House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 May 1993

Column 753

Points of Order

3.30 pm

Mr. John Morris (Aberavon) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in view of the fact that he has made a statement to the press rebutting Sir Hal Miller's evidence to the Scott inquiry, has given any indication that he would wish to make a statement to the House?

Madam Speaker : No. I have not received any indication from any Minister about seeking to make a statement to the House.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It may be of interest to the House to know that I have been invited to take the opportunity to give oral evidence to Lord Justice Scott's inquiry on Thursday--I believe, on Thursday morning--and I shall gladly avail myself of that opportunity.

Miss Joan Lestor (Eccles) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Flattered though I am that the Leader of the House should mention me in dispatches, and that he should remember an incident of 17 years ago when in seven years' time no one will remember him at all, is it in order for the Minister to make reference to another hon. Member without giving notice that he intends to do so? With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, may I reflect that if a few more hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative side resigned because of policies on which they have reneged, the country politically would be much better off?

Madam Speaker : I am sure the hon. Lady is aware that during Question Time it is not necessary to give notice, although it is necessary during a debate. It is a courtesy if the reference is planned.

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder if you could help me. Tomorrow Tory-controlled Calderdale intends to support a decision to tag electronically elderly people in elderly persons' homes in Halifax, as the homes are short-staffed and cannot supervise residents properly because of their under-funded budget. It is an unethical and undignified proposal. Has the Secretary of State for Health indicated that she intends to make a statement on Government policy on electronically tagging elderly people and NHS patients because of shortage of staff? In the past that procedure has been reserved for prisoners and people on parole.

Column 754

Madam Speaker : I have had no indication that the right hon. Lady intends to make any such statement. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) will have to seek some other method of raising the matter, in which she is obviously interested.

Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) : Further to the point of order raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), Madam Speaker. While it is welcome that the former Attorney- General is to give evidence to the Scott inquiry, it will not have escaped your notice that that coincides with the start of the Whitsun recess. The question is, when will we have answers about the matter in the House?

Madam Speaker : It is for the Government to determine the order of business and not for the Speaker, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware.

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin) : Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), Madam Speaker. You are quite right to say that, during exchanges, matters arise spontaneously, and hon. Members cannot normally be warned when their names are to be mentioned. However, it was clear during today's exchanges with the Leader of the House--as is common in the case of the Prime Minister-- that the right hon. Gentleman did not say anything remotely spontaneous. It was all carefully rehearsed and read out. Given that there was no element of spontaneity, should not the rule that applies to normal debate--that Members ought to be warned when they are to be referred to in a premeditated way--have been applied in this case?

Madam Speaker : I dealt with that matter in my original ruling. It is necessary to give notice when a Member is to be mentioned in the course of a debate. However, as hon. Members know, that is not usually possible at Question Time.

Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday I raised with your office and with yourself matters relating to Sir Hal Miller's evidence to the Scott inquiry, which seemed to me to be matters for the House.

Madam Speaker : Order. As I have quite a few things to do, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give me a little time. I have drafted a letter to him. If he gives me a moment, I shall leave the Chair and sign it. I trust that that satisfies him.

Column 755

Full Employment (Commission)

3.35 pm

Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) : I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a permanent Commission to assist and advise Parliament on matters relating to the achievement of full employment in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and related matters.

I should like to begin by contrasting the attitude and objectives of the current Prime Minister with those of his predecessor. During the old regime, not only was full employment taken off the agenda for political debate, but the frontier was policed by withering scorn being poured upon people who wished to raise the topic. They were told that they were being cruel to people in the dole queues even to refer to the possibility of full employment. That attitude could not contrast more starkly with the attitude of the current Prime Minister, who has made it clear to the House that he regards full employment as one of the Government's major objectives. This Bill seeks to introduce a means of allowing him to achieve that objective. Given the horror that unemployment visits on so many of our constituents, I wish to ask why so little of the time of the House of Commons should be spent on this issue. It is a key issue not only to the constituents of Opposition Members but also to those of many Conservative right hon. and hon. Members. Part of the answer must be that thinking about full employment is now such an enormous task that it is easier not to do so.

