Q1.
asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 July.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with Sir Anthony Parsons. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
I suspect that during my right hon. Friend's busy day she might have occasion to consider the implications of the strike action being undertaken by some train drivers. Can she confirm that, given the acceptance by the work force of the necessity of operating the railways in the most efficient way possible for the benefit of the consumer, the Government would wish to continue their financial support for the railways and see the new investment that could give Britain the railway system of which it could be proud?
I agree with my hon. Friend that we very much want a railway system of which we can be proud.
There is already considerable investment in British Rail—about £3 billion since 1976 and about £350 million last year. However, if investment is to continue on anything like that scale we must be sure that it will secure a proper return. Therefore, we must have excellent productivity practices and not be dependent upon those that were agreed in 1919. There will then be greater hopes for an efficient railway. Where the Government request British Rail to run specific services that would not otherwise be commercial, they expect to meet the cost with a special operating grant.We have always urged, and will continue to urge, that there should be increased investment in British Rail. As the present crisis is undoubtedly causing great hardship and difficulty to all concerned, could not a settlement of the dispute be sought on the basis of the proposals that the British Railways Board put forward on 25 June?
Investment itself is not necessarily good. It must be productive investment. Unproductive investment merely takes away from investment that could otherwise be made and produce a better return. The board has made every effort to solve the dispute. It is quite right to insist on the introduction of flexible rostering and to insist that there cannot be any more money without greater efficiency.
Will the right hon. Lady answer my question? It is important, because the railways will suffer losses as a result of the strike. Does she favour a settlement on the basis of the proposals made on 25 June? Having put forward those proposals, why did the British Railways Board withdraw them last week? Will the right hon. Lady consider the matter and try to secure a proper settlement?
ASLEF went on strike. The handling of that stike must be left to the British Railways Board. It cannot be handled in the House or at No. 10 Downing Street. However, we can lay down the very important principle that it is totally wrong to try—as the Labour Party has frequently done—to encourage the unions to believe that there will always be more money without more efficiency and better working methods.
We want to overcome this crisis. Will the right hon. Lady say whether she supports the board's proposals, which have now been withdrawn?
I leave the negotiations—rightly—to the British Railways Board. The Government have stood behind the British Railways Board in its negotiations.
Did my right hon. Friend hear Mr. Ray Buckton this morning when he explained to Radio 4 listeners that we live in a democratic country? Is it not about time that he introduced a little democracy into his union and consulted his members about this damaging dispute?
I understand that a number of ASLEF members have made precisely the same point. A considerable number of them are now working because they attach more importance to serving the travelling public—which is quite right—than to insisting on increased pay without improved working practices.