House of Commons Hansard Debates for 2 Feb 1993

Mr. Foulkes : Yes, it relates to my earlier point of order. The Secretary of State for Transport has said that there will be some months to discuss the details, yet in reply to my earlier point of order he said that he can make irrevocable decisions because of the paving Bill. The decisions will therefore have been made and implemented, and the House will not have had an opportunity to discuss them fully.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : That is not a point of order ; it is a point of argument.

Mr. MacGregor : Not only is it not a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is wrong again, because the hon. Gentleman has not listened to what I said--that there would be no real franchise until we had got the Bill through Parliament. So there cannot be a real franchise based on any of these until the Bill has gone through Parliament.

If there are any more of these points of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it will make my speech a very long one. I do not think that it is in the interests of others who wish to speak.

I was saying that I would put forward in the next few months a complete map of franchises, although even then it will be desirable to preserve flexibility for the franchising director when he comes to undertake the real process of negotiating franchise applications in response to tenders after Royal Assent. Private sector bidders, however, will wish to see some operational running in shadow form before making bids, and my announcement today enables that process to start.

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch) rose--

Mr. MacGregor : No, I would like to get on. I have given way to my hon. Friend a very great deal, and I want to complete this speech. [Interruption.] I will give way, but I must make it clear that this is the last time.

Column 165

Mr. Adley : My right hon. Friend has announced six franchises. Can he say whether it will be within his policy to agree that these six, or seven, franchises can be operable as vertical franchises, if that is what the private sector wants?

Mr. MacGregor : I am coming to that point now. I was about to say that one issue which has surfaced in public debate is that of vertical integration--the management and control of both track and trains by the same body--as against horizontal integration--separating the track authority from the operators. We concluded, and we made it clear in our election manifesto, that full vertical integration was neither practical nor desirable across the great bulk of the railway network. That is why we propose Railtrack as the national infrastructure authority. I want to deal with this because it is a very important point--I agree with my hon. Friend on that--and it is important to set out the arguments.

We decided not to pursue the alternative of a complete system of vertically integrated franchises, for a number of reasons. First, operators who run both the track and the trains would inevitably face a conflict of interest when others applied to run services on their line. We want to give everyone, including freight operators, a fair crack of the whip--they regard this as very important--but we could do it on vertically integrated lines only if we adopted intrusive regulation to ensure fair treatment for all.

Secondly, one of our key priorities is to secure suitable levels of investment in rail infrastructure. Investment on that scale requires a strategic view of the kind that only Railtrack can provide. Railtrack will focus infrastructure investment on the parts of the network where it is most needed. It would be unrealistic to expect individual franchisees to do the same. There could be a problem for individual franchisees in meeting the capital investment requirements in particular franchise areas.

Thirdly, Railtrack will have the key role in ensuring the safety aspects of track and signalling. The existence of a national track authority will ensure that safety standards and procedures are co-ordinated across the track in a clear and systematic way--a point that was of particular importance to the Health and Safety Commission in its consideration of our proposals. It would be much more difficult to achieve that if track responsibilities were spread across a large number of local operators.

Fourthly, we need a national track authority to ensure that operational timetabling is co-ordinated efficiently across the whole of the network.

Those are compelling reasons which led us to decide not to hand the whole railway, lock, stock and barrel, to local franchise operators. However, in a limited number of cases, particular features may suggest that it is right to make an exception and to allow a degree of vertical integration. I have decided, for example, that the Isle of Wight can be offered as a vertically integrated franchise--[ Hon. Members-- : "Hear, hear."]--as it is completely separate from the rest of the network.

I recently announced that, subject to parliamentary approval of the enabling legislation, I intended to appoint Mr. Roger Salmon as the first franchising director. Meanwhile, Mr. Salmon will act as my special adviser on franchising and will therefore play an important part in the development of our approach to franchising in this transitional period.

Column 166

Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton) rose --

Mr. MacGregor : No, I will not give way again. I have made that clear.