During the first world war Barbara Wootton noticed that when the telegram arrived to inform her mother that her--Barbara's mother's--son had died, her mother worked herself up into a great state because the telegram got the designation of his office wrong. Each time War Office correspondence arrived, Barbara's mother was similarly upset about the mistake in rank.

When, after six weeks of marriage, Barbara received a telegram saying that her husband had died, she was similarly worked up into a rage because the corner of her telegram was torn. From this experience, Barbara drew the conclusion that when human beings face problems too large for them to cope with, they tend to concentrate on minor matters rather than on the major subject at hand.

Many of our constituents will ask why, having spent so many hours, weeks and months on the Maastricht Bill, we cannot spend time debating ways back to full employment. While I welcome without reservation the figures of the past three months, which denote a fall in the number of registered unemployed, as well as an increase in manufacturing output and an increase in the number of people employed in manufacturing, I have to ask whether this trend, by itself, can take the country back to full employment. I know the answer to that question, as does every right hon. and hon. Member and those of our constituents who are unemployed, for there are identifiable long-term trends in the British economy working against full employment. From the mid-1960s, with each boom, the number unemployed was higher than at the previous boom. Also, we not only have today a record public sector borrowing requirement, but one that interacts with a record trade deficit. There is an urgent need to reduce the PSBR, but the danger of achieving that by reflating is so to increase the trade deficit that there is a run on our currency. The third force that will prevent the natural establishment of full

Column 756

employment is that the Maastricht treaty contains convergence terms that, if met, will ensure that our economy is further deflated. The Bill's aim is to focus attention and political debate on the importance now of achieving full employment. It modestly defines that goal as 3 per cent. unemployment. It acknowledges that, if that goal is to be achieved, thoughts have to be thought that have yet to be thought of, let alone implemented. It would establish a machinery to allow the House and the country to do that.

The Bill's primary aim is to establish a full employment commission that would regularly report to Parliament on trends in this country and world wide that affect this country's chances of moving back to full employment. Also, how do we evaluate the transfer of school to work, and how does that compare with the most effective of our competitors? What can we learn from elsewhere so that best practice in achieving full employment can be implemented? Again, the commission would have a duty to evaluate Government policy. Why that action? Why the Bill? We know that unemployment is not a warm overcoat that our constituents willingly put on and shuffle around in ; it is the greatest evil facing them. That is something to which we must turn our minds if we are to tackle it effectively. If we cannot be concerned about those of our constituents who are unemployed, I pose another question. Today's newspapers, rightly, pay some attention to the number of children growing up in lone parent households. Many of our constituents, in an attempt not to be driven mad by the thought of not being able to find work, have written off from their daily lives the prospect of ever finding work. A whole generation of children are now growing up in households in which full-time work has been written out of their lives. If we are concerned about the effect on children whose two parents do not live together, should we not be equally concerned about the devastating effect on children growing up in a household in which no adult member regularly earns enough to look after all or part of the family? In seeking approval to introduce the Bill, I draw attention to a change of opinion about the need to move towards ways of achieving full employment. Earlier I referred to Barbara Wootton's observations during the first world war. I refer now to the second world war poster that showed a young son or grandson sitting on the knee of his father or grandfather, asking that person what he did when the country was at war. Today, this country is trying to register a need to put full employment back at the top of the political agenda. We will be asked how we reacted to that change in the political debate. I hope that the House will answer not only by passing the motion without opposition but will seek ways of effectively ensuring that the Bill reaches the statute book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frank Field, Ms Angela Eagle, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Mr. Malcolm Wicks, Mr. Calum Macdonald and Mr. Charles Kennedy.

