Nationalised Passenger Rail Services
Debate between Lord Dobbs and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
One of the interesting things that has been going on since this Government took office is re-establishing some pretty basic rules about staff allocation—the numbers of drivers and guards and the way in which they are utilised—which in some of these companies was miles away from what ought to have been established. As my noble friend says, it takes a long time to put things right, but we are putting them right.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
If the Minister was travelling on a successful South Western train this morning, he was on a different train from the one I was on. I ask him to look back: the very first breath that this Labour Government took was to give a record-breaking, inflation-busting pay rise to train drivers. One would normally expect, in a public service, for that to bring about better punctuality and improvement of service, yet all those have gone backwards and there has been an increase in the number of complaints. I know some people suggested at the time that it was all to pay for the Government’s friends; we can dismiss that with a wave of our hands. But what is, and was, the point of an inflation-busting pay increase to train drivers if there is no improvement in public service?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Let us reflect on the effect of the continuous dispute with train drivers, which cost £700 million or £800 million in revenue; on the fact that the pay increase was about 2% more than the previous Government intended to pay; and, particularly, on the fact that there were no productivity proposals on the table at the time it was paid, because the previous Government had wasted their time having a discussion with the owners about what percentage of those productivity benefits they took for themselves and, in consequence, there was nothing on the table to put forward. We have changed all those positions.
East Coast Main Line
Debate between Lord Dobbs and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill(11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have two points to make to the noble Earl. First, the improvements in journey time between London and Scotland—particularly between King’s Cross and Edinburgh—apply equally to LNER and to LUMO, which is the open-access operator. Of course, the Government have not rejected eight out of nine applications. They have analysed the effect of those applications both on the reliability of the railway and on the revenue of the railway, and hence the effect on taxpayers’ subsidy. Their recommendation to the ORR, which currently decides open-access applications, is that those should be refused; but it is the ORR’s independent decision and we await its decision on all those nine applications and others.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, since the train drivers were given a very substantial pay increase, what has happened to train drivers’ productivity and train punctuality?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The increase in pay given to both train drivers and other railway staff last summer was not very different from the offer made by the previous Government, which was not sufficient to settle the dispute. The additional 2% that was paid last July stopped the dispute, which had cost the nation nearly £1 billion-worth of lost revenue on the railways. The result is that passenger numbers are steadily growing. The productivity of train drivers is, of course, a function of the timetable. The more services you run, the more likely it is that they will be more productive. That is a matter for their current employers, whether they are publicly owned or not.
It is interesting that, even if it had been decided by the Government last summer that they wanted to see productivity improvements for train drivers, in fact there were no extant proposals to allow that to happen, because many of the employers had withheld them pending the resolution of a dispute not about what the benefits of their productivity were but about who made the money out of the productivity, whether it was them or the Government.