Transport Committee

Oral evidence: Rail strikes, HC 581

Wednesday 13 July 2022

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 13 July 2022.

Watch the meeting

Members present: Huw Merriman (Chair); Mr Ben Bradshaw; Simon Jupp; Chris Loder; Grahame Morris; Gavin Newlands; Christian Wakeford.

Questions 1–159

Witnesses

I: Eddie Dempsey, Senior Assistant General Secretary, Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers Union; and Mick Whelan, General Secretary, ASLEF, the train drivers’ union.

Examination of witnesses

Witnesses: Eddie Dempsey and Mick Whelan.

Q1                Chair: This is the Transport Committee’s one-off evidence session talking about the rail strikes. We have two panels. The second panel will comprise Network Rail and a representative from the train operators. In the first panel, we have the rail trade unions. I ask them to introduce themselves for the record.

Eddie Dempsey: I am Senior Assistant General Secretary for the RMT union.

Mick Whelan: Good morning. I am General Secretary of the train drivers union, ASLEF.

Chair: Mr Dempsey and Mr Whelan, thank you very much indeed for being with us. We have an hour with you. Before I start, I had better ask whether Members have any interests they wish to declare.

Chris Loder: I used to be a member of the RMT a little while ago. I have worked for both witnesses on the second panel at some point in my previous career.

Grahame Morris: I was a member of the RMT in the days when it was the NUR. I am a member of the RMT parliamentary group and the ASLEF parliamentary group. From time to time, we cross paths with interests of common cause.

Q2                Chair: Excellent. Thank you to both. Let us make a start. I will lead off and then I will bring in colleagues. By way of an opener and explainer, I would ask you to set out what the dispute is about. Where is the concern on behalf of your members in terms of their current pay and their current conditions?

Eddie Dempsey: In 2011 we had the McNulty report, which put forward a number of changes to the rail industry. We think that the industry and Government are using the health emergency at this moment, when we are supposed to be recovering from the pandemic, to bring forward a number of those plans which are detrimental to our members.

This is also at a time where many of our members are now in the third year of a pay freeze, so they have lost substantial amounts of their real-terms earnings over that period. Inflation is really high. We have the retail prices index at 11.7% and CPI is near 10%. Our members are feeling the pinch.

We have been speaking to industry for more than 18 months now, coming up to two years. We wrote to all the companies that are controlled by the DFT in January of this year, asking for a no compulsory redundancy guarantee for our people, for a substantial pay rise and for any changes in the industry to be negotiated and not imposed on our members.

We did not get a positive response. We had some very difficult conversations between January up to June, when we ended up taking three days of strike action. We have been in discussions since. We have had a couple of pay offers, but none of those has met the aspirations of our people at this time.

Q3                Chair: In terms of the factual information, with regard to RMT members have there been successful ballots on every single train operator, or just on some?

Eddie Dempsey: There have been successful ballots on every single train operator and Network Rail. It is all the companies that are directly controlled by the DFT. Where the DFT is not in control, we have achieved pay awards; we have settlements; we are not in dispute; and we are making headway. It is all the companies that are controlled by the DFT.

Q4                Chair: Does that include Southern?

Eddie Dempsey: Yes.

Q5                Chair: Did your members vote for strike action on Southern?

Eddie Dempsey: Yes.

Q6                Chair: Not just on the Network Rail side, but on Southern?

Eddie Dempsey: On Southern, you are talking about the GTR franchise.

Chair: Yes.

Eddie Dempsey: They voted for strike action on GTR as well.

Q7                Chair: Before I come to Mr Whelan, in terms of the pay offer that you are demanding, what percentage is that?

Eddie Dempsey: We have not put a figure on it. In those companies, there is a range of anniversary dates for pay. We tend to use the retail prices index a couple of months prior to the anniversary pay date, if you like, for the new pay award. There is a range. They are all different, so we have not put a definite figure on it.

What we are seeking is a pay rise that reflects the fact that we have lost two years of real-terms increases and the current state of inflation in the country.

Q8                Chair: Mr Whelan, your ASLEF members were on strike in East Anglia at the same time as the RMT members were on strike. You have now had ballots across the train operators. How many of those train operators has there been a successful ballot for, and what are you seeking on behalf of your members?

Mick Whelan: We have currently had eight ballots returned this week. There will be a further three ballots returned on the 27th of this month. We are currently running at 92% in favour on an 88% turnout. That shows a resounding willingness among the train drivers to stand up for their terms and conditions and for their pay at this moment in time.

As a membership-led organisation, we reflect the wishes of what our members want us to do. We are in a similar position to the RMT. Our members were out there, like all key workers during the pandemic. We were grateful for the Government stepping in. This idea, though, that the Government put £600 into every household to fund our wages and keep us employed is a fallacy. Basically, the Government funded the infrastructure for the two years of the pandemic when there was no footfall going through the turnstiles. Prior to that, they had already recognised that the privatised system was not working and were working to GBR through the Shapps-Williams report. I think that is accelerating slightly.

I do echo the concerns of my colleague that people are using the pandemic as an excuse to decimate terms and conditions and force things through on a less than opportunity-cost basis. We are in the same position. After three years our deferred pension and our wages have been significantly impacted.

We seem to be slightly demonised in the press because all I read about is train drivers’ wages and comparators with other workers. We do not believe it is a race to the bottom. We would also like to emphasise that throughout the privatised process everything we have gained has been paid for by flexibility and productivity. I would love to be able to walk into a room and say, “I demand this,” and people just give it to me, but that is not the case. The idea that we should give up what we have earned or that it should be devalued because of the pandemic, as an excuse, we find incredibly wrong.

Q9                Chair: Thank you. Let me come back to Mr Dempsey. I understand that you have been the lead negotiator on the Network Rail side for the RMT. Is that correct?

Eddie Dempsey: Yes.

Q10            Chair: We were contacted by Network Rail—obviously, you will be aware of this. You talked about your concern about compulsory redundancies. They appear to have put an offer in for a 4% uplift for 2022, backdated to 1 January; a further 2% in 2023; and a further 2% cash lump sum that is conditional on workplace reforms. There is also discounted leisure travel for your members, and their partners and dependants, with a guarantee of no compulsory redundancies.

You said you had not actually put a figure on what you were looking for on behalf of your members, but are we getting there with that type of offer?

Eddie Dempsey: We have made some progress with Network Rail, to be sure. This is in stark contrast to the position with the train operating companies. The difficulty we have is the proposal that is being made to us by Network Rail at this time. It is based on removing more than a third of the entire frontline maintenance workforce, which is massive, and also cutting planned maintenance on the maintenance side of Network Rail in half.

That is deeply concerning to us. They are plans that we have broadly discussed with people in maintenance, including senior engineers. They tell us that this cannot possibly work. We are going to end up with an industry that is overly reliant on overtime and massively reliant on subcontractors, which imports risk and has been recognised by the predecessor of this Committee as being one of the features in a number of disasters under Railtrack.

We are really concerned that we are going back to the days of Railtrack. There is an offer that has been made, but it is conditional upon cutting a third of the entire frontline maintenance workforce and half of all scheduled maintenance tasks.

Q11            Chair: But that would be done on a voluntary redundancy basis. I do not think we can get figures out, but my understanding is that when a voluntary redundancy scheme was put in place very recently it seems to have been oversubscribed two for one, I guess because there is an ageing workforce and the terms are attractive.

Are you not at least reassured that as compulsory is off the table with this offer, it will only be those who wish to go through natural attrition and those who wish to take the terms?

Eddie Dempsey: We recognise that is progress. We will be formally considering that this evening. Our executive is going to meet to inspect that offer in detail.

The problem we have, as I have said, is that this is based on drastic cuts that we have deep concerns about. You have to appreciate that the cost of living in this country has gone through the roof. If we are not keeping pace with that, we are losing and our people will be poorer in real terms.

We are definitely making progress, but whether or not it is enough progress at this point will be decided by my executive later today.

Q12            Chair: Mr Whelan, you make the point about pay and about inflation. Obviously, that is recognised, but Office for National Statistics figures show that over the last 10 years train and tram drivers’ pay has gone up by 39% in comparison with that of coach drivers at 11%.

Recognising that this has been an incredibly tough couple of years and that there have not been any job losses in the rail industry, do you not feel that this is the time where perhaps you have had very good and generous pay rises when times have been good, but now that times are tough everything has to be viewed through that lens?

Mick Whelan: We might argue that they are not generous because we have paid for them. In some cases, we may have undersold the productivity; in other cases, we may have benefited from what people demanded. Most people do not understand the fractionalised industry.

We have several companies out there, because of the way the DFT continually carves up the franchise map, that have three sets of train drivers and three different sets of terms and conditions. Some are with Sundays in the working work; some are with Sundays outside; and some are with different rostering proposals.

Everything that has happened happens because of the way privatisation developed over that period of time, the devolved nature of the big sector companies that could afford to do certain things and protect performance by consolidating traditional things such as mileage payments, and other companies that had to deliver regional railways on a specific budget and could not afford to do things.

I would like to come back to the fact that I have about 2,000 train drivers that would like severance. They do not want to work in your new railway or the new vision. That is 10% of the workforce. They are the ones that we know about. I think if you opened severance up to train drivers at this moment in time, they would be rushing for it. When it was offered to the other grade groups and was not offered to us, we were getting many queries about why we were not involved. That tells you something of the nature of the industry. For us, it is a cradle to grave industry. It is not a transferable skill.

The only thing we have is that we sell our labour. If somebody now wants us, under the guise of modernisation, to sell that for far less than it is worth, that is not going to happen.