Full Employment (Commission)

Mr. Frank Field accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for a permanent Commission to assist and advise Parliament on matters relating to the achievement of full employment in Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Column 757

and related matters : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 200.]

Column 758

Orders of the Day

Railways Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

[ Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]

[Relevant documents : The First Report from the Transport Committee, The Future of the Railways in the light of the Government's White Paper Proposals : Interim Report : HC (1992-93) 375, and the Second Report from the Transport Committee, The Future of the Railways in the Light of the Government's White Paper Proposals, HC (1992-93) 246, together with Government Observations thereon (Second Special Report, HC (1992-93) 685).]

New clause 12

Concessionary fares : rail cards

(1) Each franchise agreement shall include such provision as the Franchising Director considers appropriate for the purpose of securing that the franchised services are available at concessionary rates to passengers holding a document obtained from the Board (or such other person as may be specified in the franchise agreement) as a person who--

(a) has attained the age of 60 ;

(b) has not attained the age of 26 or is undergoing full-time education or training ;

(d) is of such other description as may be specified in the franchise agreement.

(2) In subsection (1) above "handicapped" and "disabled" have the same meanings as in Group 14 of Schedule 5 to the Value Added Tax Act 1983.

(3) A franchise agreement shall also include such provision as the Franchising Director considers appropriate for the purpose of enabling persons who wish to be able to travel within the locality where the franchised services are provided using railway and other passenger transport services--

(a) to travel by the franchised services and other such services on the purchase of a single document ; or

(b) to travel on all those services at a concessionary fare by means of the purchase of a single document entitling them to a concession on designated services.'.-- [Sir Keith Speed.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.45 pm

Sir Keith Speed (Ashford) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I start be declaring an interest as, for a number of years, I have, through my company, been a consultant to InterCity.

I add my tribute to our late friend and colleague, Robert Adley, On the morning of 22 April, a couple of days before his fatal illness, we spent several hours in his room in the House thinking about the Bill in the light of the report of the Select Committee and the Bill's Committee stage. If there is any credit to be given for the proposals that I am making, he is entitled to 100 per cent. of it. The new clause seeks to enshrine in legislation the railcards and discount cards that are available to various groups of our fellow citizens. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the rest of the Bill, there is no question but that this part of it has caused considerable concern. I have received letters from organisations such as Saga Holidays, Age Concern, women's institutes and others who fear that

Column 759

our senior citizens will lose the opportunities offered by their senior citizens railcards, which enable them to travel at reasonable fares all over the country.

Others could express similar concerns : disabled people in particular, young people and those who use the intermodal railcard in London and many other metropolitan cities, which conveniently allows people to travel by rail, bus or tube.

I have had fruitful and positive discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for which I pay tribute to him. He has made it clear from the outset that our aims are identical : we want to ensure that such cards are preserved. The Bill does not propose that. It is argued that, because such cards are so lucrative, the franchise companies would be stupid to withdraw them. The commercial argument is that those facilities are mainly available at off-peak times and that it is better to get passengers on seats, even if their fare is discounted, because it helps the cash flow and profitability of the railway company or line.

The social advantages, which I have mentioned briefly, are substantial. Britain has much to learn about leisure travel for senior citizens. SNCF in France identified the old-age pension market and has done much to encourage travel around France at discounted rates, to the benefit of its finances. British Rail, in recent years, offered away-days at £1, and the senior citizens' railcard, which entitles pensioners to substantial discounts, and other discount cards are cherished by many hundreds of thousands of older people, disabled people and young people.

Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemptown) : Before my hon. Friend leaves the issue of the needs of pensioners and pensioners railcards, may I ask whether he is aware that less than 10 per cent. of single pensioners who depend mainly on the state pension have a car? If they were deprived of their railcards, that would make it extraordinarily difficult for many of them to visit relations or to travel on trains at all.

