Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)

My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 96 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Noble Lords heard him use what I think are some inappropriate and wrong allegations about the present level of efficiency from the railway workforce. In his lifetime, the railway workforce has become significantly smaller and is far more productive than it used to be. I wish very much that, in the recent past, any of the franchisees, or many of them, had taken any steps to drive productivity, because the railway might be in a better place today than it is, but largely they did not do that and I suggest that the Government are doing better. As regards the long-term rail strategy, it will set out the objectives for the railway over a 30-year period and consider long-term challenges such as environmental and demographic changes and technological development. Very few companies manage their workforce via long-term, vision-setting documents, and I am sure that noble Lords who have run companies, as I have, will agree with me that they did not and do not do that. Making it impossible to offer pay increases to staff unless productivity improves is not an appropriate amendment for primary legislation, but I agree with the noble Lord’s general point that railway productivity must improve to create a better experience for passengers and the public. It is how you do it that matters—the noble Lord, Lord Harper, is right. In my time at Network Rail, we—principally the chief executive—managed to get a satisfactory deal with some substantial changes in the way in which the work was done. However, the noble Lord should know, as will other noble Lords, that there was no legislative obligation to do that. That was the management talking to the workforce and the trade union and reaching a bargain about what needed to be done by them in order to be able to give the pay rise that they got.