Q13            Chair: So you would actively be seeking a voluntary redundancy scheme for your drivers as part of this.

Mick Whelan: The drivers would be. I think it would exacerbate the problems of the industry, and all the things that led to people, in recruitment and retention, competing against each other—as you intended when you privatised the industry—would get 100 times worse.

Q14            Chair: Thank you, Mr Whelan. I should put the same point to you, Mr Dempsey. Back in 2019, there was an RMT press release that is still on your website. It congratulates the RMT on an inflating-busting pay rise for members back in 2019. There has been £16 billion-worth of taxpayer money put in to support the railway over a tough couple of years, and the passenger numbers just are not coming back.

Taking all of that into the round, is it reasonable to expect such a high pay rise for your members?

Eddie Dempsey: Absolutely. We exist to achieve pay rises for our people. We do not accept that times are tough. Times are pretty good if you are a private business in the industry. You are making extremely high profits. We have parts of our industry that do not make sense from the point of view of running a railway.

We have rolling stock leasing companies, which serve absolutely no purpose, buying trains and leasing them back to the railway industry. That is something we could do ourselves. These people are making billions. They made £3 billion in the worst pandemic year in terms of revenue. A sizeable chunk of that money left this country and went to tax havens in Guernsey, Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands. Our members are painfully aware of that.

We have the private companies that have made £500 million in the worst pandemic year in the train operating companies. We have these rolling stock leasing companies, which serve absolutely no purpose in the delivery of a railway—

Q15            Chair: It is the train operators and Network Rail that we are talking about here. They are the employers, not the ROSCOs.

Eddie Dempsey: No, but they are part of the system. They drive the costs up. They buy the trains and lease them to the train operating companies. The train operating companies have to pay over the odds to lease these trains. That is a huge part of their expenditure.

What we have is our people looking at pay at the top of the industry going up. Some people are on over £1 million pay packages. They are looking at the profits coming out of our industry, through outsourcing, through the train operating companies and through the rolling stock leasing companies, and everyone is having a very good time out of it except our people. They are being told, “You have to tighten your belt.” When the railway should be recovering—it is going to be vital to the future of the green economy in this country—we have a Government decision to strip £2 billion out of the operational expenditure of the railway, which is crazy.

That is what is driving a lot of the cuts. The cuts in Network Rail, for example, are not driven by trying to design a better organisation to deliver the railway. The plans in Network Rail around workforce reform and cuts are purely about achieving the figures set for them by the Department for Transport in achieving efficiencies.

Our members are looking at all of this and do not believe that times are tough. They are doing very well if you are in the right part of the industry. We think it is right that people ought to be demanding that their wages keep up with the cost of living in this country.

Chair: Thank you. It is time to open it up to other Members.

Q16            Christian Wakeford: I have a question to both witnesses. From your perspective, how have the negotiations been conducted thus far? Obviously, we hear a lot in the press and we have heard it in the Chamber, but from your perspective how have they been going so far?

Mick Whelan: Thank you. That is an interesting question. I believe that the employers that we work for have been quite disingenuous and dishonourable, in the fact that to keep their profits and maintain their opportunities within the railway industry they signed up to contracts with the DFT, allowing the DFT and the Secretary of State to determine what percentage wages we get and what we can and cannot talk about.

We have free collective bargaining. We do not work for the DFT. We do not work for the Treasury. We do not work as public sector workers at this moment at time, because the primary legislation for GBR does not exist yet.

When we walk into a room, all we get from the employers is, “We can only offer you 2% unless it is funded.” We are saying that that is not acceptable to us at this moment in time. Then they say, “Well, the Government will not let us do anything else.” Then we get statements from the Government saying that they are not getting involved in the negotiations.

I would love somebody to assist me in this Catch-22 situation so that we can have some sort of realistic dialogue. Whether it would achieve anything or not, it would break the dilemma that we are in.

Q17            Christian Wakeford: From that perspective, it sounds very much like the companies are blaming the Government and Government are blaming the companies.

Mick Whelan: And the workers are being caught in the middle and being demonised for then standing up for their rights.

Eddie Dempsey: That is absolutely true. It is a shame Grant Shapps has not been called here to answer some questions about this. The people on the other side of the table that we are dealing with are telling us that they regard themselves as brokers and not negotiators. They have a mandate that they have to refresh. They often have to leave the room to go and have conversations with their ministerial people before they can continue discussions with us.

As Mick has put it, we are in a room with people who are not making the decisions. That makes it extremely difficult to get towards a settlement.

Chair: I should just say for the record that we decided, as a Committee, not to have any politicians in this session. We wanted to keep the politics out of it, actually. I take your point, but we were trying to do it from a more grown-up perspective.

Q18            Christian Wakeford: I will try to tone down my next question, Chair.

I was going to ask how involved the Government have been in the negotiations. By the sound of it, I am assuming it is non-existent other than trying to scapegoat and blame the unions.

Mick Whelan: There is a lot of dialogue by the press.

Q19            Christian Wakeford: What we have seen specifically through you, Mr Whelan, is ASLEF in Scotland being able to come to a settlement. What is it that Scotland has done differently as opposed to England?

Mick Whelan: It is that horrible “N” word: nationalisation. The Scottish Government now control their own railways. They now have the authority to deal directly, make their own decisions and take the shackles off that we currently have under the English system.

Q20            Christian Wakeford: Do you think that is primarily down to nationalisation, or do you think it is very much a Government willing to engage?

Mick Whelan: If I am being incredibly honest, and I try to be, I think the Scottish Government saw the direction of travel and chose the option to take those shackles off and allow the negotiations to take place.

Q21            Chair: For the record, what is the settlement in Scotland for your members?

Mick Whelan: I believe it is 5%.

Q22            Chair: So that would be a good indicator of what you would be looking for in the rest of the network.

Mick Whelan: Again, agreeing with my colleague, we have not set a figure. As I say, because of privatisation we have 14 TOCs, many with up to three different sets of terms and conditions within them. It may vary. We have not said there is a set figure for it. What we have actually said to our negotiators is, “If you are allowed to negotiate and there is something you can recommend, we will put it to the members within that company,” so it might vary.

Q23            Christian Wakeford: We have also seen lots of interventions from the Government, whether it has been debates about condemning strike action or whatever. Has there been any intervention from Government that has been helpful in regard to the dispute, or has it been very much a one-sided scapegoating and trying to drive a wedge?

Mick Whelan: I would believe it is very much a ramping up and making things more difficult for everybody, in my opinion.

Eddie Dempsey: I think so. If you listen to the messaging that has been coming from the industry side—Tim Shoveller will be here later—and from the trade unions, it has been broadly measured. If you look at the sort of comments that have been coming from Mr Shapps and people in government, it has been very hairy, unhelpful comments, incendiary comments and all the rest of it. It is a worry.

If you look across the piece, in London Underground we have got 8.4%. Eurostar, whose business was completely stopped with no Government support during the health emergency, had an 8% deal recently negotiated. Docklands Light Railway has 7.3%. Merseyrail had 7.1%. Everywhere the DFT is not involved we are managing to achieve settlements and avoid disputes, including the delivery of changes and productivity needed for the industry at the same time. It seems to be the case that where the DFT is in charge what we are getting is a very hard position with a very unpalatable set of demands on us in terms of making cuts and what is euphemistically called “modernisation”, but is in fact winding back the clock on trade union rights and decent terms and conditions.

That is a real worry. That is where all the input from the Government has been unhelpful. By the way, they are also indemnifying the train operating companies from any losses they incurred during strike action, so they are hardly taking a neutral position in this.

Q24            Christian Wakeford: Certainly from the Opposition’s perspective, we have been saying that the Government should be getting around the table. By the sounds of it, where you have been able to get a settlement it has been without DFT or Government intervention. With the rhetoric that is being put out, would Government representation be helpful in regard to some of the conversation, or do you think we have gone past the point of no return and a lot of good will will need to be regenerated?

Eddie Dempsey: If they are going to take a leading and directing role in all of these disputes, they ought to be at the table to negotiate a settlement. It is either that or they need to just get out of the way entirely and allow us to bargain freely with our employers and reach settlements, as we have always done.

Mick Whelan: I could add to that. Some of what they are asking for is counterintuitive. We have seen our employers generate profits throughout the pandemic. We have seen the forecast profits under the new contracts that they have, yet we are expected to fund the productivity for these employers, where 85% of the money goes to support state railways elsewhere. We find that rather difficult. Rather than the employers paying us, we are paying the employers, which I do not think is the way it traditionally works.

Q25            Christian Wakeford: With regard to the rhetoric that has come from Government, I would imagine there is quite a lot that both unions would dispute strongly. Is there any particular message that you would like to get on record?

Mick Whelan: We believe we have free collective bargaining. Please let us bargain. Traditionally within the industry, it finds its level and we find a solution. We are being driven into strife by the Government not allowing the companies to talk to us. One contract has 22 clauses that they have to refer back to the Government on issues relating to pay and conditions before they can make an agreement with us.

Eddie Dempsey: I would say that people ought to be aware that right now Network Rail spends more servicing its debts from the privatised era than it does on delivering maintenance to the railway infrastructure of this country. That is extremely worrying. Their whole plans are based on Government-set cuts to the operational expenditure of the railway. In order to achieve that they need to rip out one third of the frontline workforce in maintenance and half of the scheduled maintenance work in the industry. That is not a recipe for success in a railway that needs to expand and be part of the green future of this country.

On the other side of it, we have had a lot of very hairy rhetoric from the Government. It seems that the answer the Government have to the cost- of-living crisis is to criminalise dissent against poverty. They are talking about bringing in laws to further restrict trade unions. It is worth noting that the global index on trade union freedom, done every year by TUC International, rates us as No. 3. That means there are regular violations in this country of trade union freedoms, such as the right to collectively bargain, the right to strike and the right to organise and build a trade union and have your civil liberties defended.