Sir Keith Speed : My hon. Friend is right. In a few years' time, I shall be a state retirement pensioner. It is very important for us to consider pensioners' quality of life. Travel enables people to visit their grandchildren or children and visit other parts of the country when they have the available time and leisure and can do so at a reasonable price. A rail journey in itself can be a pleasurable activity for many older or disabled people. My colleagues and I therefore believe that it is vital that the safeguard is incorporated in the Bill so that, beyond peradventure, there is no question of people losing their concessions.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister have argued that they will issue directives or instructions to the effect that the cards should remain, but that is not the same as the House expressing a view. If the safeguard is incorporated in legislation, it will mean that, if anyone seeks to withdraw the cards or any concessions, the matter will have to be brought back to the House so that the legislation can be amended ; we or future Members of Parliament will then have to vote and be answerable to the electorate.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier--I appreciate the point he makes--that it would be extremely unlikely that any of the franchise operators would withdraw the cards because there would be an

Column 760

outcry if they did. However, if, for example, the franchisee running trains on the line from Exeter to Paddington decided to withdraw the card--perhaps for cash-flow reasons or merely because of hard-nosed management--half a dozen colleagues representing constituencies up and down the line would cause a fuss, furore and storm. However, if British Rail decided overnight to abolish senior citizens railcards, 650 hon. Members would write to my right hon. Friend-- not 651, because my right hon. Friend would not write to himself as he would know what the problems were. Therefore, it is vital to enshrine the safeguard in legislation, and this is perhaps the only opportunity that we shall have for a very long time. If my right hon. Friend accepts the new clause, not only would it be good to have enshrined the proposal in legislation for the future but the Bill would provide something that does not exist at present. Elderly, disabled or young people or even intermodal card users currently have no statutory right to this concession. People will value such a right in the future, and I hope that more young people and old-age pensioners will use the cards and enjoy them even more. I trust that the debate will be brief--because my case is so strong, I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept it. The new clause would give fresh opportunities to young, old and disabled people and would ensure that people travelling into towns and cities across the country can use the intermodal cards which are so effective and useful. I commend the new clause to the House.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor) : As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed) said, we entirely agree on the objective. That was clear from our discussions. I fully understand the importance of railcards to senior citizens and other groups. Indeed, my hon. Friend has explained their importance so well that I do not need to repeat what he said. I can only add that many thousands of my constituents benefit from the senior citizens railcard, as do members of my family. I do not think that is a declaration of interest but, if it has to be, then it is. I know of people who are very clear about the benefits of railcards, and I have seen those benefits many times. In due course, I shall join my hon. Friend in becoming a senior citizen, so I have absolutely no wish to see cards disappear, as I have made clear throughout the proceedings on the Bill. Indeed, I believe that under our proposals their scope and scale will be enhanced.

The question is how we can best achieve our objectives. My hon. Friend was right to say that British Rail has no statutory obligations at present, nor has it ever had. There is a feeling among many people that British Rail has a statutory obligation, but it does not. I recognise the social benefits of many of the cards, especially the senior citizens card, but they are also-- indeed, in some ways, primarily--marketing incentives, to attract more passengers on to the railway during off-peak periods. That means, as it was somewhat inelegantly put during our discussions, "more bums on seats." That is obviously a clear incentive for British Rail, and I believe that it would be an even greater incentive for franchisees. The basis of our case has been that franchisees will make their returns and, if they are successful, benefit both themselves and their employees more, in two ways : first, by seeking effective cost savings and by running a cost-effective franchise ; and, secondly, by increasing

Column 761

revenue. Increased revenue will be achieved by attracting more passengers. So the franchisees will have an even greater incentive than British Rail has ever had to seek to exploit in every possible way, through more extensive and imaginative discount schemes, the possibility of filling up the trains, and that is why--

Mr. David Martin (Portsmouth, South) : Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. MacGregor : May I finish my sentence first?

That is why I believe profoundly that under our reforms there will be more use of such schemes.

