| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springburn) : The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has mentioned me several times.
Mr. Walker : Because the hon. Gentleman is here.
Mr. Martin : Because I am here. The hon. Gentleman will agree, no doubt, that the reason why there is great pressure for constitutional change in Scotland is that the vast majority of Scottish people feel that the Government are neglecting them. With the closure of Ravenscraig, for example, it seemed that the Secretary of State was indifferent to the problems. I have the Adjournment debate today, which is on a closure that has a bearing on railway safety. I shall be raising that because, once again, the Government have appeared indifferent. Every time hon. Members approach the Secretary of State on matters such as education and school and hospital closures, the right hon. Gentleman says that the decisions are management decisions and not directly to do with the Government. It is small wonder, given all the problems that we face north of the border, that there is pressure for
Column 625
change in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman must face the fact that the Government's complacency has led to that desire for change.Mr. Walker : I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. Let us examine the facts. Since May 1979, Scotland has had its old smokestack, labour-intensive industries replaced. They are gone ; they have been banished. In their place have come modern, high-technology industry. That, coupled with a flourishing financial and service sector, and linked to a revitalised whisky industry--whose existence the hon. Member for Springburn must acknowledge--has meant that Scotland now exports more per capita than Germany or Japan. No one would deny that there are problems in some sectors and some areas. What I am saying is that the Bill will not change that or address those problems. The changes that have taken place since 1979 have been beneficial to Scotland, as our export performance has shown.
Mr. Win Griffiths : The hon. Gentleman is misusing the English language in saying that the traditional industries have been replaced by new industries. In fact, speaking from memory, there are now about 105,000 fewer full-time jobs for men in Scotland than there were in 1979. Taking all employment, there are still far fewer jobs in Scotland than there were in 1979. Those jobs have not been replaced : most of them have been lost.
Mr. Walker : The hon. Gentleman accuses me of misusing the English language. I said that our labour-intensive, smokestack industries had been replaced by modern industry. One could use the hon. Gentleman's argument to apply to earlier times, particularly in my constituency, where 80 per cent. of the population used to work on the land. All that changed with the industrial revolution. We live in a world of change and cannot expect people to continue working in the same activities. That change has brought Scotland to a competitive position where the service sector is growing all the time. It is the biggest employer in my constituency. There are more jobs today in my constituency in the service sector than 10 years ago, many more than there were 20 years ago, and the number of such jobs continues to grow. My local newspaper contains many job adverts each week. The real difficulty about a Bill such as this is that when one talks about giving Scotland more say over its own affairs and a Government in Edinburgh, people will say, "Oh yes, we agree" until one mentions the cost. What is the price that we would have to pay to achieve that?
I hope that I have demonstrated how unstable the political situation in Scotland would be as a result of the division of responsibilities and power. The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford would find that I could ask questions and, more important, vote on matters affecting them, but that he would be unable to ask questions or to vote on matters affecting my constituency. That is the weakness of the proposal. The Bill is proposing arrangements to deal with the constitution of the United Kingdom in isolation. Indeed, it was admitted earlier that it would be one step towards a federal structure. The only way in which a federal structure could be created would be if it were introduced simultaneously throughout the United Kingdom as a whole and if the whole of the United Kingdom was prepared to accept it, but that is not the position.
Column 626
Mr. Allan Stewart : Does my hon. Friend agree that the gainers from the instability to which he rightly refers are bound to be the Scottish National party which, these days, is far more extreme and committed to traditional socialism than even the Scottish Labour party?
Mr. Walker : My hon. Friend pre-empts me. I have just picked up the next page of my notes which deals with that. The tragedy is that the separatists are helped every time proposals such as the constitutional convention and this Bill are introduced, because once they have been debated and examined, they are found to be flawed and, I would say, fraudulent because the proposers know that they cannot deliver. That helps the separatists, the narrow, socialist nationalists in Scotland. Who really believes that Scotland wants to be governed by the narrow, socialist nationalists of west central Scotland--the "red Clydesiders" as they describe themselves in my constituency? Those red Clydesiders wish to embrace the failed policies of eastern Europe, such as nationalisation, which my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned, centralism, Government controls and Government intervention.