I would urge people to look at that list. We have some very interesting company on rating No. 3. It is really worrying that the Government’s answer to the cost-of-living crisis is to criminalise dissent against poverty in this country.

Q26            Christian Wakeford: A final question. Mr Whelan, you have highlighted one of the arguments and, unfortunately, the unhelpful political atmosphere where it seems to be train drivers versus the rest of the world and how they are paid more than nurses and teachers. What message would you like to send out to correct that? It does not sound fair. If it is a race to the bottom—

Chair: Christian, ask the question. They are here to give the evidence.

Christian Wakeford: It does sound, as you said, like a race to the bottom. What can we do to counter the narrative?

Mick Whelan: We have publicly stated, and have for 140 years, that we  believe all workers deserve decent pay. We believe that nurses, firefighters and shop workers are all currently valued by society and should be financially rewarded for what they do. We do not believe that anybody is going to automatically give it to them if we do not fight for our own rights at the same time. We will not engage in a race to the bottom.

Q27            Grahame Morris: I want to pick up on an earlier response. The Chair indicated that the object of this session is to interview you as representatives of the trade unions and the workforce, and then interview the employers to see whether there is a workable solution that could resolve the current disputes.

It seems to me that the main actor—the Wizard of Oz who is pulling the levers behind the scenes—is not here. A convenient smokescreen is being put up that this is not an issue for the Secretary of State. You mention the Department for Transport, but it is clearly ministerial direction. It is set out in the terms and conditions of the train operating companies and Network Rail.

In your opinion, should the Secretary of State be here to give an account of his actions if he is indemnifying the train operating companies and Network Rail from any losses they may suffer?

Mick Whelan: I would say that is down to the Chair of the Select Committee to decide whether they want him to give evidence. My view, quite simply, is that there should be no interference in free collective bargaining. As has been highlighted, quite rightly, we are employed by people who are making profits out of our industry and who we were forced to deal with for the last two-and-a-half decades. We have done that in good faith. That good faith element has now been damaged by third-party interference that has set out what can be paid, what cannot be paid and what must be dealt with.

Where is our wish list in this? Where are our aspirations? Where are our demands? There are not any, strangely enough, in this post-pandemic world.

I would also like to correct something. We are not seeking pay rises. We are seeking not to go further behind. We are not seeking a backdating of the two years that we did not get a pay rise during the pandemic. As you saw in Scotland, we are seeking to achieve something that takes us towards the cost-of-living crisis. We have not asked for more than RPI. We do not want to gain in a post-pandemic world. It is about not deteriorating; it is about not being degraded; it is about not falling further behind.

Q28            Grahame Morris: Mr Dempsey, on this point the Secretary of State has consistently raised, both in interviews and in response to questions and in debates in the House of Commons, that this is a dispute about modernisation and the trade unions resisting modernisation.

Some years ago, prior to privatisation when I worked on the railways, there were over 400,000 people employed on the railways. I do not know what the figure is currently. Examples were given about the use of modern technology cameras fitted on trains to identify cracked rails and so on, and not working at night time in dangerous conditions.

What is the trade union view on that? Perhaps I could ask Mr Dempsey in relation to maintenance about this modernisation argument.

Eddie Dempsey: We are absolutely in favour of modernisation and technology that keeps our people safe. It is an extremely dangerous industry and an extremely dangerous role that our members perform. We have heard an awful lot of us being opposed, for example, to drones. We have been to two demonstrations of drones in operation. On one occasion the weather was not quite right, so they could not get the drones to fly. On another occasion they landed a drone in someone’s garden. We were due to go back for a further demonstration on 21 June, but unfortunately we were on strike that day.

Where drones can be used to improve inspection work, we are in favour of it. We use lineside early warning systems and remote disconnection devices. We use telematics and ultrasonics. We have plain-line pattern recognition trains—those yellow trains you see—and an entire department of people responsible for analysing the data that comes back from that in a department called Asset Information. We are in favour of using technology.

We have assisted in the bringing in of a couple of particular pieces of technology that allow Network Rail to meet its improvement notice under the ORR. We are in favour of technology. What we are not in favour of is technology being brought in on a cliff edge that makes people unemployed. Our opinion has always been that, if you have a new spanner that does the job better than the old spanner, you do not sack the bloke who used the old spanner but teach him how to use the new one. Our expectation is that, where technology is brought in, workers are upskilled so that they can be modernised along with the industry.

Q29            Chair: Is that not going to be the case if there are no compulsory redundancies? A camera sensor can take 70,000 pictures per minute to check on cracks. When that comes in, it will displace labour. Every industry works on that basis. When technology comes in, humans are not needed as much. Notwithstanding that, this offer that we were talking about actually takes compulsory redundancies off the table. Everyone who wants a job within Network Rail will still have one, notwithstanding the advances in technology. In other parts of industry that gift is not there, and they lose their jobs. So, you have got your assurance on that basis.

Eddie Dempsey: No compulsory redundancies is a definite improvement and we are very pleased to see that finally come forward, because up to now it has only been offered to the press by Ministers and not by anyone in the room negotiating. We are very relieved to finally see that written down on a piece of paper.

At the bottom of it, you have to appreciate it is not just the people who are being removed. One third of the entire frontline maintenance organisation is being taken out, and one half of all scheduled maintenance tasks are being removed. That does not seem to me to be a modern idea, when what we need is an expanded and efficient railway to look after the needs of the country. It seems to me, and is reflected in opinion we have had back from people right across Network Rail’s organisation, including senior people, that we are going back to the bad old days of Railtrack here. We are going back to a reliance on contractors and overtime in an industry that is safety critical. We think that poses its own questions and its own problems outside of the context of a no compulsory redundancy agreement, which we are pleased to see finally down on a piece of paper.

Q30            Grahame Morris: I want to ask about the changes to working practices. The Committee recently visited Manchester as part of our inquiry into the integrated rail plan. We had discussions at Piccadilly station about the number of upgrades and major schemes that are happening. There is the TransPennine upgrade, the integrated rail plan, east-west links, as well as HS2.

There is a difficulty in recruiting skilled people in order to undertake this quite demanding engineering work. Is not one of the changes that are being proposed by Network Rail to change the rostering? Is it 39 weeks that people will be required to commit to? How is that going to attract the thousands of people that we want into the industry? Are you opposing that or are you prepared to negotiate on it? Is it a legitimate area of contention?

Eddie Dempsey: We are happy to accept what is known in the industry as the higher rostering principles. This means you can work 39 weeks of night shifts, 39 whole weekend turns or 65 weekend shifts in the course of a year. We have had that in place since 2012. Lots of our people work to those higher rostering principles now. We are happy to continue to agree to those arrangements going forward.

What you have to appreciate is that our members work 24/7 around the clock. There are all kinds of shifts. Their shifts can be moved. Their shifts can be amended in order to fit the needs of the business. The real problem in Network Rail is planning. They have a problem in delivering the right number of people to undertake tasks as they are needed. We have people being sent out to do tasks that are not required. We have an over-reliance on contractors, which ramps up the cost of delivering maintenance.

Our members are some of the most flexible workers in any industry. It is absolute nonsense to say that we are not working in ways that are flexible. They have a problem with planning in Network Rail, not with flexible workers.

Q31            Chair: To correct one thing, Mr Whelan—I will explain again, though I thought I had tried to state this—we agreed as a Committee who would be here. We agreed as a Committee that we would not have any politicians. It is not down to the Chair to decide who comes. The reason you are here, Mr Whelan, is that on Monday night I messaged Members and said, “I think Mick Whelan should be invited because ASLEF are now taking action,” and they agreed with me. If they had disagreed, you would not have been here. We are a bit more democratic than you may think.

Q32            Mr Bradshaw: Gentlemen, it sounds from what you have been saying that you think the Government have deliberately picked this dispute. Why would they do that?

Eddie Dempsey: If you ask me, I think the Government were a bit shaky recently and probably felt it was a good opportunity to pick a fight, particularly with the RMT, and to paint us as the enemy within. I think they have bitten off more than they can chew because it has clearly demonstrated that the public is on our side and not the side of the Government. They support our efforts to achieve protection for our people in a cost-of-living crisis. They do not support the massive cuts that are being proposed and they do not support the Government bringing in more authoritarian legislation to take away the right of the working people to dissent against poverty.

I think they have picked a fight with us. If you listen to some of the rhetoric coming out of the Government, it is pretty clear that that is what they were after. Some of the stuff they were saying was so crazy, such as if a manager says hello to a railway worker, it means you have to start your break over from scratch. The industry could not run. They are saying that there are too many people in the industry, but the whole industry runs on overtime. How does it make sense, if you have an industry that runs on overtime, to slash thousands of jobs out of it? That is not going to improve the situation, is it? I think they have picked a fight with us.

Q33            Mr Bradshaw: Do you see a lack of engagement across Government, or would you blame a particular Department such as the Treasury, the Department for Transport or the Prime Minister—though not for much longer? Where do you think the blockage or the real problem is?

Eddie Dempsey: I do not know. I suspect it is the Department for Transport, but I do not really know what goes on over here if I am honest with you. It is just pretty clear that the people we are dealing with in the room have a mandate from the DFT. The DFT writes the contracts. Part of the arrangement for the train operating companies to be indemnified against losses occurring from strike action is that they have to carry out the DFT’s mandate. We estimate that £65 million of taxpayers’ money was given to the train operating companies so that they did not lose any profits during our strike action. The Minister has at least admitted that he is responsible for those mandates and will have to sign off any deal. It is pretty clear that this dispute is in the hands of the Department for Transport and Grant Shapps. I think that is obvious to everyone. I think he has even admitted that really at this point, which is useful, I suppose.