Mr. Martin : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is profitable for British Rail to offer senior citizens and young persons railcards, but that the disabled persons initiative, which under his plan will be enshrined in the legislation, is not profitable?

Mr. MacGregor : That is correct, although it is not enshrined in legislation--I shall deal with that later. It is correct to say that in so far as cards attract more passengers there is an obvious revenue benefit. That is why I believe that there is no doubt that franchisees will wish to continue, extend and expand the schemes.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : The Secretary of State is completely ignoring the reality that there is a doubt. He says that there is no doubt in his mind that the franchisees will want to use those facilities, but surely the problem is that, with the break-up of a national rail network and the break-up of InterCity, there is a real doubt. If the Secretary of State is so convinced, why does he oppose legislating to assuage the doubt and to give pensioners and future pensioners confidence that there is no possibility of the cards being withdrawn?

Mr. MacGregor : I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my case ; I shall come to that question at the logical point in my argument.

There is a reason why the British Rail schemes have not been statutory, and that is the danger of inflexibility. As the House will know, British Rail changes the range and types of schemes over time, and wishes to develop them, as I believe that the franchisees will. There is an obvious risk that, if the conditions of any scheme--the people to whom it should apply, and so on--are made statutory, as British Rail or the franchisees wish to develop their schemes they will have to seek primary legislation every time the original conditions are found to be constricting.

There have been good commercial, marketing and--as one of my hon. Friends remarked from a sedentary position--"businesslike" reasons for wishing to operate more and more schemes. That is why we have said that we have every reason to believe that railcards will expand and prosper under the new reforms, on a non-statutory basis, as now, with co-ordination between operators being achieved by joint industry arrangements.

There has been some outside comment on that point, so I must explain that there is no technical difficulty in such arrangements. British Rail currently operates under 19 profit centres, on which, as I made clear yesterday, the franchise units that we expect will be based. The profit centres now within British Rail have to have a clearing

Column 762

house to arrange for the allocation of the relevant parts of the revenue to each centre, so there will be no technical difficulty about such arrangements under our reforms.

I now come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin). We had accepted that the disabled persons railcard was different. It is provided voluntarily by British Rail and it does not make a profit ; so there is not so much a marketing advantage or a marketing scheme here as a social benefit. Moreover, it is available for use in peak hours as well as in off-peak hours and is offered in recognition of the special needs of disabled people. We have, therefore, said that the franchising director will require franchisees to provide common discounts for disabled people on broadly similar lines to the present arrangements. We saw no need for that provision to be in the Bill because we had given an undertaking that we would direct the franchising director in his objectives to require such a provision.

4 pm

In our discussions, my hon. Friends took the force of the point that under our reforms there is a greater incentive for operators to seek to use railcard and discount schemes and that there is a need to retain flexibility. My hon. Friends made two points in response. The first point-- which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford especially pressed and which he has also raised this afternoon--is that, under the voluntary arrangements, we could not guarantee that there would be a national network. One could not absolutely guarantee that there would be no gaps. My hon. Friend has made the point that there may be one or two franchisees who do not share my view and who may not--this is hypothetical--operate a scheme. In that particular franchise, there would be a gap not only for those who travel there but for those who travel through that franchise.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford also made the point that he would prefer the provision to be in the Bill to ensure the continuance of these schemes. I made it clear that one possibility was to require, through directions to the franchising director, that he should do the same in the contracts with franchises for senior citizen railcards, for example, as we have instructed him to do for the disabled. My hon. Friend replied that he had no doubt that I would wish to do that for the entire period that I was Secretary of State for Transport. I can assure him that that is the case. However, he pointed out, and I agree, that these reforms will last for a long time ; they may last longer than I will be Secretary of State--one cannot be absolutely sure of any future Secretary of State. My hon. Friends fully accepted the need to maintain flexibility and saw a positive advantage in that. In return, I accept the force of their two points. I take on board what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford has said and therefore propose to move as follows. I take on board the points, as we have throughout the course of the Bill. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport listened carefully to all the arguments, and where we believe that the case has been made, provided that they are in line with or further our objectives, we are prepared to make changes. The size of the amendment paper reflects that position and that attitude in Committee.