My third major announcement today concerns rail freight. Everyone agrees that carrying freight by rail usually offers environmental advantages as compared with using lorries. But translating that sentiment into practice is another matter. Rail freight has suffered from reductions in demand for the type of traffic for which it is best suited--heavy freight : aggregates, steel, oil and coal. In the fast-growing areas of consumer goods, new distribution and retailing patterns--just-in-time concepts, for example--are right for the consumer and for the marketplace but they are not easy for a monolithic industry to respond to. Under BR ownership, rail freight has not been as efficient or as responsive to that market as it should have been.

I am convinced that our policies offer the best prospects for halting the decline in freight by rail and seeing more freight switched from road to rail. By privatising existing freight operations, ending BR's monopoly and opening up the rail network to as many private sector operators as wish to make use of it, I intend to assist this process by introducing three new measures. First, we will enhance the existing freight facilities grants scheme. The scheme provides targeted financial assistance to capital projects which demonstrably help the environment by switching traffic from road to rail or to inland waterways. I propose to expand the scheme in three ways. Grants will be made available to private rail freight operators as well as customers and consignors ; grant will cover all forms of capital expenditure and equipment, including locomotives and track and structures specifically needed for freight ; and grant assessments will now include traffic taken off inter-urban main roads and motorways. [ Hon. Members-- : "Nice little handout."] It is very significant, that derisory comment from hon. Opposition Members. The fact of the matter is that these enhancements will broaden the scope of this successful scheme and, I believe, will be widely welcomed by the industry and by all those concerned about the environment.

Secondly, I propose to issue a consultation document containing proposals to encourage combined transport movements, and to help keep down the number of lorries on our roads, but allowing lorries carrying goods in containers or swapbodies, to and from railheads only, to operate at up to 44 tonnes gross weight on six axles, provided they are specially equipped with road- friendly suspension and axle layout. That will give rail a competitive edge. It will be particularly important for the development of channel tunnel freight services.

My third proposal involves a new principle. I remind the House that all forms of subsidy to the freight railway ceased under the last Labour Government in 1977. That was based on the belief that rail freight should operate as a commercial business, and fundamentally that is right. But financial support can be justified where there are unambiguous wider benefits.

I therefore propose to introduce a new grant, up to 100 per cent. of the track charges if necessary, to contribute towards track charges for freight traffic which can be demonstrably proven otherwise to move from rail to road, or could not be attracted to rail without it. This even

Column 167

means that, where the environmental and other benefits can clearly justify it, access to the network can be made free at the point of use for freight operators.

I must stress that the Government will expect to see clear returns for their money by way of these environmental benefits, and that the grant will be available only up to the limit of the track charges levied by Railtrack.

Sir David Mitchell (Hampshire, North-West) rose

Mr. MacGregor : The combination of our proposals for privatising rail freight, the introduction of open access to the network, the opening of the channel tunnel and the measures that I have announced today amounts to a major new opportunity for freight on rail. It demonstrates our determination to get the freight railway back on its feet.

Mr. McFall rose--

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East) rose--

Mr. MacGregor : It demonstrates our determination to get the freight railway back on its feet.

I give way to my hon. Friend.

Sir David Mitchell : I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Can he say whether he will take steps to ensure that open access to freight is brought in under his existing powers before the Bill becomes law?

Mr. MacGregor : I fear that I do not have the powers to do exactly what my hon. Friend suggests, nor can we introduce these measures until we have the Royal Assent. So I very much hope that we will get the Royal Assent as quickly as possible.

Mr. McFall rose --

Mr. McAllion rose --

Mr. MacGregor : I want to turn to a very important point now, which I know concerns a lot of hon. Members and which has already been raised-- the access regime for rail operators. I will be publishing a separate detailed document on this before the relevant debates during the Committee stage of the Bill. Access arrangements are central to the private sector operation of trains. There are two key issues : how operators will be able to get paths, and the basis of the charges they will pay. We also need a system which is simple for operators, which facilitates franchising and encourages rail freight, and which gives the right economic signals. This includes generating revenue for Railtrack sufficient to cover its costs and enable it to invest. The independent regulator will be responsible for approving access agreements, and under the Bill he will have duties to protect users and encourage competition. All access arrangements will be subject to Community law. Within this framework, the Government see the system operating as follows.