Q34            Mr Bradshaw: What do you think the impact is likely to be of the fact we now have eight weeks of Conservative party leadership campaigning? Will that allow those Ministers the capacity to engage and change their approach to solve this crisis?

Eddie Dempsey: I do not really know how that is going to affect things. What I do know is that a lot of our members were very upset to see their livelihoods and their industry used as a political football in that session in Parliament. Lots of our members saw that and were deeply hurt and upset by it. That was a real shame.

Q35            Mr Bradshaw: Mr Whelan, you reminded the Committee that quite a lot of the profits that are made by companies here are channelled back often into state-run organisations on the continent. Can you give us a picture—and you too, Mr Dempsey—of what your equivalent members in countries like Germany, Sweden and France enjoy in terms of working conditions and how that generally compares with here? I often find these international comparisons very instructive.

Mick Whelan: In most countries, train drivers retire far earlier on far better pensions. Most of them have 35-hour, four-day weeks. Most of them are in countries where the infrastructure is seen as a national asset and generates for the local GDP and the national GDP. It is not expected to make a profit per se. I think we saw that during the pandemic. The cost of running the infrastructure was the cost of running the infrastructure, but before the pandemic for every £1 invested in transport, £5 was coming back to the country. Post pandemic, it is £2 for every £1 invested in transport. We do believe that transport washes its face.

Those countries have nationalised railways. They have integrated transport. Germany recently created a €9 ticket anywhere in Germany for a month. Ireland dropped train and bus fares to encourage people back on to public transport and to get people back out there.

What did we do in the last three years? We introduced a 10-ticket carnet when the nature of work changed. You had to use it within a month. The disadvantage of that was that with traditional season tickets you paid for five days and you got the weekends free, whether they were weekly, monthly, quarterly or annually. People psychologically believed that they were getting something out of it, even if they did not use that ticket travelling to their place of work at weekends. We introduced the 10-ticket carnet where, if you broke it down, it was cheaper to buy a ticket on the day. That has not encouraged people back.

At the same time, we did go to the Government mutually as trade unions and say, “Annual fare rises are within your gift.” They put fares up by 3.8% while cutting the duty on short-haul air traffic. If you look at France, if there is a train that can get you between cities in four hours, they have stopped short-haul flights. There is a totally different political dynamic to what people do and how they see transport on the continent, and how they value their workers.

Q36            Mr Bradshaw: Mr Dempsey, is that a similar picture for your people?

Eddie Dempsey: It is a similar picture, yes. The main feature is the level of profiteering in our transport sector compared to countries elsewhere. That leads to better investment in the transport networks and to broadly decent terms and conditions.

Q37            Mr Bradshaw: Most European countries invest more and put more public money into the railways.

Eddie Dempsey: They do.

Q38            Mr Bradshaw: The Government seem to be assuming that passenger numbers will be permanently reduced post pandemic, largely as a result of the growth in homeworking and flexible working. Is that something you accept? Does that not have to have some impact on your aspirations for your members and the amount of money that can come into the industry?

Mick Whelan: The changing nature of the industry is something that we will all have to live with and adapt to. At this moment in time, recent figures in recent weeks have seen passenger numbers coming back to 92% of previous footfall. That does not offset the amount of fare revenue that we lost in the previous couple of years.

We are seeing horrendous pictures of overcrowded trains. We have seen the shift from Monday to Friday to Tuesday to Thursday. The word “TWaTs” is now being used for the commuters: Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursdays only. We have seen a massive increase in footfall at weekends. How do we sustain that and grow it? The real problem is still slightly counterintuitive by putting up fares and reducing services.

There are areas in the north-west where, I believe, currently they get one train every three hours. That is not going to encourage people back on to our lines for commuters, tourism or other purposes. We would much rather have seen a railway that ran as it did, and then reduce your services to the demand once you see what that demand is when it comes back over a period of time.

Commuter railways will still run on Monday to Friday, regardless of whether there are full numbers on a Monday and Friday. Therefore, I think we would like to see a greater period of time before massive change within the industry, so that any change we do make recognises the long-term changes. At this moment, it is still quite reactive.

Eddie Dempsey: There definitely are changes, but how they will bed in in the long term is yet to be seen. What we are seeing at the moment is the railway industry being talked down. What we are hearing and the rhetoric around it is almost like a managed decline of the industry. Putting out flashy adverts to offer a few cheap fares for leisure travel on a weekend does not help us because we have seen the leisure travel come back really strongly.

At the moment, it seems that the Government want everybody to travel on the weekend. They want to do all the major maintenance on the infrastructure at the weekend at the same time. That does not make sense. If you have a high volume of traffic on the weekend, then you pick a quieter time to do the engineering work.

We have to incentivise people to come back to the railway industry. We want to get people out of cars. It is part of the green future for the economy. You cannot do that while talking about a managed decline of the railway industry. It needs to be encouraged, supported and helped to recover properly and grow rather than talking about a managed decline because we have had a temporary fall in passenger numbers due to a global health emergency.

Q39            Mr Bradshaw: Thank you. Finally, Chair, forgive me if I missed this right at the beginning, but is there a date for the next industrial action?

Mick Whelan: We meet tomorrow to discuss our recent results.

Q40            Chair: You talk about the need to focus on the leisure market and weekends, which actually has shown signs of growth, unlike the weekdays. On that basis, are you very much of the view that we will have to change the voluntary working on a Sunday practice and, like other parts of industry across the UK, that will become a normal working day?

Mick Whelan: For 25 days we have been saying that you cannot run a performance-driven industry on voluntary overtime. The companies that, at privatisation, had the resources to protect their performance did so.

There was a cost to that. Anybody can have Sundays in the working week. It can be negotiated. It is our aspiration. We want to have it, but the opportunity costs of that cannot be devalued just because we are in a post-pandemic world. If you want people to work additionally over and above their contracted week, we are not going to force people into indentured work at weekends. It has to be part of the overarching contract.

Q41            Chair: How many TOCs have Sunday as a normal working day, if I can call it that, where your members are rostered?

Mick Whelan: Over 50%.

Q42            Chair: What would it take to get the other 50% working to the same degree? Your members must be comfortable with it.

Mick Whelan: It comes back to my colleague’s point. You need the staff to do it. If you put Sundays in the working week, it drives your establishment up by 20%, but you have enough staff there to cover your three-shift, seven-day-a-week railway as required.

At the moment, you have certain days relying on overtime working. You lose the flexibility that is within your contracts to get people to do their day job. If you are forever robbing Peter to pay Paul because someone will work a Sunday, then they are not available for everything they might do on a Monday, or if you are already working other rest days.

Q43            Chair: Let me put this to you. Yes, I take the point that you would then need more drivers, but if the number of services daily has gone down from 24,000 to 20,000 timetabled because of the pandemic, so the timetable has not been fully restored, then surely you have that bandwidth to give you what you need.

Mick Whelan: I have had people working 13 days out of 14 for the last 23 years. They are working their quality time off. We gave massive productivity to generate quality time off. Unfortunately, many of our people never got the advantage of it because they work their rest days. Some choose to work a Wednesday as their day off rather than work the Sunday because it is not in their working week.

As we have said, we have a high overtime culture within the railway industry. The reduction of services should then reflect the fact of the number of people required to do it. It does not necessarily mean that because you reduce the services during the week you have enough people to cover a seven-day-a-week service. It does not work that way.

Q44            Chair: But if the employers were in charge of when they actually wanted the staff to work, which at the moment they cannot on a Sunday because it is voluntary, then they could look at the reduction from 24,000 to 20,000 and say, “Now I can spread the workforce across a seven-day week.” That is what most employers have the ability to do, but not in this industry. That is why some think, “Look, this is a very antiquated way of trying to run a service.”

Mick Whelan: Even in companies where we have Sundays in the working week, there is a requirement for overtime working. Unfortunately, the tradition in a railway, because it is a three-shift system—people seem to forget that it is a 24-hour railway and trains do need to be maintained, cleaned and whatever else outside the running hours and whatever else, and staff on the train you get at 8 o’clock in the morning have generally got on at 3.20 am to get it to the point where it starts or departs, or whatever else—is that people do 11-hour days. We are living in an industry that is not particularly modern. We have five or six-hour turns with no breaks, where our people are using Tena products to survive in their cabs. It is not particularly pretty.

This vision of the railway is not quite the one. Traditionally on the railway, the shift change takes place on a Sunday. There is a three-shift system: mornings, afternoons and nights. The shift change takes place on a Sunday. If you increase Sunday turns, your ability to get people back from when they are finished on a night shift on a Sunday to a Monday afternoon or a Monday morning or another shift becomes impacted. It is not just as simple as the juggling of days.

Q45            Chair: I have a last question before I hand over to Simon. What are the contracted hours for train drivers?

Mick Whelan: In most cases an average of 35 hours for a four-day week, but in some places it is still a five-day week.

Q46            Chair: A 35-hour, four-day week and yet your previous answer suggested that actually it was an almost 24-hour process. Obviously, it is for the train drivers as a whole, but—

Mick Whelan: The day before a train driver or critical safety member of staff goes to work is no good to them because they cannot enjoy the rest of things that society enjoy. They have to rest. They have to be responsible. They have to be whatever they do. Most of them are working their days off currently, or have been working their days off.

Q47            Chair: But then getting paid overtime for working their days off.

