Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)

I am sure the noble Lord will know that TUPE, at the time the employees move into public ownership, prevents such changes for the immediate future. I am not saying anything about the future other than that we need to have a serious discussion with the trade unions and the employees going into GBR. If there is to be a change, we need to understand their aspirations for such a change, and we need to know the conditions of making that change from a management point of view. For the moment, we are where we are. More than 40,000 employees have transferred into public ownership, and I think that largely they are very pleased to do so. We will take it from there in the forums that we have and the forums that we might need to establish if we are going to do something different. I turn to Amendment 324. As I said, what collective bargaining agreements will cover and what they will require of the parties under GBR has still to be determined and will be subject to discussions with the trade unions. The noble Lord’s proposed clause is inappropriate and would prejudice those discussions. It is not necessary to legislate to restrict what those discussions can cover. As we have discussed, there is clearly a philosophical disagreement between this Government and the previous one over how to treat trade unions, but our approach is collaborative and focused on getting the right outcomes, and it is working. On Amendment 327, I absolutely acknowledge that many people rely on train services to go about their daily life. That is especially the case for those with disabilities, some of whom, as the noble Lord said, cannot drive or may find the use of private hire vehicles or other means of transport unaffordable or impractical. For those reasons, rail service disruption and cancellations due to industrial action or any other reason affect all these people, some of them disproportionately. There are of course duties on all trade unions to give employers notice of industrial action. This means that rail employers can assess the likely impact on passengers should there be such action, which enables them to plan for and communicate the details of any industrial action in good time. The Bill places accessibility at the heart of the future railway by ensuring that the key organisations must actively consider the needs of disabled passengers when making decisions, and therefore GBR will have a responsibility to ensure that it has taken account of disabled passengers in any preparation for industrial action. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee is the Government’s statutory adviser on the transport needs of disabled people. It would not be appropriate for that committee to carry out an assessment of the operational impacts of each instance of industrial action on disabled people. That is very much for the organisation that will be in charge of the railway, GBR, to think about in accordance with its duties. Accordingly, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.