I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford that I fear that new clause 12 is defective for a number of reasons, through which I have briefly taken him. However, I accept the force of my hon. Friend's arguments.

Column 763

Therefore, I now give an undertaking to nt schemes for senior citizens, disabled people and young people. I thank my hon. Friend for the courteous and constructive way in which we have carried out our discussions. He has convinced me that we just needed to go that little bit further to ensure the continuance of such schemes and I gladly confirm that we will do so.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : My modest experience has taught me one thing. Tory rebellions are a bit like tooth fairies--"Believe in them when you see them". There is little in the statement by the Secretary of State that should dissuade the Tory Members who tabled the new clause from pursuing it to the vote. I shall explain why. First, let us be clear that we are seeking not to create new rights or benefits, but to defend existing ones which are threatened--an unnecessary by-product of this unwanted Bill. The only people responsible for putting them at risk are the Secretary of State and his colleagues.

We are seeking to safeguard benefits that are appreciated and enjoyed by millions of our constituents, especially the young and the old. The outcome of the debate does not matter, because the Government have distinguised themselves by creating confusion and uncertainty about a feature of daily life that is valued by so many people. Why have they created that uncertainty? It is not an end in itself but a facilitator for the ideological aim of fragmenting and privatising railway services. It is another example of the fact that mean-mindedness is the essential handmaiden of right-wing dogma.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wilson : I shall give way in a moment. I want to deal with the people who will be affected by this and explain to Conservative Members why the Secretary of State's offer is inadequate. In a sense, I am trying to be helpful. I am dealing with the short-term aim of trying to build genuine safeguards into the legislation. Conservative Members will be affected by the long-term consequences of what is being done, but that is not my responsibility or concern.

Mr. Cormack rose--

Mr. Wilson : I shall give way in a moment. Let us consider the number of people involved in the various schemes, including those schemes to which the Secretary of State made no reference this afternoon. There are 700,000 holders of the senior railcard, 700,000 holders of the young person's railcard and 250,000 holders--the Secretary of State did not mention this--of the family railcard.

Mr. MacGregor : There is a distinction. The family

railcard--obviously this can be discussed--is a clear example of a marketing initiative without the same social connotations as the senior citizens railcard or the young persons railcard. The marketing initiative is frequently changed to meet new marketing conditions. Therefore, there is a distinction.

Mr. Wilson : The family railcard is a social device to get people who cannot necessarily afford to travel otherwise out of the cities and into the country during off-peak periods. It may have an economic benefit for the railways,

Column 764

but it also has a social benefit. It falls into exactly the same category because, if it were taken away, it would not be a significant financial loss to the railways, but it would be a massive social loss to those who enjoy its benefits. The Secretary of State will be on his feet a few more times if he responds to each of my points.

Mr. Cormack rose--

Mr. Wilson : I shall give way in due course.

There are 740,000 holders of the London travelcard. Specifically on the railways--because the travelcard also covers other forms of transport-- there are 300,000 holders of the network card and an additional 300,000 holders who benefit. That is 600,000 people with a network card. There are 55,000 holders of the gold partners card. In total, 2.33 million people benefit from the existing railcard system. All of those people have security in the knowledge that such benefits exist, and will continue to exist, throughout the network. In the legislation, the Government are removing that certainty and replacing it with the lottery that the Secretary of State has been dealing with today.

Mr. Cormack : The hon. Gentleman is making the speech that perhaps he should have made if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had been intransigent. He is paying no regard whatever to the fact that there is no statutory safeguard at present--he is simply spreading unease and anxiety among people throughout the country when he should know better.