Freight operators should agree paths and prices with Railtrack on a commercial, freely negotiated basis. It is particularly important for Railtrack to be able to charge market-based prices to freight operators, because it needs income to cover the common costs of the track--those which cannot be attributed to individual operators. Operators can afford to make different contributions to

Column 168

those common costs. If prices were based on average costs, marginal freight operators would be driven away. Conversely, if all prices covered only marginal costs, Railtrack would never cover its common costs.

The system we propose offers the best chance of keeping marginal freight traffic on the railway, and of allowing Railtrack to cover its costs. The alternative of posted prices, whether average or marginal, fails on those counts. The new scheme that I have announced today for assisting rail freight operators with track costs will also help the most marginal flows. The regulator will supervise the system to ensure that Railtrack does not abuse any monopoly power or unfairly discriminate.

A different regime is needed for franchised passenger services. Our longer- term aim is to adopt a market-based system of access for those services too, with increasing competition as the market develops. But for the first generation of franchises, the necessary trainpaths for franchises will be secured from Railtrack by the franchising director, acting under the guidance of the Secretary of State. Those trainpaths will then be offered to potential franchisees as part and parcel of the invitation to tender for franchises.

The price that Railtrack will receive for franchise train paths will be agreed with the franchising director according to economic principles developed by our advisers, Coopers and Lybrand. Those will be set out in the detailed document that we shall be publishing. [ Hon. Members :-- "When?"] I have already said that it will be published soon--in advance of discussion in Committee--I hope, early next week.

The prices for franchised trainpaths will be guaranteed by the franchising director-- [Interruption.] I am covering an important part of the proposals, which I am sure many people will wish to study.

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East) : We are discussing an important issue. Many people have demanded information on the criteria to be used for track costs. Am I to understand from what the Secretary of State is saying that the report is ready, in his hands, and will be published before the Committee meets, which is likely to be next Tuesday-- within days of today's debate? Why could not the Secretary of State produce the report in time for today's debate?

Mr. MacGregor : We have produced a great deal for today's debate-- [ Hon. Members :-- "Answer the question."] I am outlining the principles in my speech now. We shall have the detailed document ready. We are moving as fast as we can, and hope to have it published and ready next week.

The task of bidders will be greatly simplified, as they will have only one bid to make, for the franchise. Therefore, if bidders cannot afford the access price, it will be subsidised by the franchising director.

The proposals give priority at the outset to franchises. I make no apology for that. If we are to change the culture, which I have stressed throughout is vital, it will be through introducing private sector disciplines or attitudes into as many passenger services as possible. That means not just a few indvidual services on particular lines--although I do not wish to underestimate the importance of such competition where possible--but introducing disciplines into whole franchised sectors. If competition has to be moderated in the early stages to achieve the successful

Column 169

launch of franchising, some exclusivity may be necessary. On some crowded lines, there may also be technical reasons for doing so initially.

Finally, I should explain the significance of Railtrack's financial objectives for the access arrangements.

Mr. McAllion : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has made a number of important announcements this afternoon that would normally form the basis of a ministerial statement, which would have allowed many Opposition Members to ask questions. He has effectively hidden his announcement in his speech on Second Reading and refused to give way to Opposition Members who have tried to raise important constituency issues. Is that not an abuse of the orders and procedures of the House designed to protect Back Benchers?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : This is a Second Reading debate, in which the Secretary of State chooses what he wishes to speak about.

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) made a ludicrous charge. I have been

Mr. McFall : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been present since the beginning of the debate, and have been trying to intervene. The Secretary of State has three times said that he was taking his last intervention. I wish to pose questions on the issue of ScotRail. Do we have to occupy Conservative Benches before the Secretary of State will give way to us?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The Secretary of State gives way to whom he chooses.

Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Did not the Secretary of State mention my constituency not once but three times in the debate? I am the only representative of that constituency in the House, and I am not complaining at all about the fact that my right hon. Friend did not give way to me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : That was not a point of order--I heard some cheers earlier on.