Mick Whelan: They get paid for that, and that is voluntary as well. Our view has always been that we do not want people living on voluntary overtime or working voluntary overtime. We would much rather have full employment. You need to let the railway run, get back to its levels of where the future demand or GDP drives it, because privatisation drove nothing, and then determine the levels of establishments and what you need and the timetables you require. You then determine how many people you need to run it. You cannot arbitrarily change people’s contracts and their shift systems and say, “You are going to work every Sunday for the next 24 years.”

Chair: I would not disagree with that. Let me hand over to Simon Jupp, and then we are going to Chris Loder.

Q48            Simon Jupp: Thank you, Chair. Good morning, gentlemen.

Consumer confidence is really important in the railway industry. My colleague Ben Bradshaw mentioned passenger numbers. You, Mr Whelan, mentioned that it is 92%—that, obviously, is not across the board. I do not think it is as high as that in the south-west, which I represent.

I am really worried about the car-led recovery from the pandemic. Understandably, the Government put out some warning signs at the start of the pandemic about using public transport. We now know that we probably did not need to do that, but we have learnt lessons from that. Passenger numbers have not come back.

Do you think that strike action hurts confidence among consumers, when we want to get people back?

Mick Whelan: Look, the underlying deceit here—it is a strong word I am using—was the employers entering into a contract that allowed someone else to dictate what we would be paid and what our terms and conditions would be without the free collective bargaining process that we enjoyed with our privatised employers—

Q49            Simon Jupp: I am not talking about that—

Mick Whelan: Hold on. The confidence—

Q50            Simon Jupp: I am not talking about that. You have diverted my question. My question is about—

Mick Whelan: I am answering your question.

Q51            Simon Jupp: It was a long time coming. Passenger numbers are down. Confidence in public transport is down. Strike action does not help that, does it? How does that bring people back and make sure that we have a greener future?

Mick Whelan: Strangely enough, the polling that we do—and I do not believe it is just the railways that are going on strike currently; there are barristers, postal workers, teachers and all sorts of people—shows that there is an underlying feeling from workers everywhere in this post-pandemic world that the cost-of-living crisis is driving them to do things. It is exacerbated in the railway because we cannot talk to our employers or the people pulling the strings.

The strike action is the fault of this Government and the fault of the employers, and not the workers who have been disadvantaged.

Q52            Simon Jupp: You are here to serve passengers. Passengers are—

Mick Whelan: Why are we here to serve passengers?

Q53            Simon Jupp: Without passengers you would not have a job, would you?

Mick Whelan: I would.

Q54            Simon Jupp: What would your members be doing?

Mick Whelan: That is not the point. You asked what I would do. I do not serve the passengers. I have spent my whole career trying to grow this industry, trying to make it safer, trying to make it greener and trying to make it cheaper. Most of the time in previous years I would have been on many platforms with many people in this room and elsewhere trying to do that. At this moment in time—

Q55            Simon Jupp: No one doubts that your members work really hard. During the pandemic it was a dreadful time to work on the railways—

Mick Whelan: We work in partnership.

Q56            Simon Jupp: —and it was really difficult with all the different regulations and restrictions that were placed on you. Now, as we try to build back confidence in the railway sector, people need to use public transport again, whether it is branch lines, main railway lines or rural lines wherever they may be. If you go on strike, you are cutting people off from going to work, going to school—they are missing exams and everything else. That is just hurting confidence.

Mick Whelan: Part of that confidence is the confidence of people within the industry to be treated equitably and to come and work fairly for their employer. Nobody goes on strike lightly. We see it as a failure when we have to do so. We do not want to be on strike. Our people do not want to lose money, but when you get the level of mandates that we are receiving of 98% in favour on an 88% turnout, I think it is the strength of feeling of the members that I work for which is telling me it is their only option at this moment in time.

It does resonate with the public because the public have a great deal of sympathy at this moment in time. It is strange that we have more sympathy now than we have ever had in the past for rail workers or transport workers going on strike.

Q57            Simon Jupp: I have a great deal of sympathy for your railway workers. I also have a great deal of sympathy for passengers who were stranded for days during the strike action in parts of the south-west, who I represent.

Mr Dempsey, I have the same question to you. We all want passenger numbers to go back to what they were, and to increase. How can we make sure that we do that if you are going to interrupt their service?

Eddie Dempsey: I do not think confidence in railways and public transport is helped by the Government stripping £2 billion out of the operational expenditure of the railways and talking about a managed decline of our transport system. That is not going to increase confidence in getting people out of their cars and back on the trains.

Q58            Simon Jupp: That is your wording. “Managed decline” is not a phrase used by the Government.

Eddie Dempsey: They are talking about having a smaller, cheaper railway that has less services on it. That is a decline, not an expansion or a growth.

Q59            Chair: Mr Dempsey, we have finished an inquiry into the £96 billion integrated rail plan. What you have just said does not quite equate with what is being spent and planned over the decades.

Eddie Dempsey: That is a different type of expenditure. I am talking about the operational expenditure of the railway, which now has a £2 billion black hole in it, thanks to the Government. That is not going to increase any passenger confidence in using the railway. If you are talking about having a cheaper, smaller railway with less services and you want to achieve that by cutting back on people’s wages and cutting jobs out of the industry, that does not achieve confidence in transport, does it?

Q60            Simon Jupp: Can you not see that by interrupting services and people being forced to use their car and not being able to work, it is actually counterproductive for your members, who rely on those passenger numbers to survive and keep their jobs?

Eddie Dempsey: If we had a way of achieving a settlement without taking strike action, we would do it, but we have been forced into this position. We have had the operational expenditure stripped. We have had demands put on us by the industry, mandated by Government, to decimate our jobs. We have been told, “You will accept a pay cut,” as part of that package, for the pleasure of having jobs taken out, members of my trade union thrown on the dole and having terms and conditions we have achieved over many years stripped out. “You will have a pay cut for that as a reward.”

What do you expect from a trade union under those circumstances? Do you want us to just doff our caps and say, “Thank you very much, governor”? That is not going to happen.

Simon Jupp: I think it is about the bigger picture, but I will leave it there because I know that other people want to come in.

Q61            Chair: I want to come back on that. Again, it is trying to match the rhetoric of what you have just said with what we have on a piece of paper—that being either the contracted hours that Mr Whelan gave us or what you have just said about taking workers out and, using the rhetoric that you have, about not getting any increases. There is an 8% increase over the two-year period and no compulsory redundancies. That is what we have been emailed from Network Rail, and you recognise that as an offer as well.

Eddie Dempsey: I recognise that as progress, but you have to appreciate 8% out of five years, over two years, represents a real-terms pay cut. You will be poorer with that offer than if you got one that reflected where you are in terms of earnings in the economy as it is. That does not answer the question on the cost-of-living crisis, to give somebody a real-terms pay cut.

Q62            Chair: Do you not take into account any comparator? We have done a lot of work on aviation. Five thousand workers lost their job. There was no Government support. They got furloughed and nothing else. Do you not take that into account? There has been an insulated period. Yes, inflation is high, but, to come back to Mr Whelan’s stated aim of always wanting the railway to be cheaper and the concern about rail price increases of just over 3% putting people off, ultimately you are going to have to put the prices up even further to pay for the pay rises that you want—

Eddie Dempsey: That is not what is happening.

Q63            Chair: —otherwise where does the money come from?

Eddie Dempsey: Let us have a look at this. Grant Shapps and Andrew Haines, who runs Network Rail, modernised the CAA. Look at the state of it. Now they are going to modernise the railway. There is plenty of money in my industry, and it is going out of it in the form of profits. It is leaving this country and going to tax havens.

Q64            Chair: The taxpayer has put £16 billion into supporting the railway over the last number of years.

Mick Whelan: It ran the infrastructure during the pandemic—during a national crisis—to get key workers to work and to move food and medicine around this country. The cost of running that railway was £16 billion. The £!6 billion did not go directly into the pockets of train drivers or other rail workers—

Q65            Chair: Mr Whelan, no one is saying—

Mick Whelan: —but £102 million went in profits to First Group alone.

Q66            Chair: Mr Whelan, no one is saying that. What is being said is that it used to be the case that, by and large, train operators, through passenger ticket receipts, used to pay for themselves, but that fell off a cliff because people were not using the rail—

Eddie Dempsey: It has never paid for itself.

Q67            Chair: —the taxpayer had to step in with £16 billion.

Eddie Dempsey: The railway has been subsidised since privatisation.

Q68            Chair: But are you disputing the fact that basically it used to wipe its face—

Mick Whelan: No, it did not wipe its face. That is a falsehood, unfortunately.

Q69            Chair: I put it to you that it is not because—

Mick Whelan: Okay, let me put my rationale first, please.

Q70            Chair: Both Labour and Conservative Governments have gone with above-inflation increases in rail ticket prices to make sure that it does, largely, pay for itself. The numbers fell off a cliff, which is why the taxpayers’ subsidy had to continue to run it and then not make redundancies. Are you disputing that is the case?

Mick Whelan: Yes. I will send two reports to you that we had done previously, “The Great Rail Rip Off”, and others. To service the excess charges of the operators, £7 billion went into the industry, of which they paid £3.5 billion back and then were allowed to take their services over and above it. They never paid their full costs, and they never made their money out of fares.

Chair: Write to me with all of that, and I will look forward to looking at it. The Library will research it and we will write back.

Q71            Chris Loder: Good morning, chaps. Nice to see you. I want to concentrate my questions on the TOCs side of things because we have talked plenty about Network Rail. I think we should just think about the TOCs a bit more.

I would like to ask both of you—and I will come to you first, Mick—about terms and conditions, which we mentioned earlier. Which are the specific terms and conditions that give you cause for concern that either the train operators want to negotiate out or you want to stand particularly firm on?

