con)
I was not immediately aware of that, but it highlights what I
have said also about the firefighters and the postal workers. It
is normal for the employer to negotiate with the union. The
Government should not be sitting at the table, and the RMT boss
does not want us there.
(LD)
My Lords, without signals, the trains cannot run, and it takes
over a year to train a signaller. Does the Minister accept that
it is therefore an empty threat, and one designed to raise the
temperature of the situation, when the Government say they are
going to legislate to allow agency workers to take over railway
jobs? It will not allow the railways to run unless there are
signallers available.
(Con)
As I have already said, there would be no question of the
Government or the industry putting anybody who was not fully
trained into a role at short notice. It is simply not going to
happen.
On the question of signalling, noble Lords may have noticed that
the Government have just announced at £1 billion investment in
digital signalling for the east coast main line—I just wanted to
highlight some positive news.
(Lab)
The Minister said that the dispute is between the trade union and
the employers, and it is nothing whatever to do with the
Government. In answer to my noble friend Lord Foulkes, who asked
who owns Railtrack, which is a party to the dispute, she said
that it is the Government who own Railtrack. I just wonder how
she sorts that one out.
(Con)
I did not say what the noble Lord has just said I said. I said
that the negotiations are between the employer and the union. I
set out very clearly how and at what level those negotiations are
taking place nationally. On the one hand, there are a set of
negotiations with the Rail Delivery Group, which represents the
train operating companies, and there are also negotiations going
on with Network Rail, particularly around the reforms to
transform—the important reforms that we need in order to have the
modern and efficient railway that our country deserves.
(Con)
My Lords—
of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords—
(Con)
My Lords, I do not think that two noble Lords can stand up at
once. It is the Conservatives’ turn.
(Con)
Thank you. My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that
these rail disputes are less about terms and conditions, and more
about party politics?
(Con)
The truth of the matter is that the negotiations that are
happening, and have been offered daily, are about many different
things. Sometimes things get narrowly conflated, or get very
heated, but at the heart of all this is the fact that we must get
a modern and efficient railway. The Government have that at the
front of their mind and give the mandate to the employers—that is
absolutely clear—and I hope that this will be resolved as soon as
possible.
