Ritika Janiya
A minister dodged questions on increases to train drivers’ pay.
In an interview, the Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, was evasive on how a 14% pay rise for train drivers will be funded. The rise, agreed upon to bring an end to rail strikes, raises questions over the financial implications, but Phillipson, asked four times, insisted that she would set out how the disputes would be resolved and that it means a fair deal for the passengers, rather than who is going to provide the money.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today recently, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson gave a struggling performance in the face of questions over the Government’s plan to hand train drivers an enormous pay increase, and her avoidance tactics made quite obvious that she was ducking nonstop from the critical question that everybody has in their minds: Who is going to pay for this?
The meeting was centered on the Government’s agreement to offer train drivers a 14% salary increase over three years in a bid to bring an end to the disruptive rail strikes crippling the country. This agreed pay deal, hailed by the train drivers union Aslef, has engendered doubts about its financial implications against the broader economic challenges facing the nation.
Many times in the interview, Phillipson has been asked to put some light on who is going to be burdened by this kind and big pay increase, she dodged the question every time shifting the focus onto the need to settle disputes and to ensure “fair deal” for the passengers. Her evasive responses left many in doubt about the transparency of the Government’s financial planning.
Asked for the first time by the television presenter who would foot the bill for the deal, Phillipson turned to emphasize the need to close out ongoing disputes. She said she was relieved that something had brought everything to a head—as passengers have faced disruption and there has been an economic cost from the strikes—but stopped short of detailing where the money for the pay rise would come from.
“We must sort out these disputes,” said Phillipson. “I am pleased that it seems we are going to be in a position to sort this out now fully because the disruption passengers experienced and the massive hit to our economy were simply unacceptable. These issues were symptoms of the broader failure we saw across the public sector and industries under the last Conservative government.”
Although this did not kill the question of who was to pay for the pay increase, she was asked again to put it clear; instead of getting specific about it, she insisted that the Government is committed to seeing workers get a fair deal like other sectors such as education where the Government had intervened and resolved.
“We are working through this process,” Phillipson continued, “and we will make sure this deal is fair, just as we did with teachers. We faced widespread industrial action that caused huge disruption, and we took action to resolve it.”
Her repetition of avoiding the question meant she really did not do much to allay people’s fears and left many more questions than answers. In agreeing with the need to resolve the disputes and implications for fairness, she failed to give them insight into how the government intends to finance this increase in pay, particularly with the strained economic environment.
The deal in question is being regarded as a “no-strings” agreement, which means that conditions attached to the working practices do not apply under this deal. This increases the concerns that might exist concerning the long-term viability of this deal in the face of contemporary challenges within the rail industry.
Critics say there is a lack of transparency surrounding the funding of this pay raise, which can also create a dangerous precedent. Other public sector workers have been striking for better pay and conditions; the Government, some say, cannot afford what it is promising to people.
The interview with Phillipson comes at a time when mounting pressure is put on the Government to act on the variety of challenges the public sector has been enduring. Demands for better pay and conditions range from health to education, with the public watching closely as the Government negotiates them in line with the delivery of fiscal responsibility.
With the debate over the train drivers’ pay increase, many questions have been raised about what such an incrementing system may mean for the economy as a whole. The Government is silent, leaving the public to speculate about possible implications for other fields of public spending.
Meanwhile, the train drivers’ union, Aslef, has embraced the pay deal as a way to bring an end to the strikes and restore stability to the rail network. But precisely how the Government plans to pay for this and other similar agreements remains very much open to question.
While the country waits with bated breath for more information, one thing is patently clear: the question of public sector pay is far from put to bed, and the Government will need to be more open and crystal clear in the days to come if it wishes to sustain public trust.
Though the government’s decision to offer a 14% pay rise to train drivers might finally bring an end to the strikes, who exactly is going to pay for it remains in the balance. The evasive responses by Bridget Phillipson in her BBC Radio 4 interview have taken the guesswork up a notch, leaving everybody thinking about what’s in store ahead for public sector funding in the UK.