Mick Whelan: One of the things that we seem to be seeing is an indication that they want to introduce DOO across the board.

Q72            Chris Loder: Introduce DOO across the board?

Mick Whelan: Driver-only operation.

Q73            Chris Loder: You have supported that on many occasions, have you not, as a union?

Mick Whelan: We have 50% of the TOCs that are DOO. As you know from the last time that we might have been in front of you, which was the Southern dispute, we do not believe it is a safe way of operation currently. Prior to the pandemic the rate of sexual assaults on our railway had gone up dramatically. I think that has been recognised by this body in the past, and county lines and all the other things that were going on. We are very much against that.

Q74            Chris Loder: Can I be clear? Is ASLEF’s position that—

Mick Whelan: No DOO.

Q75            Chris Loder: —that driver-only operation is not safe?

Mick Whelan: It always has been, yes, for the last few years.

Q76            Chris Loder: Any other terms and conditions?

Mick Whelan: Well, I am answering loads of questions about modernisation. The last time I was asked this question by Philip Hammond—that is how far it goes back—about train drivers demanding time to change ends.

Q77            Chris Loder: I am not really worried about what Philip Hammond had to say.

Mick Whelan: I know, but it is on the list of all the things. Reduction in training time for train drivers.

Q78            Chris Loder: Reduction in training time?

Mick Whelan: Yes, and forcing people to work over and above their contract at weekends.

Q79            Chris Loder: What is the training time at the moment?

Mick Whelan: It is roughly a year, but it depends on which company you are in because of the geographical nature.

Q80            Chris Loder: A year?

Mick Whelan: Yes. It takes about 34 weeks to train a train driver, and then to get competent on various tractions and routes. It depends what company you are in.

Q81            Chris Loder: What about Sundays?

Mick Whelan: We want Sundays in the working week, but we are not doing it for nothing.

Q82            Chris Loder: What are you saying you want for Sundays to be in the working week?

Mick Whelan: It will be down to our membership and what is offered, but it is a difficulty for us that everything that we do when we change our members’ terms and conditions goes to them for their decision. If the deal is inequitable, they will not vote for it.

Q83            Chris Loder: Eddie, can I ask you the same questions about T&Cs?

Eddie Dempsey: In the train operating companies we are concerned about new contracts being brought into the industry on far inferior terms than currently exist. We are worried about new contracts being—

Q84            Chris Loder: I am thinking more about the current ones. I appreciate it is another debate, but—

Eddie Dempsey: There are three key areas, I suppose. No. 1 is the reintroduction of DOO. It is something that has been the subject of disputes for many years in the railway industry. They want that across the board, which we do not.

They want to shut almost 1,000 ticket offices in the country.

Q85            Chris Loder: Let me ask you about that. I have your press release that you sent to the national media dated 9 May. You have listed in excess of probably 1,000 ticket offices. I am afraid I have not been through to count them all. Can you tell me where you got that information from?

Eddie Dempsey: From Transport Focus.

Q86            Chris Loder: How are they involved in this?

Eddie Dempsey: I would have to write to you on that, because that was done in our policy department. The people in the industry have told us that the number now is 980.

Q87            Chris Loder: You have made the point about ticket office closures, but you have not really been able to substantiate from within your negotiations that that is actually true and accurate. Suggesting, for example—

Eddie Dempsey: I have not finished speaking.

Q88            Chris Loder: Please do. Where does it come from?

Eddie Dempsey: If you will give me a second, I will substantiate it. The industry have told us—the people who negotiate—that they want to close 980 ticket offices.

Q89            Chris Loder: And they particularly want to close Clapham Junction ticket office and London Waterloo. There is a list. The reason I am asking the question is because I have a list of them here. I am just unclear as to how—

Eddie Dempsey: My understanding is that that was a list from Transport Focus, who are expecting a flurry of applications for the closure of those ticket offices.

Q90            Chris Loder: So, the RMT has basically made that statement—

Eddie Dempsey: Based on the information we had at the time, is my understanding.

Q91            Chris Loder:—based on something from Transport Focus and not from the train operators.

Eddie Dempsey: The point has been clarified since by industry. They have told us it is 980 ticket offices that they want to close.

That is one area. We are concerned about across-the-board degradation of terms and conditions in introducing new contracts of employment with longer working hours and lower pay for everyone in the industry.

We are also concerned about the Sunday question. We have quite a mixed picture on Sunday working. We have people who work committed Sundays. I think you probably will have heard the same terms when you were on the railway. You have Sundays that are voluntary, but you are obligated to work them, so you might as well have them.

Q92            Chris Loder: So they are inside the working week, as it happens.

Eddie Dempsey: So are many of our members. We are quite relaxed about that point. What we are not prepared to do is have our working weeks extended from the hours that we have by five hours to accommodate that without an increase in pay.

Q93            Chris Loder: Is your position that you would like Sundays in the working week, subject to negotiation?

Eddie Dempsey: We do not mind. I have recently done a deal with Network Rail, funnily enough, where we said to them, “You can have Sundays inside the working week or outside the working week, committed or not committed, any way you want, as long as the pay is right for them.” They were quite content to have them outside of the working week.

I think this is one of those points there is a lot of heat around, but it does not make sense when you drill into it. We are quite content to accommodate Sunday working. We know the industry wants to have improved services on the weekends, and we support that, but what we are not prepared to do is work hours for free to accommodate that. If we are going to work longer hours, we expect to be paid for those hours.

Q94            Chris Loder: Mick, what was ASLEF’s policy on trainee drivers during the pandemic?

Mick Whelan: On trainee drivers, there are an awful lot of functions that require two people in a cab. What we put forward was quite creative in partnership. We created bubbles within the industry. For those that needed to go out to do signal sighting or those who needed to go on the front of a train, we extended that process. If you had an instructor and a trainee, they would go into a bubble. They would be tested. Once they were both clear, they would be tested every week. They would work together for that period of time to make sure that the trainees could be trained.

Q95            Chris Loder: So, for the whole period ASLEF’s position was that provided the instructor and the trainee were bubbled together, they could continue throughout that period.

Mick Whelan: And then, for the classroom-based training, we put in social distancing, cleansing and lower numbers in the classroom. We tried to do everything we could to protect those roles and those jobs, and to ensure that the throughput happened.

Q96            Chris Loder: For any train operators that may or may not tell me that trainees had to stay at home because the union said they would not allow a trainee with an instructor/driver in the cab, is it incorrect of them to say that?

Mick Whelan: There was the opportunity for them to put processes in place along the guidelines in the agreements that were agreed at the RICF. During the pandemic the joint trade union—

Q97            Chris Loder: Is it incorrect for them to say that?

Mick Whelan: It is incorrect because there was a process, if they chose to follow it.

Q98            Chris Loder: What you are saying is that, if the TOCs wanted to have trainee drivers during the pandemic, they would have had to come to you to ask you to endorse it for that to happen. Is that correct?

Mick Whelan: No; that was not what happened. What happened was that at the height of the pandemic we could not force them. You cannot wear masks in a driving cab. Most drivers wear spectacles and they fog up and whatever. Because of that, and because of cleaning regimes, the driver/instructors or the trainees could do it on a voluntary basis, initially. We could not force or coerce people to do it. We put a system in place where it could happen.

Q99            Chris Loder: On a local basis your representatives have interpreted that.

Mick Whelan: Not really. I think most of the things that came out of the industry body at that time worked as a standard practice across all the TOCs.

Q100       Chris Loder: Do you know what percentage of trainee drivers actually did train during the pandemic and those who sat at home—

Mick Whelan: I do not know. You also factor in that an awful lot of train drivers would have been driving trains normally because of the amount of people impacted by the pandemic, safeguarding or else. Not all instructors were available. The ability to do it as you would normally do it and the numbers who would normally do it would not have existed.

Q101       Chris Loder: Gavin is here. I hope I am not going to steal your thunder, Gavin, but I wanted to ask about the situation in Scotland. You have agreed with ScotRail, as I understand it, a 5% pay deal over what period?

Mick Whelan: I believe it is a one-year deal.

Q102       Chris Loder: A one-year deal.

Mick Whelan: I will confirm that for you.

Q103       Chris Loder: Were there any efficiencies or productivities associated with that?

Mick Whelan: Nothing substantial to my knowledge, but I can get you a copy of the deal and send it to you.

Can I make a point about ScotRail, though? ScotRail was different from the other TOCs because they had had pay rises in the intervening two years.

Q104       Chris Loder: Thank you. Is the unofficial overtime ban in Scotland now off for drivers?

Mick Whelan: I would not know. I did not know there was an unofficial overtime ban. Thank you for apprising me.

Q105       Chris Loder: That is not what I think most people would understand. I just wanted to check with you on that one.

Mick Whelan: I do believe that people do vote with their feet when they are unhappy, but let me reassure you that we were not behind it.

Q106       Chris Loder: Will you be entering into further conversations with ScotRail about next year?

Mick Whelan: Yes.

Q107       Chris Loder: When will that be?

Mick Whelan: It normally happens traditionally in the industry about two months after the anniversary date, so every year in most TOCs we tend to be around this time of the year. The reason most of our ballots have been this week is that we wait for the anniversary dates with all the TOCs to see if they make a substantial offer. We advise them that we require a substantial offer. When it is not forthcoming, we make a decision to ballot.

Q108       Chris Loder: You told us that eight train operators had balloted for strike action, and action including short of a strike.

Mick Whelan: Yes.

Q109       Chris Loder: On what basis did those ballots get returned like that?

