To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
potential impact of rail strikes called for 24 to 27 December on
(1) passenger services, and (2) rail maintenance projects,
scheduled for this period.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport () (Con)
My Lords, we expect approximately 20% of planned services to run
in the 24 to 27 December period, with considerable regional
variation. While generally few rail services run during bank
holidays, passengers’ travel will regrettably be affected.
Network Rail has planned an ambitious £120 million engineering
works programme for the Christmas period, aimed at maintaining
and renewing track assets. The industrial action will impact
planned works, and Network Rail is working to ensure that as many
projects as possible can be completed.
(LD)
I thank the Minister for her Answer, but we have had no
leadership from the Government on rail strikes, which have been
allowed to drift onwards and expand so that they cover Christmas.
The last two Christmases were ruined by Covid, and 19 separate
public sector strikes threaten this one. It is a general strike
by the only legal means possible, and it is greeted by paralysed
silence from the Government. I ask the Minister if it is right
that the Government have totally lost control of the situation.
(Con)
I am afraid I fundamentally disagree with what the noble Baroness
just said. There has been no silence from the Government at all.
The Prime Minister has answered Questions on it; indeed, the
Secretary of State was in front of the Transport Select Committee
yesterday and he voluntarily made a statement on rail strikes at
the outset of the session. We are absolutely content to talk
about rail strikes, so I do not understand her question.
(Con)
My Lords, one of the consequences of the rail strikes over
Christmas is that more people will take to the roads. Quite
often, they will be people who do not regularly drive and who
have to travel long distances. I understand that the people who
monitor our smart motorways are also going on strike. What are
the Government doing to keep people safe if they break down on
the smart motorway network?
(Con)
There are varying levels of union membership in the regional
control centres responsible for looking at what happens on our
smart motorways and setting signs appropriately. The Government
have mitigations in place. If necessary, it may be appropriate to
put a speed limit on the motorways. We are looking at this in
detail, and will do as and when we know more about what level of
workforce will be in place.
(Lab)
My Lords, while nobody wants disruption over Christmas—or at any
other time, for that matter—it is an open secret that the
Government are obstructing a settlement with the RMT. Everybody
knows that. Likewise, the Minister knows that there is not a cat
in hell’s chance of the rail unions accepting a below-inflation
pay deal, with thousands of job cuts and particularly with
driver-only operations and closing ticket offices, none of which
benefits the travelling public—in fact, quite the opposite. Does
the Minister agree that the Government should stop interfering in
these negotiations and stop politicising this industrial dispute,
and instead allow the train companies to settle?
(Con)
Well read, my Lord. I do not accept what the noble Lord just
said. Indeed, I slightly object to him telling me what I know
when it is followed by words that are not true. There is a good
offer on the table from the Government, which is fair to workers
and to taxpayers, and includes important workforce reforms.
Without these things, we will not get the services we need and
the fares we want. He says it will cause thousands of people to
lose their jobs; there are guarantees of a job for anyone who
wants one. The one thing that would take this forward would be
for the RMT executive to ask its members whether they would like
to accept the offer from the Rail Delivery Group and its members.
It is refusing to do so. That would provide the clarity and
transparency for everybody to understand what the membership of
the RMT actually wants.
(Con)
My Lords, could my noble friend update us on what will happen to
the scheduled £6 million improvements to York station, which we
understand cover both track and signalling? Will she give a
guarantee that these will go ahead despite the strikes?
(Con)
My noble friend raises a very important point here, because the
Christmas period is always a time when the rail sector endeavours
to make important improvements, such as the one that she noted.
Some of these improvements are safety upgrades. I really want
those to go ahead, and the situation is therefore deeply
disappointing: Network Rail will try and make as many of the
changes as it can, but to be striking over a period when there
are so many engineering works planned is not only disruptive to
passengers in the long term but may of course be dangerous.
(Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister explain why it is wrong for public
sector workers to try and maintain their living standards at the
same time that corporate bosses and bankers are filling their
boots with excess profits and extra pay? Can she explain the
difference between the two?
(Con)
My Lords, let us focus a little on the railway workers
themselves. I have the utmost respect for the work that they do.
During the pandemic, the Government supported the rail industry
to an enormous amount. In fact, it was not the Government: it was
the taxpayer. The amount was £31 billion, which is equivalent to
£300,000 for every single worker in the industry. Not one of them
lost their jobs and, even more, not one of them was even
furloughed. The railway sector now needs to modernise. We need a
seven-day railway and, in return for that modernisation, it is
right that the Government have put a reasonable offer on the
table. We believe that there should be a referendum among RMT
members about that offer.
(Con)
My Lords, a number of us travel a great deal on the railways, and
we are aware that there is now some disquiet with some members of
the RMT about the situation that they are in. Many people do not
know that members of the RMT do not receive strike pay, which is
quite common in many other unions, so they are penalised every
time they take a day off on strike and lose a full day’s pay.
There is no remuneration at all. There is an offer on the table,
and these negotiations have been going on for several months, so
does my noble friend the Minister agree that we should put that
offer to those workers themselves? Then we can determine whether
the offer on the table is sufficient or not.
(Con)
My noble friend is of course completely right. As the frequency
of strikes has increased as we head towards Christmas, and of
course over the special period that is Christmas itself, it is
absolutely right that we ask the workers—or indeed that the RMT
chooses to ask its workers—whether they can really afford this
around Christmas, and to think about their long-term career
within the railways and the damage being done to the ridership of
the railways. We are going to see even lower demand than we did
before. It is not going to make for a long-term sustainable
solution.
(Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on an open and refreshingly
clear acknowledgement that only Ministers set the pay and
conditions for railway workers, and that only they can unlock the
deal. Will she urge her ministerial colleagues to get around the
table and enter intensive negotiations to solve this dispute and
find a deal to end the rail strikes?
(Con)
It is no secret at all that the Government work with the train
operating companies and Network Rail to shape these deals. Why on
earth would it be a secret? It is indeed the taxpayer that needs
to fund these things. But of course the Government have
facilitated many meetings: the Secretary of State has met the
unions; Minister Merriman has met the unions. At the end of the
day, the key to this is for negotiations to continue. My
department is happy to facilitate those, but the actual
discussions need to happen between the operator and the unions.