Mr. MacGregor : This is unlike a statement : we have made announcements in several debates and documents of our policy on this important issue, and shall continue to do so. We are today debating the Bill's Second Reading. The Bill will go into Committee and there will be many months in which to consider all the aspects. I am mindful of the need to get on so that other hon. Members may speak. I should explain the significance of Railtrack's financial objectives for the access arrangements. We have deliberately chosen to provide subsidy to operators, not to Railtrack. That is because subsidy is best directed at its intended purpose--the continued provision of socially necessary passenger services which might otherwise disappear.

Therefore, Railtrack will operate on commercial lines, making an appropriate rate of return, which the Government will fix nearer the time that Railtrack goes live. But franchisees will have to pay only the track charges that they can afford. The proposals for charges for freight operators are specifically designed to maintain flexibility to protect marginal operators while charging more to those who can afford it.

Column 170

Many people talk about level playing fields- -it is a big debate. The House will recall that, last autumn, I announced that later this year I would produce a Green Paper on road user charging. The principle of that is that the costs of infrastructure should be covered by users. Therefore, one other element of the policy will be the Green Paper on road user charging.

Before I turn to the Bill's main provisions, I shall say a word about the ticketing and other facilities that will be available to rail passengers under our proposals. We believe that the injection of private sector marketing skills will increase the range of flexibility of the benefits on offer. Private operators will have the freedom and incentive to get more customers on to the railway, which will mean giving passengers convenient and flexible ticketing arrangements. It will also mean offering discounts to boost patronage on certain services and ensuring that all relevant information about services is available to the public. With the private sector in the lead, we expect that most network benefits will be promoted, either individually or collectively, by the operators, but fallbacks will be available.

The Bill will give general powers to the regulator and the franchising director to ensure that key network benefits are maintained. For example, we shall require through ticketing to be provided at all major ticket offices.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Only major ones?

Mr. MacGregor : Through ticketing is not provided at all ticket offices at present, which shows how ignorant the hon. Gentleman is. We shall guarantee the publication of a national timetable. No less important, we shall require franchisees, as part of their contract, to provide common discount facilities for the disabled. I am sure that that commitment will be welcomed on both sides of the House.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, and I am sure that his answer to my question will be listened to with great interest by people both inside and outside the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to guarantee the continuation of a national network railcard for the elderly and for young people?

Mr. MacGregor : I have made the position clear on the disabled. There is no statutory obligation on British Rail to provide the railcard at present, and we do not propose to change the system. However, I have made it clear that I believe that it will be in the interests of franchisees to offer such facilities.

I shall turn now to the Bill's main provisions. Part I covers the provision of railway services under the new regime. It deals broadly with licensing, franchising and access, and the organisations to be set up to make those possible and effective.

Clause 1 and schedule 1 empower the Secretary of State to appoint the regulator and the franchising director. Other clauses impose duties on those office holders. The present consumer organisations need to be updated to play a similar role in the new railway. Clauses 2 and 3 achieve that, and various other aspects of clause 1--which I shall not go into in detail now, due to the pressure of time--cover licensing, franchising and access aspects.

Column 171

Clauses 35 to 44 cover the important closure procedures. The existing procedures have to be amended to fit the new circumstances of the railway. They have not been weakened.

The remainder of part I contains a wide range of other measures needed to underpin the provision of railway services in the new regime.

Mr. McAllion rose--

Mr. MacGregor : Part II provides for the restructuring of BR. There is a crucial point here, because immediate and uninformed comment-- including, typically, from the Opposition--suggested that we were taking covert powers to privatise London Underground among the transport undertakings. That is wholly wrong. It is this part of the Bill which covers privatisation as such. It does not apply to London Transport or any undertaking other than BR. The Bill gives no power to privatise London Underground.

Part II makes it possible for companies to be formed out of BR. Those companies will form the basis of key players in the future railway. Thus the freight businesses to be sold to the private sector will first be formed as companies, as will the passenger franchise units. Railtrack will also be created as such a company and transferred to the direct ownership of the Government under those powers.

Clause 82 contains a particularly important provision. It confirms, for the avoidance of doubt, that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 apply to transfer schemes under clause 75. That will make employees' rights clear in respect of every transfer.

