The transport secretary was right to talk to the rail unions – and is right to keep talking

Editorial: Passengers are entitled to be angered by continuing train strikes – the case for them is not strong enough

Mark Harper has dropped the pretence that the government had no role (PA)

When Mark Harper took over as transport secretary in October, he seemed to offer a constructive change from Grant Shapps. Mr Shapps was not his immediate predecessor: Anne-Marie Trevelyan held the office for the 49 days of the Liz Truss premiership. However, Mick Lynch, the general secretary of the Rail, Maritime and Transport union (RMT), spoke truth in jest when he pretended he could not remember her name.

Mr Shapps had found himself snagged by his refusal to talk to the trade unions, insisting that the dispute was between them and the train operating companies. This seemed a surprising siding to have shunted himself into, given his reputation as a good communicator and a pragmatist.

So it was a welcome change when Mr Harper dropped the pretence that the government had no role and engaged in dialogue. It was even more welcome when he seemed to have brokered an agreement in January, giving the train operators a revised mandate.

Unfortunately, the RMT rejected the improved offer, and so the strikes by the RMT and Aslef, the train drivers’ union, continued. This weekend both unions seem to have deliberately timed their strikes to disrupt the Eurovision Song Contest in Liverpool, and another strike planned for 3 June seems to be aimed at the FA Cup final in London.

The Independent has some sympathy for rail workers. A pay increase of 4 per cent at a time of 10 per cent inflation is a big real-terms cut. And while we sympathise too with Eurovision fans who are inconvenienced, the purpose of strike action is to cause disruption, so the tactic is legitimate.

On the other hand, the main reason that the government is involved in the dispute is that the industry was in effect nationalised to get it through coronavirus lockdowns. The taxpayer has put up generous support to keep the trains running. This means that ministers ought to be party to the discussions about pay, but it also means that they have a responsibility to ensure that taxpayers get something in return for their emergency support.

Which is why the negotiations have included modernising working practices and better use of technology.

It is also worth pointing out that, although many RMT workers are low paid, train drivers are on good money. At a time when other public services are under such pressure, and when the NHS staff council has just accepted a pay deal, it seems increasingly difficult to argue that rail workers are a special case. In the battle for public opinion, sympathy is not the same as support, and the rail unions are putting the support that they currently enjoy at risk.

The final argument that inclines us towards urging the rail unions to settle is that an attritional battle is damaging to the long-term interests of the industry. Travellers’ behaviour will change as the railways’ reputation for unreliability becomes entrenched and people become used to travelling by car, coach or plane. That is a bad outcome for rail workers, for the environment and therefore for everybody’s quality of life.

Let us hope Mr Harper perseveres in his attempts to engage with union leaders, and that they recognise that an early agreement is in the best long-term interest of their members.