House of Lords
Tuesday, 29th January 2002.
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.
Railways
Lord Bradshaw asked Her Majesty's Government:
- When they expect improvements in reliability and punctuality on the railways.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government agree that rail passengers are experiencing far too many delays. Early and significant improvements are required. The rail strategic plan published on 14th February by the Strategic Rail Authority sets out short- and medium-term action to improve performance, as well as setting out the longer-term vision for Britain's railways. We welcome the steps that the SRA, under the chairmanship of Richard Bowker, is taking to improve performance across the industry.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Today, we are experiencing yet another industrial dispute on South West Trains and there have been disputes in Leeds and in Scotland. Will the Minister consider amending industrial relations law so that an aggrieved party—that is, a commuter—may test in the courts whether a company or a trade union is behaving reasonably? Industrial relations law recognises only an employee and an employer. It does not recognise the position of commuters, who are suffering damage estimated at £20 million a day.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to re-emphasise the Government's view. In this day and age, disagreements over pay should not give rise to strikes, especially in vital public services. As the noble Lord says, the present strikes are causing great inconvenience to the travelling public and are doing nothing for the recovery of the railway industry. However, it is not for the Government to intervene directly and become a party to negotiations. We shall be active in expressing the anger and frustration of the travelling public, both to management and to unions, and calling on them to resolve the issue through negotiations and not through further strike action. We believe that both the operator and the trade union side should get back round the table as soon as possible to resolve any outstanding disputes.
I noted the noble Lord's interesting question about whether unreasonable behaviour could be made actionable. I do not wish to dispute the suggestion out of hand, but my initial reaction is that it would certainly generate substantial employment for my learned friends.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, the Secretary of State for Transport, Mr Byers, has
reasonably said that if railway standards are not substantially improved he will fall on his sword. By what five economic tests is he to be judged?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, my response is: "Wait on". Clearly, without being naive, the Government would want to set out very clearly what we expect to achieve. To some extent, this House has already seen that. The Strategic Rail Authority's plan has been published and was discussed in this House. For the first time for 50 years, it sets out a plan for a major expansion in the railway industry. However, I do not believe that my right honourable friend in another place will have to fall on his sword. The Government believe that the plan will deliver substantial improvements over the life of the plan, and that we shall begin to see some of those improvements by the time of the next general election. There are four reasons. The first is the massive commitment of the Government to do so. Secondly, we have trebled investment per annum compared to that during the last years of the previous government. Thirdly, there is a realistic plan to implement the strategy. Fourthly, there is strong leadership, through Richard Bowker, to take the plan into practice.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that one of the unspoken purposes behind the privatisation of the railway and breaking it up into many parts was to break the power of the public sector trade unions in that industry? Does he accept that the effect of privatisation has been exactly the reverse? As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, immediate industrial disputes are threatened in three companies, and over the next few weeks strike ballots will be held in regard to a further two. Is it not the case that companies are having to bid against each other, and the trade unions are realising that when that happens they are put in an incredibly powerful position? Is not the way out of this situation a return to a system of centralised bargaining and centralised negotiation?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, there is widespread recognition, both in this House and outside, that we need a much better way of resolving industrial relations issues in the railway industry. That is particularly so in regard to industrial action, when one of the main sufferers is not simply the employer but the general public, on the scale that we have seen. Such matters are for the companies and the trade unions to resolve, and we welcome positive suggestions. However, all systems of pay negotiation have their disadvantages as well as their advantages. It is not absolutely clear that full national pay bargaining is necessarily the way to go—but neither is the status quo.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, where is government policy coming from on this matter? Is it coming from the Strategic Rail Authority, from the Department for Transport, or from a department in the Treasury which is conducting a review? Or is it coming from the No. 10 Forward Strategy Unit, which I understand is now looking into transport policy? Or is it coming from the noble Lord, Lord Birt? From whom is the
Minister receiving his briefing? When asked by the Select Committee about the role of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, the Secretary of State, Stephen Byers, said: "It keeps him occupied". Is the noble Lord aware that there are quite a few Members of this House, particularly on his side, who also need to be kept occupied occasionally? Can he tell them where they should apply for jobs?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, many of my noble friends would be extremely well qualified to apply for many jobs in both public and private sectors. As to the noble Viscount's question, apart from the bits that I make up myself as we go along I get my briefing from all parts of government, although I regret that I did not speak to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, in this case.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, should not the Government now invoke the assistance of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service—ACAS—to which previous Labour Governments have always paid great attention?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am reluctant to give advice in the middle of an industrial dispute. I understand that South West Trains has indicated its willingness to go to arbitration provided it is binding, but I gather that RMT will not accept binding arbitration. If I am wrong on that, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, is it not clear that the dispute is much more about union power than about union pay, no matter how much inconvenience may be caused to the public or how much embarrassment may be caused to the Government?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, in my experience industrial disputes are usually a complex of a whole variety of reasons. I read the papers as much as the noble Lord does and I have seen that allegation made about issues within RMT. However, it would not be helpful for me to speculate publicly about such issues from the Dispatch Box.
Decontamination of Surgical Instruments
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they will now publish the conclusions of the review of the decontamination of surgical instruments in the National Health Service, as promised by the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 11th December 2001 (HL Deb, col. 1231).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the review of decontamination of surgical instruments in the NHS in England was published on
11th December 2001. Copies of the report were placed in the Library of the House and it is available on the department's website. All NHS hospitals in England have access to decontamination services of an acceptable standard.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, does the Minister recall that my Question on 11th December referred to a report that was suppressed because the Government disliked its findings? He said in his Answer that he was publishing the report that day. Is he aware that I asked the Printed Paper Office for it on that day, on the following day, on the following week and on a number of occasions since, but only late this morning, after exhaustive research by the excellent staff in that office, was it found on an obscure Internet site? Is he aware that neither of the two reports on the subject—only intermittently on the Internet—has an international standard book number and thus cannot be classified as publications? Is the Minister not aware of the importance of keeping a promise made from that Box in this House?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page