The unions are right – ministers must do more to bring strikes to an end

Editorial: What has been dubbed a ‘summer of discontent’ could turn into the biggest wave of strikes since the 1978-79 winter of discontent

(Dave Brown)

Leaders of the rail unions have warned that their long-running dispute over pay, jobs and conditions will continue “for as long as it takes”, and could last “indefinitely” unless government ministers intervene in negotiations. After a one-day strike on Thursday left only 20 per cent of train services running across the UK and a shutdown of the London Underground on Friday, Saturday will be another day of disruption across the rail network.

Union leaders claim the Conservative Party leadership contest is prolonging the dispute but this is unlikely; ministers would still be taking potshots at the trade unions and talking up the Labour Party’s union links even if the Tories were not in the process of choosing the country’s next prime minister. However, the unions are right to say that ministers could and should be doing more to bring the damaging dispute to an end.

Whether it likes it or not, the government is a player. The hangover of the pandemic, with a drop in passenger numbers, has forced it into a closer relationship with train operating companies, including oversight of industrial relations. It is creating Great British Railways, which will oversee infrastructure, ticket prices and timetables.

Nor can ministers wash their hands of other potential disputes in the public sector. Teachers, nurses, doctors, hospital cleaners and civil servants may also take industrial action, amid pay offers that are unrealistic when inflation is running at 10.1 per cent and forecast to hit 13 per cent. There are also disputes involving bus drivers, barristers, post office workers, telecom engineers, refuse collectors and airport workers.

What has been dubbed a “summer of discontent” could turn into the biggest wave of strikes since the 1978-79 winter of discontent. That led to sweeping reform of employment laws under Margaret Thatcher, and Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, vowed this week to complete her work when he outlinined “a 16-point plan” to restrict industrial action.

On Friday, Mr Shapps threatened to impose new working practices on the rail workers unless their unions ballot their members on the latest offer to them. Such an inflammatory act would be more likely to provoke the unions than produce a settlement. Indeed, unions accused Mr Shapps of planning to use section 188 of the Trade Union Act, which gives employers a duty to consult union representatives, as a means of introducing “fire and rehire”.

Instead of getting round the table with train operators, Network Rail and the unions, the transport secretary has been more interested in floating half-baked ideas about cycling. The “keen cyclist” suggested riders might be forced to display registration numbers, obtain mandatory insurance and observe new speed limits to combat “a hard core of cyclists who seem to think the laws of the road don’t apply to them”. But in another interview, he said the bureaucracy involved in registration plates would be going “too far”.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

Only eight months ago, Mr Shapps’s department rejected the idea of riders wearing visible identification and having a licensing and penalty-points system because the costs “would outweigh the benefits”. It warned that a licensing system would likely reduce the number of cyclists and therefore the “clear” health benefits of cycling. It said bikes involved in collisions “are highly unlikely to cause serious injury to other road users”. About 80 per cent of adult cyclists have driving licences and so have been tested on road and traffic conditions.

Perhaps Mr Shapps is demob happy. After his own leadership bid failed to achieve lift-off, he backed Rishi Sunak, who now looks very likely to be defeated by Liz Truss. So Mr Shapps might not retain his seat in the cabinet. His remaining time at the Department for Transport would be better devoted to settling the dispute in which it is involved, and which is causing chaos for millions of people, rather than recycling old ideas that will almost certainly run into a cul-de-sac.