Mr. Keith Raffan (Delyn) : Looking at the recent opinion poll, surely my hon. Friend accepts that nothing is more likely to drive the Scottish people towards the extreme position of independence or separation than for the Government to do what they are doing now, and rigidly to maintain their anti-devolutionary stance? That is what is happening and that is what is splitting the Scottish Conservative party. Many of its leading figures in Scotland disagree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Walker : I would have more respect for my hon. Friend if he had remained in Scotland and fought his corner there-- [Hon. Members :-- "Oh!"] Yes, those of us who are arguing in the House are the ones who have stayed and fought for what we believe in. If my hon. Friend had been in his place earlier, he would have heard me talking about principles, but he was not present, and he is trying to have a go at me without full knowledge of what has been said. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Bolsover in his place, because, although I do not agree with him, I recognise that he is a man of principle. Principles are often what is missing.
I turn now to what narrow nationalism really means. It means centralism, Government controls and Government intervention and the closure of Scottish defence bases at Pitreavie, Saxa Vord, Lossiemouth, Kinross, Leuchars, Arbroath, Rosyth, Faslane, Coulport, Prestwick, Edzell, Turnhouse, and Almondbank. All those places employ local people and provide jobs on a massive scale, and would be at risk if we were to accept such narrow nationalism.
What about defence-related industries in Scotland? The plain truth is that many of Scotland's industries, Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace and Ferranti, depend on defence orders. Who seriously believes that Yarrow would have an order for three frigates if we had any sort of separatist Scotland?
The Conservative party must introduce proposals for the whole of the United Kingdom and its constitution. This is not the time for me to introduce such proposals. I hope that during the debates that we shall have on the government of Scotland the Chair and the House will give me the opportunity to debate at great length--I will go on at great length because I have a huge--
Column 627
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed on Friday 14 February.Column 628
Private Members' Bills
STILL-BIRTH (DEFINITION) BILL
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.-- [Mrs. Rosie Barnes.]
Committee Friday 14 February.
AMUSEMENT MACHINES (PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 March.
ESTABLISHED CHURCH BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 February
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [24 January].
Debate to be resumed on Friday 14 February.
PRE-WIRED PLUGS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Second Reading what day? No day named.
IMPACT OF DISASTERS BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Second Reading what day? No day named.
SEA FISHERIES (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION) BILL
Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPPLY OF MEDICAL EQUIPMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Second Reading what day?
Mr. Thomas McAvoy (Glasgow, Rutherglen) : With the permission of the Member concerned, Friday 14 February.
CORPORATE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Second Reading what day? No day named.
Column 629
EDUCATION (SCHOOL PREMISES) BILL
Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
ARMED FORCES (LIABILITY FOR INJURY) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Second Reading what day? No day named.
CHEQUES BILL
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Read the Third time, and passed.
SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL
Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Monday 10th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), Mr. Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Brooke relating to Northern Ireland (Industrial Relations) and Northern Ireland (Industrial Relations Consequential Amendment) not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first of them ; and those Motions may be proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.]
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 12th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), Mr. Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Hunt relating to Local Government Finance (Wales) at Ten o'clock or not more than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first of them, whichever is the later ; and those Motions may be proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.]
Column 630
Eastfield Railway Maintenance Depot
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.]
2.33 pm
Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springburn) : I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to Mr. Speaker for the opportunity to put this Adjournment debate before the House. I am grateful, too, to the Minister for Public Transport who is here to reply to the debate. I took the liberty yesterday of putting to the Minister the case that I am about to make now, so that there might be a chance of as full an explanation as possible on the proposed closure.
The Eastfield railway locomotive depot is in my constituency, Springburn. It employs 120 highly skilled engineers, fitters and electricians. The depot is sited on the main Glasgow to Edinburgh railway line. Given the recent announcement to build the European freight terminal at Mossend, the men are deeply shocked at the decision to close a maintenance depot with such an excellent reputation. It was felt that with the opening of that terminal more maintenance depots would be needed.
The work force has an excellent record of industrial relations. Many members of staff have received commendations from the British Railways Board. Many of the staff have worked in the industry since they left school and, in some cases, their fathers worked in it before them. In fact, traditionally, people have worked in the railway industries in my constituency for many generations. At one time in Springburn 11,000 people were employed in railway engineering, but I am sad to say that that is not the case now. If the proposed closure goes ahead only one railway facility will be left--the British Rail Maintenance Ltd. depot, formerly the British Rail Engineering Ltd. workshop. However, even that facility has been reduced to a tenth of its original size.