Mick Whelan: It was on the basis that we had not had a pay rise. “Do you want a pay rise, and are you willing to take strike action”—

Q110       Chris Loder: So, it is all about pay.

Mick Whelan: It is all about pay.

Q111       Chris Loder: And terms and conditions did not feature as part of that.

Mick Whelan: There has been no offer on terms and conditions, so basically we have not had a pay rise through the three years. Even if we get a deal, it will not be a pay rise because we will still be behind the curve because of the cost-of-living crisis.

Q112       Chris Loder: Have the train operators said they are not going to enter into pay—

Mick Whelan: What train operators have said is that they are unable to negotiate with us because the Government have said they cannot offer more than 2%, and unless we give up a raft of productivity for less than it is worth—

Q113       Chris Loder: So you have had no negotiations so far with respective employers.

Mick Whelan: We have exhausted the negotiation with the employers because the employers have said they cannot give us above 2% unless we give rafts of productivity that they are undervaluing. We have said that we would not do that until we have a reasonable pay rise.

Q114       Chris Loder: What is the average salary for a train driver in your—

Mick Whelan: I keep reading it is £59,000 to £60,000.

Q115       Chris Loder: I am asking you for the facts.

Mick Whelan: I believe it is £59,000 to £60,000.

Q116       Chris Loder: £59,000.

Mick Whelan: Yes.

Q117       Chris Loder: I think the Chair asked you about the hours and the days of the week. The majority, you said, were on 35 hours a week. Is that right?

Mick Whelan: The majority are on a 35-hour, average four-day week.

Q118       Chris Loder: And roughly half with Sundays in.

Mick Whelan: Yes.

Q119       Chris Loder: Where will your starting point be in this in order to achieve a further pay rise?

Mick Whelan: Our starting point?

Q120       Chris Loder: Let me rephrase it. What is on the table for you in order to—

Mick Whelan: I have 14 negotiating teams in there that know their companies and know their districts better than I do. They come and make recommendations to us based upon the negotiations that take place. As I answered the question earlier, we could end up with different solutions in different companies. That is down to the massive vagaries of privatisation.

We have many companies with many people in the same grade on different terms and conditions. You might be varying it for one set of them or two sets of them, and that might impact upon how the negotiations go and what is received. The complexity of it is not just simply saying, “What do all train drivers want across the board?”

Q121       Chris Loder: If you instruct your members to go on strike as a result of this ballot, will you pay your members strike pay?

Mick Whelan: No.

Q122       Chris Loder: Nothing at all?

Mick Whelan: No.

Q123       Chris Loder: Eddie, can I ask you the same question? If your members go on strike, do you pay strike pay to members?

Eddie Dempsey: We do in some cases, but in the context of this national dispute, no. We have been known, where we have cleaners out on strike trying to get offered a minimum wage, to pay them strike pay because they are very low paid. They are relatively small in number. In a national dispute, no, but the Government are paying the industry side to make sure that their profits are not damaged by any strike action that occurs.

Q124       Chris Loder: I appreciate that you have a number of grades that you are dealing with, and it is not as straightforward as just the train drivers. In terms of the working week and the days per week, with Sundays in and out, would I be right to say that it is too straightforward just to say it is average this and average that? Is there a grey group? Is there a particular average?

Eddie Dempsey: In the train operators we are generally 35-hour weeks. There are some examples where that is higher. In the train operating companies, again, we have quite a wide range of conditions around Sunday working. I think we have probably got more people with Sundays in the working week than you find in the drivers’ grade, for example, but we also have a lot of people who work obligated or committed Sundays.

When I was on the railway, I had 17 Sundays I was obligated to work through the course of the year. They were outside of my working week and paid at an overtime rate for doing them, but it was my obligated duty to work those turns. There are a lot of people on arrangements like that. It is similar in Network Rail. We have a range of hours between 35 and probably up to 40. There are different arrangements for Sundays as well.

Q125       Chris Loder: Thank you. Mick, you mentioned working 13 out of 14 days. Just so we are clear, that is optional, is it not?

Mick Whelan: It is optional.

Q126       Chris Loder: Will that attract a further rate of overtime? If you are paid regular time, is overtime paid at time and a half or time and—

Mick Whelan: Yes, it is generally paid at varying rates. There are different agreements in different companies.

Chris Loder: Thank you. I think that is it from me for the moment.

Chair: Thank you, Chris. Gavin has just joined us and asked if we had covered one matter. I was not sure whether we had. There is only one way to find out. We will get it on the record.

Q127       Gavin Newlands: Very briefly, Chris asked a question about the deal in Scotland and what it asked of drivers. Essentially, it is going to bring Sunday into the working week in Scotland. It is going to have more flexible rostering as well. It has the 5% pay rise, but it also has a five-year, no compulsory redundancy agreement.

There are many more aspects to it, but they are the main ones. I just wanted to put that on the record, given that Chris asked a question.

Mick Whelan: I think the question was whether we were going to have productivity for it. There are talks on Sundays in the working week as part of the deal.

Gavin Newlands: And flexibilities, but obviously there is lots for the drivers to gain as well. Anyway, I just wanted to put that on the record.

Q128       Chair: Thank you, Gavin. Grahame wants me to cover one point as well. Before I do so, Mr Whelan, you touched on driver-only operation. You said that was a real safety concern for your members. Can you perhaps explain a little more about why you are concerned about that?

Mick Whelan: Unfortunately, we do not live in the most polite of societies. All the figures prior to the pandemic were going in the wrong direction for us. It was everything from sexual assaults on our railways and people talking about women-only coaches on our railways, to county lines. That was a big and prevalent problem. In areas of Scotland, you will know that we had drivers not wanting to drive on certain lines after a certain time at night because of youths and no other people being on the platforms or in the booking offices.

Recently, train drivers have been designated as lone workers, so we now have to recalibrate where we put them. We have a nasty habit of dumping people in sidings—

Q129       Chair: But specific to driver only—

Mick Whelan: We do not believe, particularly in intensive areas where we can have 12 coaches and up to 1,300 people on there, or nobody on there at certain times of day and night, that we should be the only visible presence. We do not think it is safe.

Q130       Chair: You are completely opposed to the practice.

Mick Whelan: Yes.

Q131       Chair: You went on strike on Southern on that basis.

Mick Whelan: Yes.

Q132       Chair: The strike was started by the RMT because it was your members who would lose their jobs, but the technology was already in place so it was basically down to your drivers not to drive it, and that would have stopped the practice—and indeed it did while the strikes were on.

Mick Whelan: We came to an agreement to keep a visible presence and the safety-critical aspect of those people to retain their knowledge. The frightening thing—

Q133       Chair: That is going to be my question. Given that it is so unsafe from your perspective, why did your drivers then agree to go back to work and drive those unsafe trains?

Mick Whelan: Because we are honourable. We agreed those things in the dim and distant, and where we made agreements, strangely enough, we do keep to them. The number of strikes that have happened because we have broken an agreement is zero. The number of strikes or industrial action that has happened because other people are dishonourable or break agreements is vast. That is a factor of the world in which we live. We have systems of work. It is hard to explain the technical aspect to you.

A train driver with a 12-coach train, with 1,300 people on it and 30 people deep on the platform at London Bridge, is given less than two seconds to look at 12 pictures to see that it is safe and—

Q134       Chair: I was very fortunate indeed to drive in the carriage with one of your train drivers, who was explaining to me how it all worked. He was absolutely fine with it. Again, my point is, if it is so unsafe, why did your drivers agree to drive the train that you have just described?

Mick Whelan: Because that was a pre-existing agreement based upon when we only had three-car trains and different systems of work.

Q135       Chair: Your members went out on strike on Southern because it was not safe. You said it is not a safe practice, but then they ended their action and agreed to drive the unsafe trains.

Mick Whelan: You know the legislation. Our disputes have to be specific. It was specific to the three coastal depots where they currently had the second person on the train, and they were trying to remove them. We went on strike because of those three depots.

Q136       Chair: You and I both know that there was a 28.5% pay offer in the end because Southern caved. I doff my cap to you for actually negotiating that. That is why your members agreed to go back and drive those unsafe trains.

Mick Whelan: The reason they went back was that in those three Southern depots the people were allowed to remain upon the train and keep their safety-critical locality. Nothing changed on those trains. They were not paid the 28% because they took the people off those trains. Those people were allowed to stay on those trains and keep their competency if they required. That was the agreement. I wrote it.

Q137       Chair: It was done for the safety principle, and then, for the money, you will take it.

Mick Whelan: No—

Q138       Chair: I want to ask Mr Dempsey—

Mick Whelan: Excuse me, I want to correct the record.

Q139       Chair: —what he thought about that. I remember RMT members were absolutely furious because, effectively, that was their strike guarantee: that if the train did not operate because the conductor was not operating it, then it would not move. But, as soon as the drivers took that control over, that power was lost. How did you feel about that? Your members did not get the 28.5% pay rise. In fact, they may have lost their job.

Eddie Dempsey: No, what happened to our members is that they were faced with a version of fire and rehire. It was nothing to do with what the drivers did or did not do. Our members were told, “Here is a new contract of employment. That means you will work in a different role. You will sign that new contract of employment or you will leave the industry.” That is what happened to our people, and that is how that dispute ended.

Q140       Chair: But the dispute ended because the drivers ended up driving the trains, and your members were the first to take action.

Eddie Dempsey: The dispute ended for our members when they were issued with new contracts of employment and told, “You will sign that new contract or you will be unemployed.” That is how the dispute ended.

Q141       Chair: I am a southern MP, so I remember it very well.

Eddie Dempsey: I remember it, too.

