| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the initiative mean that Members of Parliament are now redundant, except as Lobby fodder?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I hope that we would never say that Members of Parliament were redundant. Members of Parliament have an important role to play, but it is also important for the Labour Party to hear what people in the community and our party members feel about Labour Party policy.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this morning we heard that first reports indicate that people are actually anxious to discuss policies that affect their daily lives and that are fair? Does she agree that if
noble Lords opposite carried out a similar exercise, they would learn about the unfairness of their policies for health and education?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. Not only would the party opposite learn a great deal, it would have to start taking lessons from us about how to win elections.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, will the Minister share her feelings with us and tell us what it feels like to be a member of a Government who have been in power since 1997 and are now to go out to the country to determine what they believe and what they should do? What does it feel like to be in charge of a vacuum?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to be part of a Government who have not only a clear set of policies to deal with the challenges facing this country but the confidence to go out to talk to the people, through their party, about the challenges facing the country for the future.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords—
Lord Grocott: My Lords, there is time for both noble Lords, so let us be patient. Let us hear first from the Labour Benches—I always like to hear from these Benches.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is it not true that if the governing party of the day in 1989 and 1990 had conducted a big conversation with the people, we should not have had the poll tax or the privatisation of British Rail, both of which have been complete disasters?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to agree with my noble friend.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, will the Government institute the really big conversation that the country desperately needs, which is a conversation about the European Union in general and the constitution in particular? Will the Government send to every household in this country an impartial, plain English explanation of the issues behind the constitution, so that the conversation can be meaningful?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. We need to do more to help people to understand the issues involved in our relationship with the European Union. My colleagues are working on that. As for the issues of constitutional change, if the noble Lord reads the document, he will see that it contains questions relating to constitutional change.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, will the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, be kind enough draw to the attention of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of
Portsmouth to the Companion to the Standing Orders, in which he will read that it is inappropriate to refer to people in the galleries?
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I apologise.
London Underground: Threatened Industrial Action
3.4 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What action they propose to take in the light of threatened industrial action on the London Underground.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government regret this action by RMT, which will cause disruption for Londoners in the run-up to Christmas. London Underground was transferred from central government to Transport for London on 15th July. Responsibility for dealing with the threatened industrial action rests with Transport for London and the Mayor. London Underground believes that the union's concerns can be addressed without industrial action. It is essential that the unions work with London Underground to resolve the issue.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. However, in the run-up to Christmas, the proposed industrial action is monstrous. In view of the fact that—largely at the behest of the unions—we now have a Health and Safety Commission in charge of railway safety, there can be no excuse for it. Will he give an undertaking that either he or the Mayor—it is convenient for the Government to shuffle this over to the Mayor—will go to the High Court to seek an injunction to stop what is purely a political strike?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is not a question of convenience for the Government that it is a matter for the Mayor; that is objectively the fact, as a result of the transfer of the responsibility. However, I of course agree with the noble Lord that the action comes at an unfortunate time. We do not believe it is justified; we believe that London Underground is making every attempt to reassure the unions about how safe the Underground is. The noble Lord is right to say that the Health and Safety Commission also has a clear responsibility in this area and is also ensuring that all requirements are met.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, will the Minister condemn unofficial strike action? Will he answer the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and tell us whether the Government will encourage the Mayor of London to use the powers under various industrial relations Acts that relate to unofficial strikes?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, this is not a strike; it is action; it involves moving the trains more slowly than
normal. It is not unofficial, because it has been out to ballot and has been duly voted for by a majority of those who participated in the ballot under trade union and employment law. So there is no question to answer in those terms.Railway Safety
3.7 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What plans they have for removing responsibility for railway safety from the Health and Safety Executive.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government have no plans to change the structure of the safety regime for the railways. However, as with other aspects of rail safety, we welcome wider debate on the best way to ensure that our railways remain safe.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of recent comments by Mr Alan Osbourne, the outgoing director of rail safety at the HSE, who said:
- "The HSE is dysfunctional across its policy and operational activities"?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Viscount, for the obvious reason that in the most recent serious inquiry into a rail crash, Lord Cullen made it quite clear that he thought that responsibility for inspection of the railways for safety should remain with the Health and Safety Executive. That is why Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Rail Safety is incorporated in that body.
The noble Viscount has identified anxieties about certain internal relationships within HSE, which it needs to address. But the principle of the body being responsible for rail safety has been endorsed by Lord Cullen, is in place and—let me reassure the House—despite the tragedies that occur when we have rail crashes and accidents, rail remains by far the safest form of mass transportation.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, since the Minister has raised the issue, does he not agree that the Cullen report also made it very clear that a major factor in the accident that it reported on was the direct result of the changed culture and diversification of control of the industry? This Government claim to feel strongly about their manifesto commitments. Is it not about time they
honoured the one about returning the railway to public ownership? After all, the taxpayer is still paying for it.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord will be all too well aware of recent changes in the railway system to increase capacity for control in that respect. I emphasise that the rail system has not shown a linear deterioration of safety—far from it. Safety records of the rail system continue to improve through timed sequences. Changes in rail ownership and control have resulted in no marked increase in the number of rail incidents, signals passed at danger or serious problems on the rail.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, will the Minister turn his attention to road transport and compare it with the railway? For railways, there is a large health and safety inspectorate and many other bodies, whereas on the roads we have nobody. Although 40,000 people have been killed or seriously injured on the roads, there were only 217 prosecutions for causing death by dangerous driving.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page