The Minister will be aware of the concern in the railway industry at the decision by British Steel to move its limestone transportation from rail to road. That decision has been taken despite the fact that the Minister has stated that the Government are doing everything that they can to take freight transport from the roads to the railways because of the environmental consequences of such a change. It appears that the Government are a bit half-hearted about getting more freight work for British Rail. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), who is present, would agree that if more and more freight goes off the railways, more and more jobs in railway maintenance will be lost.
The work force wants to know what the future might hold for them. Obviously, their first wish is for the depot to be kept open, but in the event of common sense failing to prevail, what guarantees will be given to them about relocation?
I know that the Minister may not have all the answers today ; perhaps he can write to me to let me know whether BR, if it cannot find similar work for that work force, is prepared to retrain and locate within the travel-to -work area? A recent memo issued by the management stated that no new posts would be created at the Ayr, Motherwell or Grangemouth depots. If that is true, how will it be possible to relocate the work force of Eastfield?
Column 631
Mr. Thomas McAvoy (Glasgow, Rutherglen) : First, may I say how much I admire the way in which my hon. Friend is putting the case for his constituents? The recent rail crash at Newton has made maintenance a topical issue in terms of British Rail'sresponsibility. What does my hon. Friend think about the effects of apparent rundown of maintenance facilities given that maintenance is such an important factor in terms of rail safety?
Mr. Martin : I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter. I shall refer to the Newton railway disaster and to Bellgrove in the context of railway safety.
The Minister will be aware that the terms and conditions of employment in the railway industry stress the importance of relocation and retraining. I hope that he will comment on that issue and that, if he does not have positive answers, we shall hear further from British Rail.
At the best of times redundancy is worrying. In my area it is disastrous, for I represent one of the worst unemployment blackspots in the United Kingdom. Indeed, when the figures were last given, my constituency was number six, near the top of the list of worst unemployment areas. As I say, redundancy is worrying at any time, but it is disastrous at a time of high unemployment and in an area in which there are few jobs to go round.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen referred to safety. Bellgrove railway junction is in my constituency. Some years ago, when the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was Prime Minister, a terrible crash involving fatalities occurred there. It was due to the single junction, which has now been phased out. At that time the right hon. Lady gave me every assurance in the House that railway safety would become a top priority for the Government. Similar comments were made at the time of the Newton railway disaster last summer. That disaster occurred in my hon. Friend's constituency, although one of the drivers who died was a neighbour of mine, as he lived only a few minutes from my home.
Hon. Members are not unused to attending funerals, some of which are sadder than others. I had never attended a sadder gathering than the funeral of the young driver, Mr. Scott, who lived in my area. Not only did his workmates have the harrowing experience of attending his funeral, but within an hour they had to be at the funeral of the other driver.
Evidence showed that railway safety was at fault and that the technology of the single junction was the problem. We are all anxious to see safety standards improved. It would surely be for the advantage of all to keep open a depot such as that about which I am speaking and which has a skilled work force. It seems pointless to make promises about safety if, at the end of the day, we allow a depot such as that to be closed.
My purpose today is not simply to talk about assurances for the men. That is a vital issue and I have made the case for such assurances being given. Everyone in the community wants the depot to be kept open and, in that context, I could not do better than put to the House the points that the chairman of shop stewards, Mr. Larry Kerr, put to me yesterday. I asked him what, if he was in my shoes standing before the House, he would say to hon. Members. He faxed to me the 18 points that he would stress. He stated that there was potential for total maintenance and servicing of class 156-158 and that it was the only
Column 632
"location in Scotland (other than BRML) capable of class 08 shunter heavy maintenance lifts the only location in Scotland (other than BRML) capable of locomotive bogie lifting for wheel set and traction motor repairs."The shop steward said that it was capable
"of carrying out all modification work presently carried out at RETB and fitting to class 37 locomotives."
He said that the closure of Eastfield would mean that "West Highland" locomotives would have to be maintained at Thornaby in Teesside or at Inverness, and that, in order to be maintained at Inverness or Teesside, the locomotives would pass Eastfield. It is galling for workers if they see work going past them on its way to another depot. I am anything but a nationalist. I despise some elements of nationalism, which almost seem fascist. However, previous debates have shown that all movement of work to south of the border fuels the nationalists' case.