Mr. Wilson : The hon. Gentleman may think that he is off the hook with those remarks, but he is not. Frankly, the question whether he accepts what has been said or listens to the facts is a matter between him and his conscience, and his constituents. One of the facts is that many hundreds of thousands of people who hold railcards at present were not covered by the Secretary of State's announcement. We will refer to other deficiencies in the statement later. I see that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) is trying to get to his feet. He was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. He voted for every dot and comma of it and against every effort by Labour Members to build in safeguards. The idea that he has turned up now to express concern is not a runner.

Mr. Raymond Robertson (Aberdeen, South) : Will the hon. Gentleman take the time to tell the House what guarantees present railcard holders have that British Rail will not withdraw them tomorrow?

Mr. Wilson : That is an idiotic question. They have the same guarantees as they had yesterday that British Rail would not guarantee them today. But a secure system is in place, based on the social as well as the economic remit of British Rail. It introduced railcards and it has not withdrawn them for years. Why? That is precisely the point that I am coming to.

The fallacy on which many comments made by Conservative Members are based is that railcards are an economically profitable spec for British Rail. They are not. That is made clear in a document that is crucial to the debate. If Conservative Members have not read the document, they should have. It is a discussion document on network benefits drawn up by the Secretary of State's

Column 765

Department. The document contains the figures on the disabled persons railcard, which I shall deal with in a moment, and on other railcards.

The document states that, while those railcards are profitable overall, they are not moneyspinners. In 1991-92, the senior citizens railcard went into deficit, and the discount rate had to be changed to restore profitability the following year. So the senior citizens railcard is not profitable ; it exists because of British Rail's decision to have it as a social benefit. That is the reality. That is why there is a distinction between British Rail operating the benefits and a plethora of private operators with different motivations being asked to operate them.

Let us examine some of the other conclusions of the document : "Private operators, whose profitability will depend on filling seats, can be expected to exploit modern yield management techniques fully. We believe it would be wrong to tie their hands by requiring the perpetuation of the current range of Railcards."

That is the basis on which the Secretary of State has hitherto proceeded.

Of course, the Secretary of State has climbed down today by bringing the young persons railcard and the senior citizens railcard into the same category as the disabled persons railcard. But it is instructive to examine why the disabled persons railcard was provided for in the first place. Again, shamefully, it has nothing to do with social concern. It has nothing to do with the idea that disabled people have rights and that it is a good social ethos that they should be given reduced cost travel to liberate them and enhance their lives.

In one of the most cynical sections of the document, the case of disabled persons railcards was discussed :

"There would undoubtedly be strong criticism of a policy of allowing the market to decide the future of Railcards. This would be particularly intense in the case of the Disabled Persons Railcard Ministers will want to consider whether there is a case for making an exception for this Card. Financially, the Card is not very significant one way or the other--around 40,000 Cards were sold in 1991-92 with a revenue of around £0.5 million from Card sales, and £2.5 million from fares Many operators might decide"--

I hope that Conservative Members will listen to this, because it is a lesson for the future--

"that the public relations benefits of continuing to offer discounts to disabled people are well worth any small cost. But this is by no means certain and would be an insufficient counter to those who would seek to argue that the Government was being callous in not guaranteeing the continuation of these Cards. On the other hand, a decision to offer such a guarantee would be unwelcome to operators ; it would amount to direct intervention in their decisions about ticket pricing and would limit their commercial freedom."

So there we have the reality. Private operators will not want to operate the railcards and it is acknowledged that they would not even accept the disabled persons railcard if it was not imposed on them. The Government recognise that, for public relations benefits, they must maintain an obligation to operate the disabled persons railcard. Therefore, it is presented as a virtue in the Bill.

On exactly the same basis, they have decided that the public relations benefits of including the senior citizens railcard and young persons railcard in the same category is overwhelming. That is the decision which has been taken now. But exactly the same doubts exist that pressures will come to bear on the franchising director not to impose

Next Section

Home Page