Political commentary

The Railway Children

Peter Paterson

1-1 ne sign that, unlike the Argies, we live

in a democracy, and not under a fascist dictatorship, was vouchsafed by the House of Commons this week. For both the major parties were reassuringly preoccupied on Monday with the question of why British trains do not run on time, or how miraculous it is when they do, and with casting blame on each other for the near- certainty that, as of next week, they will not run at all.

Of course, the Commons, like every saloon bar across the land, has its share of railway buffs, or bores, all peddling their theories about bloody-minded unions and incompetent staff, dirty carriages, football hooligans wrenching out the light bulbs, how ludicrous it is that the 3.59 from Much Snorting never seems to connect with the 2.30 from Little Tidmarsh, and did you see that the Americans have perfected a new steam locomotive?

The vast majority of MPs let the rail buffs get on with it, emerging only to vote on the Labour Party's proposition that the wonderful contributions to higher produc- tivity by the railway unions have been betrayed by the Government's failure to put more money into the system, and the Government's counter-proposition that the unions should pull up their socks and adopt modern work practices rather than going on strike. The vote was openly and democratically taken, the Government won easily, but it looks as though the strike will go ahead anyway.

Meanwhile, the bores had the chamber to themselves for three hours, scattering the incomprehensible acronyms which betray the semi-military aspirations of those who run and man the railways. Apart from the familiar union titles, NUR, ASLEF and TSSA, plus the Board's own BRB, we had to contend with PSOs (Public Service Obligation, which means subsidies), DMUs and EMUs (diesel and electric multiple units, or trains), the EFL (external financ- ing limit), OAPs (cheap tickets, for the use of), and PTEs (passenger transport ex- ecutives). And one that was new to me, and not to be found in the pages of the useful booklets BR issues on such matters, until I discovered that SNAPE had nothing to do with Jimmy Saville and his confusing array of cheap day off-peak Rover return tickets for handicapped unemployed school leavers, but is the name of the Honourable Member for West Bromwich East, who sits in the NUR interest.

And a very effective representative of his union Mr Snape is, whatever misgivings his passenger constituents may have over his apparently profound belief that the railways are run for the exclusive benefit of

the railwaymen. He has, for example, a refreshing euphemism for the higher pro- ductivity Sir Peter Parker and the govern- ment are always banging on about: Mr Snape calls it 'dehumanisation'. He also rebuked the inoffensive Mr Terence Hig- gins, whose Worthing constituents may have to get used to walking to their offices in London in the next few weeks, for ex- pressing some impatience over the NUR's refusal to remove guards from trains specifically designed to be run by a driver only, 'Rushing into this business of one- man train operation', he called it, although British Rail have been trying for five years to negotiate such a deal.

The trouble with representative democracy is that what could have been a marvellous debate between real commuters and real railwaymen turned into a dreary exchange of statistics between MPs for commuter belt constituencies, against superannuated railwaymen sponsored by two of the rail unions, with Labour's -mad monk Mr Leslie Huck field, the footplatemen's QC, for ASLEF. How much more fun to have had the real thing, staged perhaps on the concourse of Waterloo station with a background of train doors slamming on passengers' fingers and drivers being tied to the driving wheels of their engines.

As it was, we had to make do with the squeaky-voiced Mr Tim Eggar standing up for those who wearily drag themselves to and from Enfield by train each working day. But instead of concentrating on their particular plight, he tried to demonstrate his encyclopaedic knowledge of the entire railway, system and its Byzantine finances, thus earning a tanning from the NUR's Mr Snape, who crushingly observed that Mr Eggar's railway expertise was'... confined to collecting engine numbers as a boy.'

One glance at the willowy and delicate figure of the Secretary of State for Transport, Mr David Howell, suggests that as a lad he would not have been allowed to engage in anything so rough and dirty. A first class carriage, with a rug around his knees for young Master Howell, and even now his wrinkled-up nose and languid lack of concern betrays a distaste for all that oil and grease and noise and bad language and cellophane sandwiches and stewed tea call- ed British Rail, all of which Parliament has entrusted to his care and made him answerable for.

So Mr Howell foresook the seamier aspects of railway travel for a quick run through the facts and figures, constantly assailed by the NUR's formidable spokesmen, belching steam over his asser- tion that the poor old taxpayer is shelling

out more and more money for less and less effort on the part of the railwaymen. Tremulously, but with courage, Mr Howell even insisted on describing ASLEF's pro- ductivity record as 'atrocious'.

At least we can be thankful that Mr Albert Booth, Labour's Transport spokesman, did not attack British Rail's passengers in such intemperate terms. But according to him, the strike which now looms has less to do with the current wage claim, or the work harder argument — which he did not wish to discuss anyway — than with a tragic loss of faith in the future on the part of the railwaymen. The Govern- ment was simply not putting enough money into British Rail, despite its subsidy of well over £2 million a day, and to call the NUR and ASLEF Luddites was 'unjust and in- sulting'.

Fortunately for all our sakes, we now have a third force in Parliament ready and willing to show the rest of us that there is always a moderate middle way, if only we can turn our backs on all this petty and divisive squabbling between Right and Left, master and man, union and union. British Rail cannot afford to increase its five per cent pay offer, with its attached productivi- ty strings? Easy, claimed the SDP's Mr William Rodgers. Just a matter of 'massag- ing' the offer in some way, he said, airily massaging the Commons' torpid at- mosphere with one hand. Nothing to do with justice, of course, but with reality. The truth is that Mr Rodgers is more interested in the past than the present, or even, perhaps, the future. As a former Labour Minister of Transport he wants to portray himself as the signalman who gave the green light to a wonderful new era on the railway, if only his successors had not simply stood by and watched the trains, and the oppor- tunities, go by.

It was, it seems, Mr Rodgers who 'authorised' the new trains for the Bedford St Pancras line which the NUR refuse to operate, and which newspaper photographers, lying flat on their stomachs for greater effect, love to picture with the grass and weeds growing over them in the sidings to which they have now been aban- doned. Many more speeches like Monday's and they will be taking pictures like that of Mr Rodgers. The blame for such empty-headed debates rests with the late Mr Herbert Mor- rison (before he became Lord Morrison of Lambeth). His design for nationalisation gives the Commons a pseudo-managerial role in industries like the railways, which they are quite unqualified to fulfil. Why should the government of the day have to authorise the purchase of every new locomotive needed by British Rail, or a Labour opposition feel bound to read out the briefing statements prepared by the union research departments whenever there is an industrial dispute? Why can't the railways be hived off without necessarily being denationalised? One listens in vain for such questions to be asked, let alone answered.