The shop steward said that the depot was capable of fuelling any class of locomotive or multi-unit and was ideally sited on the Glasgow-Edinburgh main line. He said that it contained provision for breakdown recovery, and facilities to cope with disasters. God forbid that such emergencies should occur again, but the Eastfield depot was involved in the Polmont and Bellgrove disasters and the Newton train crash.
The shop steward said that the depot carried out serious collision damage repair that would otherwise have to be done at a main works. He said that it contained a painting facility and was currently working on InterCity locomotives. The depot can carry out locomotive body work refurbishment and is a central location for "booking-on" train crew.
He said that all staff were C1 trained in mechanical-electrical interchange. He said that the depot had potential for locomotive power unit changes, and maintained line-clearing snow ploughs. He said that it was recognised by senior technical and engineering management as an essential facility, the work of which could not be easily or reliably taken over by other depots.
The shop steward's report said that the complex comprised : "(a
(12 covered repair roads)
(b
(of which 5 have overhead cranes)
(c
(2 heavy repair roads)
(d
(fuelling/servicing roads)
(e
(2 covered roads capable of accepting complete 156 or 158 trains sets for repair)
(f
(recently upgraded safety systems".)
The depot is in the process of applying for BS 5750 standard. It has an excellent industrial record.
The shop steward stated that the depot had the potential "to carry out any sort of British Rail work, perhaps under the proposed T and RS grades restructuring."
That was the case set up by the shop steward. I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Rutherglen and for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) will agree with that case. They both have constituents who work in the depot, and I am sure that they would agree that it would be a loss not only for Glasgow, Springburn, but for railway engineering throughout Scotland were the depot to close.
Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde) : As my hon. Friend knows, the Glasgow to Ayrshire line and the Glasgow to Gourock and Greenock line run through my constituency. Anyone who knows of the great
Column 633
knowledge and expertise that have been built up at the Eastfield depot will agree that to lose that depot would be disastrous for Scotland.Mr. Martin : I thank my hon. Friend for that point.
I plead with the Minister to use whatever influence he has to call on British Rail to think again about the Eastfield railway depot. 2.49 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman) : With characteristic courtesy, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) informed me yesterday of a letter that he had received from Mr. Lawrence Kerr of the works committee. I have read that letter ; it was helpful to be briefed on some of the points that the hon. Gentleman wanted to raise. If I cannot answer all his points in the remaining time, I will write to him.
There is no difference between the hon. Member for Springburn and myself in wanting to pay tribute to the skill of the men at the maintenance depot. They have a creditable record and it is right that we should record their hard work and skill in helping British Rail to achieve the status of one of the best maintained railways in the world.
The Eastfield depot is situated two miles north of Glasgow Queen Street station, on the main line from Glasgow to Edinburgh. It has been the main heavy locomotive maintenance depot for Scotland for many years. Its role has been diminishing in recent years, largely because of changes in British Rail's fleet composition. In 1986 the diesel locomotive fleet in Scotland stood at 235. Now it stands at 98, with further reductions forecast as new electric trains and smaller and more powerful diesel locomotives are introduced.
One advantage of the modernisation of the passenger fleet over the past few years has been the reduction in maintenance costs. Less work is now needed to maintain the fleet. Modern sprinter trains, including class 158s, have been introduced, replacing
locomotive-hauled services and older multiple units. On the freight side, the introduction of new heavy-haul diesel class 60 locomotives has both reduced the number of locomotives requiring maintenance and the amount of maintenance needed by those that remain.
Another contributory factor has been a decline in freight flows, mainly relating to the past rundown of steel-making facilities in Scotland. The closure of Eastfield depot therefore also reflects a reduction in the requirements for locomotive maintenance for the railway's freight business in Scotland.
I understand that BR has had Eastfield's position under review for some time and that last year it looked at a number of options for the future of the depot. As part of that review, all BR businesses were consulted but no prospect of alternative extra work for Eastfield emerged. After careful consideration of long-term requirements, BR came to the conclusion that closure was the most cost-effective solution.
This is purely a business decision by British Rail, not one for Ministers. The hon. Member has raised a number of detailed points concerning the views of the work force, but I must stress that the day-to-day management of the railway and the deployment of railway staff are entirely matters for the British Railways Board. I can, however, tell the hon. Gentleman that having read the detailed letter, I
| Next Section
| Home Page |