Shadow Transport Secretary Richard Holden has accused Labour of putting its trade union paymasters ahead of passengers and taxpayers after ministers confirmed a new railway union agreement contains no fixed limit on the amount of paid working time that can be allocated to union representatives.
Labour is facing fresh accusations of rolling out the red carpet for its trade union allies after details emerged of an agreement allowing railway union representatives to undertake union duties while continuing to receive their normal salaries.
Richard Holden MP, the Shadow Transport Secretary, accused the Government of effectively handing the railway unions a “blank cheque”, warning that taxpayers and fare-paying passengers could once again be left footing the bill for Labour’s close relationship with organised labour.
Mr Holden told The Telegraph: “It’s crystal clear that Andy Burnham’s Labour Government is repeating Keir Starmer’s mistakes and giving a blank cheque to their trades union paymasters on the trains – this time with so called ‘facility time’ which, in reality, means political campaigning at the expense of passengers and taxpayers.”
He added that ministers should be concentrating on delivering cheaper, safer and more reliable rail services rather than increasing the burden on the public.
“Sadly under Labour, serving the unions rather than the public will always be their top priority,” he said.
The controversy centres on arrangements involving DfT Operator, the Department for Transport’s publicly owned passenger rail organisation, and three of Britain’s most powerful railway unions: the Rail, Maritime and Transport union (RMT), the Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association (TSSA) and train drivers’ union Aslef.
According to The Telegraph, Transport Minister Keir Mather confirmed that a voluntary trade union recognition agreement had been reached which does not establish a fixed financial budget, payroll percentage or specified entitlement for what is known as facility time.
Facility time allows recognised trade union representatives to step away from their ordinary responsibilities to carry out certain union duties while remaining on their employer’s payroll.
These duties can include negotiating with management, representing colleagues in disciplinary proceedings, handling workplace grievances and dealing with health and safety concerns. Trade union activities can also include attending branch meetings and conferences, although there is an important legal distinction between paid union duties and activities for which payment is not automatically required.
The revelation has nevertheless raised questions about how much the arrangements could ultimately cost the public, particularly as the Government is unable to provide a reliable estimate of the annual bill.
Responding to parliamentary questions from Mr Holden, Mr Mather said the agreement did not establish a predetermined facility-time allowance or spending ceiling.
Instead, he explained, reasonable paid time off would be administered according to employment legislation, guidance from the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas), and the operational needs of the railway.
The minister also acknowledged that the financial implications could not yet be reliably calculated because the amount of time required would depend on the level of union activity.
He maintained that the arrangements would be managed proportionately, with consideration given to operational delivery and value for money.
However, the absence of a specified financial ceiling is likely to fuel Conservative concerns about whether sufficient safeguards remain in place to protect the public purse.
The Telegraph reported that previous Civil Service arrangements had restricted departmental expenditure on facility time to 0.1 per cent of annual payroll costs. The newspaper estimated that applying such a limit to the relevant Department for Transport arrangements would have produced a ceiling of approximately £58,000 annually.
The new agreement contains no equivalent fixed restriction.
That does not mean union representatives have an unlimited legal entitlement to paid time off. Acas guidance requires that time off be reasonable, taking account of an employer’s circumstances and the need to maintain services. Nevertheless, the absence of a predetermined budget leaves an obvious question over how expenditure will be controlled and scrutinised.
The row comes amid Labour’s wider programme of employment and trade union reforms, including changes to the rights of union representatives and the facilities employers are expected to provide.
Further provisions under the Employment Rights Act 2025 are scheduled to take effect from 30 October, accompanied by revised Acas guidance.
For critics, the latest development reinforces concerns that Labour is steadily shifting the balance of power towards trade union organisations while expecting employers, passengers and taxpayers to absorb the consequences.
The political implications are particularly uncomfortable given the longstanding financial relationship between trade unions and the Labour Party, whose campaigns have benefited from substantial union donations.
While union representatives perform legitimate workplace functions, including protecting employee safety and helping resolve disputes, Conservatives argue that the Government must demonstrate where legitimate representation ends and potentially unnecessary public expenditure begins.
There is also a distinction between taxpayer-funded union representation and party-political campaigning. Acas guidance does not provide an automatic right to paid time off for political campaigning, and no evidence has been established that the new arrangement has been used for that purpose.
Yet the broader issue remains: at a time when passengers expect better value, reliable services and affordable fares, Labour is introducing an arrangement under which ministers cannot say how much paid union time will ultimately cost.
With the railways moving further towards public ownership, the question of who controls expenditure, and who ultimately pays, is becoming increasingly important.
For Mr Holden and Labour’s Conservative critics, the latest revelations provide another example of a Government they accuse of being far more enthusiastic about satisfying its union allies than protecting the interests of the travelling public.
And until ministers can put a credible figure on the cost, explain how the time will be monitored and demonstrate that taxpayers are getting value for money, Labour can expect further questions about whether Britain’s railways are being run primarily for passengers or for the unions.
Main Image: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