Part III contains a number of miscellaneous, general and supplemental provisions, some of which are of great importance. Clause 107 applies part I of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to the railways. That will allow the new system for railway safety proposed by the Health and Safety Commission, endorsed by the chairman of BR and accepted by the Government, to be implemented by regulations under that Act.

Other clauses cover board pension schemes, the British Transport police, concessionary travel facilities for employees, and clauses 118 to 123 cover financial provisions to allow the continued provision of subsidies and grants in the new railway, including the improved arrangements for freight facilities grants to which I referred earlier.

I come now to some of the points that have been raised, including those raised in earlier debates, which enables me to deal with them briefly. I start with the interim report of the Select Committee on Transport. There is much common ground between us. For example, we are agreed that there should be a regulator. We have included provisions in the Bill for independent consumer committees. We agree that freight should be privatised. We are committed to continuing subsidy for passenger services. We have already clarified, as I have again today, other issues about which the Committee was concerned, including network benefits, pensions and access charges.

One concern that was raised in the early months in particular was safety. I spoke about that in the House the other day when I announced the publication of the Health and Safety Commission's report on safety. The safety concerns have now been fully dealt with. It is noticeable

Column 172

that they are not now being commented on. The Government accepted in full the 38 recommendations, and the chairman of British Rail agreed that the safety aspects of the new regime were fully satisfactory.

Pensions is the second area to be raised, naturally and understandably, with me, and in many other ways, by the railway unions. I fully understand their concerns about pensions for existing employees and for retired British Rail pensioners. We have produced a consultative document on that which makes it clear that we shall make available an industrywide pension scheme for which the unions particularly asked. I believe that that deals with all the key questions on pensions.

There will be controls on railway operators' freedom to increase fares where they might otherwise be able to take advantage of having significant market power to exploit passengers--for example, on London commuter services. Those will be exercised by the franchising authority for franchise services and by the regulator for fully privatised services.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex) : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. MacGregor : I must get on--I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me.

Mr. Renton rose--

Mr. MacGregor : My hon. friend and I have already corresponded on fares.

Mr. Renton rose--

Mr. MacGregor : I shall give way for the last time.

Mr. Renton : I appreciate my right hon. Friend giving way. I agree with much that he has said this afternoon, but it would be helpful if, before he finishes, he would explain why he is so confident that the combination of regulator and franchising director will solve the conundrum that we have had for so long on the commuting lines out of London. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said, how can there be substantial investment in the infrastructure without excessive increases in fares? My right hon. Friend must realise that thousands of my constituents depend on his answer. They have to get to work every day in London, Crawley, Gatwick or Brighton--punctually, and at a price that they can reasonably afford.

Mr. MacGregor : I have already corresponded with my right hon. Friend on that. I see no reason why fares should increase faster under the new system then they do under the present nationalised industry structure. In many cases, they will be more flexible and will be reduced. I have already described how, through the franchising authority or the regulator, controls will continue on commuter lines.

There has been substantial investment in many areas of BR in recent years. For example, I know that it does not help my right hon. Friend, but, as I have mentioned, the Networker line has just received an investment of £800 million. That has been possible as a result of the increase in subsidies to British Rail despite the problem of declining revenue. Such support will continue. [Interruption.] It will be for Railtrack to decide its priorities. In addition, franchisees will be able to take advantage of the leasing

Column 173

market and of private capital. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend will know that we now have a £150 million facility scheme.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a vital debate, and it is almost impossible to hear the Secretary of State. If the Minister does not intend to give way, will you at least encourage him to address the Chair?

Mr. MacGregor : I am happy to repeat what I have just said, because I know that it is important to the hon. Lady.