Q142       Chair: The dispute ended because ASLEF drivers drove the trains. If they had not, then the dispute would have carried on and the trains would not have run.

Mick Whelan: The agreement was that those trains were manned with safety-critical staff.

Eddie Dempsey: We would have continued the strike action, but what we faced there—

Q143       Chair: It would not have made any difference because they would have driven the trains.

Eddie Dempsey: You might say so, but we would think differently. What happened then and what is happening now is that people in my industry are facing fire and rehire. Everyone in this place condemned it when it was P&O. Now it is being done to railway workers, all we seem to hear is people talking about bringing more laws in and criminalising the act of dissent against low wages and against being made unemployed. That is what happened to us on Southern. It was fire and rehire. We were given new contracts and told, “Sign that or go and sign on at the dole.”

Q144       Chair: Which is why I was amazed that you were so supportive of how it came to an end, because I felt that your members got taken out by ASLEF.

Eddie Dempsey: I think fire and rehire should be illegal in this country.

Mr Bradshaw: Hear, hear.

Eddie Dempsey: I was not happy about how it ended. It was disgraceful.

Q145       Chair: I want to put one other thing to you. Touching on the Southern train dispute, it was a big dispute. People could not get to work. It had a massive impact, but it was effective because there was a very generous pay rise that Mr Whelan was able to negotiate.

Are you concerned now that you will not have the same bargaining power over passengers? Take the first day of strikes, when there were also strikes on London Underground as well as rail—so you would think that things would be really paralysed. TfL wrote to us and said that bus patronage was 92% of pre-Covid levels. You would think that the buses would be absolutely crowded, but people worked from home. It does not impact them as much. It impacts certain people—key workers, perhaps—but not others. Do you feel there is a danger that this strike will carry on running because it does not actually bring the workforce to its knees? People can work from home and have learnt how to do that from the pandemic.

Eddie Dempsey: I am not so certain about that. The money that has been spent on protecting the profits of private companies during strike action could easily have been put into resolving this dispute, and the money that it has cost the economy more broadly. I accept that it has been difficult, but our strike action is effective. On the run-up to a strike people say it is going to be Armageddon, we are going to shut the country down and there will not be food on the shelves. When we take the strike action, people say that it was not effective at all. Everyone was on the trains and no one is using it—

Q146       Chair: That is a very fair point. I am tending more to the latter in terms of not having the power to stop the economy in the way that you did, so is there a danger that you have rather over-chanced your arm?

Eddie Dempsey: We will see, but wages have been falling in this country for 30 years. They have not kept up with inflation. At the same time, private profits have rarely not exceeded inflation. There was some research done by Unite that said the FTSE 350 companies’ profits are up 73% since 2019.

Q147       Chair: I gave the figures for train drivers, which was a 39% pay rise over the last 10 years—

Eddie Dempsey: Let me tell you something. At the same time—

Q148       Chair: —when inflation has run at 20%, so that is double inflation.

Eddie Dempsey: —there has been a 73% increase in private profits for people at the top—

Q149       Chair: How many are specific to rail?

Eddie Dempsey: The point I am making is that everyone in this country is feeling the pinch. Enough is enough, and it is about time people made it clear where they stand on this. I think people across the economy—nurses, postal workers and railway workers—are all about to stand together and say, “We deserve a pay rise in this country.” That is coming. It is not about whether or not we are just as effective as we were three years ago. There is a bigger thing happening in this country that people do not seem to realise. That is, people are not prepared to accept any longer that they have to continue to be made poorer so that people at the top can continue to rake in profits. That is over. That is going to change over the next period.

Q150       Chair: The last point that Mr Morris wanted to make sure—

Mick Whelan: Can I respond?

Q151       Chair: You can perhaps shoehorn it in, Mr Whelan. I want to ask about the legislative changes that have either been brought in or are being proposed.

On the agency side of things, as you have said—and I think I have said this before—I cannot see how that will make any difference to replacing highly skilled workers who work on the railway, because you cannot bring an agency worker in. Do you feel it would be ineffective as a change?

Eddie Dempsey: I think it will be ineffective, but I think it is shocking that the answer to the cost-of-living crisis coming from Government is to criminalise dissent. I think that is outrageous. We rank No. 3 on the TUC international global index for freedoms for trade unions. We have got some interesting company in that bracket, let me tell you.

Q152       Chair: You have mentioned that before.

Eddie Dempsey: That says we have regular violations of trade union freedoms in this country. That is a disgrace. We are meant to be a democracy. We are meant to be a free country. We are meant to have the right to bargain freely for our members in a free market with employers. Instead, as soon as people stand up and say they want a decent shake in a deal for working people, we have a Government that want to criminalise that. That is wrong. Do not worry about whether it is going to be effective. It is just outrageous that that is the answer to the cost-of-living crisis.

Q153       Chair: Mr Whelan, I am going to give you the chance to put your views.

Mick Whelan: I have three brief points. In relation to your statement that we took 28% for DOO, no, we did not. That was settled separately. Go and look at the agreement; I will send it to you.

On top of that, this is not about power. This is about the people who we represent and what they want us to do, and how they feel impacted. No worker rushes to go on strike. No worker wants to lose money. No worker wants to receive the levels of abuse that we receive, particularly in the transport sector, when we go on strike. Therefore, it is a last resort.

The trouble is that these issues happen when they happen. It is not because you are at the height of your power or the weakness of your leverage at a point in time. It is about when the situation happens that drives that dispute to occur. I am making that quite clear.

As for the scab charter that the Government have created and passed recently, that is what it will be. The real problem in an industry like ours is that there are still people not being spoken to who were scabbed in 1955 and 1982. Of course, scabbed labour can only work for scabbed management. What it will do is impact and destroy the industrial relations of this industry going forward when 97% of the time we work in partnership with our employers, which is what people seem to forget.

Anybody who employs any scab labour, if it is unsafe, we will not be working with them. I will make that quite clear. I will put that on the record. Afterwards, anybody who has employed any scab labour, we will look on them as our employers in a different way.

Q154       Chair: You have used the word “scab”—

Chris Loder: How do you define “scab”?

Mick Whelan: It is anybody who breaks a strike and crosses the picket line.

Simon Jupp: We are not in school.

Q155       Chair: Let me just finish up. You have obviously used quite an emotive term to call them “scabs”. It is quite an intimidating term as well. Are you saying it is not just a question of not working alongside them but that there will be intimidation to ensure they do not take—

Mick Whelan: We do not intimidate anybody. We are not advising or advocating that. I said the difficulties will be—

Q156       Chair: I think if anyone has heard—

Mick Whelan: —where it is unsafe, we will not work with them. That is what I have said. That was my actual statement.

Q157       Chair: If any reasonable person heard what you just said, and you used the word “scab” about four or five times, I would take it as quite intimidatory myself.

Mick Whelan: I think if you look at the newspapers and how it has been defined and reported, it has been called a “scab’s charter”. I am reflecting the terminology that has been used elsewhere.

Q158       Chair: I have never heard the term used on the agency workforce. Let us also ask about minimum service levels and the proposal to bring those in. They are widely used on the continent. Is that something that you would feel as emotive about as you do with regard to the agency legislation, or do you think that if it is good enough for Europe it is good enough for the UK?

Mick Whelan: I am not sure how it can practically work, if I am honest, logistically or otherwise. Do people still have the right to protest in the UK? That has been diminished recently by certain legislation that has been passed. If there was a picket line and somebody who was obligated to work refused to work that picket line, what would happen to them? I have no knowledge of how this could operate in a realistic way. Would it end up exacerbating strife and making it longer and more difficult? Quite possibly.

Q159       Chair: Mr Dempsey, again I should give you the chance to state your views on that.

Eddie Dempsey: I do not think minimum service legislation will work here. We will not co-operate with it in any event as a trade union. I think these laws that are being talked about are to further weaken the ability of trade unions. What we are really talking about here is taking power away from working-class people to address what is already an imbalance of power where they work. We have all seen what happens when powerful people in companies want to take liberties with working-class people. It happens all the time. We are here to address that imbalance. If we have our ability to do that taken away, we will have to find other ways to do that.

I do regard people who cross the picket line and break a strike as scabs. You have to appreciate that working-class people have a different morality around stuff like this. My father was a seafarer. His father was a railway worker. None of us has ever crossed a picket line. None of us ever will cross a picket line. That carries with it all kinds of connotations.

There are only two sides in a dispute, and you have to pick which one you are on. You either stand with people who are struggling to get a fair deal, or you are on the side of people taking a kicking and being made unemployed. There is no middle ground in this. There is no sitting on the fence. If you sit on the fence, you only get splinters where you do not want them.

My view is that the legislation is uncalled for. There is no need for it. It is the wrong thing to try and further weaken trade unions in a country where we probably have the worst anti-trade union legislation in western Europe. It is authoritarian nonsense. If you really want to stop people taking strike action, what you need to do is put money in their pockets in a cost-of-living crisis. That is what is causing strike action. It is not that trade unions have the ability to strike.

I have just listed a whole range of companies where we have made settlements, and everything is fine. In these companies, we were having operational expenditure slashed, jobs being taken out of the industry, wages being attacked, and terms and conditions being torn up. That is where you have strike action. If you want to solve this, you need to have a fair settlement for people in the industry, not bring more laws in to criminalise dissent.

Chair: Thank you. The last word to you. I am very grateful for all the time you have given us. We have gone way over time, but you have given us a lot of evidence, so we are grateful for that. We hope that negotiations will continue. There is an offer on the table. You have given a hint as to where that could go. We will now find out from the next panel where they think it will go for themselves. Mr Whelan and Mr Dempsey, thank you and very best wishes.