We shall be enabling and encouraging private sector capital. The £150 million leasing arrangement, introduced in anticipation of privatisation, is part of that. The prospects for increased investment are undoubtedly greater under the proposed system than under the present system.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. MacGregor : I come briefly to closures, which is a matter of great concern to many hon. Members. I see no reason why privatisation should lead to a reduction in passenger services. I have made it clear that we shall continue to pay subsidies to support socially necessary railway operations on unprofitable lines. The availability of public subsidy will mean that the private sector can earn a reasonable return on services that currently make a loss. In return for public subsidy, franchisees will sign legally binding contracts with the franchising director which will specify the quality and frequency of the services that they will be running. Franchisees will not be able to close down loss making lines. Where proposals for closures come in the future as they have in the past, the Bill makes it clear that we shall continue with the current strict statutory procedures.

Mr. McFall rose--

Mr. MacGregor : Finally, a point that has frequently been raised concerns what is described as the bureaucracy under the system. When the new system is up and running, it will be more streamlined and less bureaucratic than the present system. The reason for that is straightforward. The new system will have an independent safety authority. We have an independent safety authority now, and no one is suggesting otherwise. It will have consumer committees--the rail users committees. We have them now, and no one is suggesting otherwise. It will have the franchising authority, which will carry out a function of the distribution of subsidy which at present is carried out between my Department and British Rail and so already exists. However, in future it will be more transparent and open for everyone to see, whereas now it is sometimes difficult to know where the subsidy goes. Therefore, that function basically exists at present. We shall have Railtrack, whose function exists now. The only new element is the regulator, which the Select Committee has said is necessary.

Therefore, there is no increase in bureaucracy. At the moment, British Rail has a heavily structured bureaucracy, and the new arrangements will move in the opposite direction. It is rich for Opposition Members to talk about bureaucracy when they are now proposing a new independent railway commission.

That brings me to the Labour party. Yesterday morning, I heard that Labour was launching that

Column 174

afternoon its 10-point plan for the railways. What an impact it had. I had to scour this morning's newspapers with a magnifying glass for even a mention. Then, courtesy of The Guardian, I found seven of the 10 points. No wonder the plan was ignored : apart from the usual more staff, more costs, and more subsidies to run the present system, only two points said anything new. I say this for the benefit of my right hon. and hon. Friends, because I am sure that they did not spot that report in The Guardian this morning.

The two points were a new independent railways commission with wide-ranging powers to oversee British Rail--who is talking about bureaucracy?--and powers for British Rail, still wholly in the public sector, to borrow from private funds free of all Treasury constraints, just as the French railways do.

What is the consequence in France? It is a total debt of £14 billion, compared to British Rail's £2 billion ; an annual interest payment of £1.3 billion-- [Interruption.] No wonder the Opposition do not like to hear this. That annual interest payment of £1.3 billion--a colossal burden on French taxpayers and rail users--compares with British Rail's £80 million. The result is that 20 per cent. of SNCF's annual costs are debt interest payments, compared with British Rail's 1.5 per cent.

If that is Labour Members' prescription for British taxpayers and rail users, I tell them to beware--it would be a total disaster. That would be the consequence of Labour's proposals--just throw more taxpayers' money at it ; run the railways for the railwaymen ; ignore completely the lessons of other privatisations and the benefit that they can bring to customers by better systems, greater motivation, innovation, and enterprise.

There are benefits to the customer. British Telecom's prices are down 27 per cent. in real terms since privatisation, with much better services, more choice, and further innovation. British Gas prices are down by 20 per cent. in real terms. There are the benefits of investment : in all the major industries, there was greater investment after privatisation than before. And there are the benefits to the taxpayer.

Each and every time that we embarked on the privatisation of an industry, the Labour party opposed it. Time and again on Second Reading, it said that it would reverse our proposals--as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will no doubt do today. Each and every time the Labour party predicted disaster, and each and every time we proved it wrong.

We proved--by the success of the British Airports Authority, British Airways, National Freight Corporation, National Express, British Telecom, the regional electricity companies, and British Gas--that the involvement of the private sector works, and works well, for the customer.

Each and every time, the Labour party had to admit that it was wrong-- because one does not hear it say today that it will renationalise any of those ventures. So it will be for British Rail. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East or his successor will be forced to admit that our proposals, as outlined in the Bill, are the right way forward for our railways of the future in the interests of passengers, freight, and employees alike. That is why I commend the Bill to the House for a Second Reading.

Next Section

Home Page