| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. McLeish: I shall not give way. The Minister will be winding up, and I have been reasonably generous in accepting interventions.
Column 779
The trans-European networks are hugely symbolic of the direction that a modern railway should be taking beyond the year 2000. It is a huge disappointment to people who care about the rail network and want a prosperous economy that the Government are dragging their feet on participation in and support for such an innovative venture. However, it illustrates the malaise that affects our railways and which is solely the responsibility of a Government who will not face their investment responsibilities for the next century, but who instead want to indulge in a privatisation which will not be good for Britain or any part of Britain, and which will clearly not be good for passengers who currently use the rail network.5.31 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Blackpool, South): The people whom I want to benefit from the Government's plans for the rail network are the passengers, not the rail unions which so dominate the Labour party's thinking or the apologists or second-class socialists on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Mr. Stephen: My hon. Friend does the Liberals an injustice by calling them second-class socialists. Will he accept that they are first- class socialists? The evidence for that is that they are making a commitment to renationalise the railways, whereas the Labour party is not.
Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution. I have always been wedded to the idea that the Liberal Democrats could not be first-class anything, but perhaps my hon. Friend is right.
It was no surprise to hear the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) defend the traditional, entrenched producer culture of the public sector unions. I notice that his office benefits from Unison, formerly the National Union of Public Employees, which funds a research officer in his department. I notice that, before entering the House, the hon. Gentleman's history included a period as a researcher for the social work department of Edinburgh university and periods as a university lecturer and planning officer. He does not understand the private sector, because he has never worked in it. Like almost all his colleagues and almost all the Liberal Democrats, he has no idea about private sector business. He and those like him do not understand customer service; they are in the pockets of the public sector unions. Labour and Liberal Democrat policies are all bought and paid for.
Let us consider Labour's position on previous privatisations and the accuracy of its predictions. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) claimed in 1983:
"The public telephone box could be threatened with extinction".--[ Official Report , 18 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 41.]
Would any Labour spokesman wish to go back to the days of a public sector British Telecom?
Labour's record is equally deplorable on other issues. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) claimed that bus deregulation and privatisation
"will not improve the lot of the bus passenger".--[ Official Report , 22 May 1985; Vol. 79, c. 1096.]
What has happened since deregulation and privatisation went ahead?
Column 780
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the warning in lavatories and sleepers on British Rail trains, which states that one should not drink the water? I fear that he may not have heeded that advice, judging by his condition this afternoon. I am really intervening to give him a break so that he can catch his breath. Does he agree that the singular practical and fundamental difference--not a difference of political philosophy--between rail privatisation and all the others that he has mentioned is the difficulty caused by having an infrastructure and operators who pay an access charge to it? The hon. Gentleman is comparing apples with oranges.Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman has failed to understand that I am going through the history of Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen and their inaccurate predictions about privatisation. I promise that I shall deal with the issue that he has raised because it is also important for my constituency.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich was proved wrong, because bus mileage outside London has increased by almost a quarter since deregulation and operating costs--crucially--have come down by a third.
Mr. Keith Hill: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House as to how bus privatisation has benefited the 13 million bus passengers a year who have ceased to use the buses?
Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman's intervention does not relate to the quotation that I read out. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said that bus deregulation and privatisation would not improve the lot of the passenger, but bus mileage has gone up and operating costs have come down by a third.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) that passengers who no longer travel on the buses now travel in their personal cars which, thanks to the prosperity created by the Government, they can afford?
Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. However, I must return to the catalogue of incorrect predictions made by Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) described British Airways as the "pantomime horse of capitalism" in November 1979. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) said earlier, British Airways is now the world's favourite airline. The Opposition were wrong about buses, wrong about British Airways and wrong about British Telecom. They have been wrong about every privatisation.
Mr. Stephen: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and his colleagues were to set up in business as clairvoyants, they would risk prosecution under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968?
Mr. Hawkins: I agree with my hon. Friend. I represent one of the towns that has rather more accurate clairvoyants, and I suggest that some could advise Labour Front-Bench spokesmen in future.
Mr. McLeish: I hate to split up the double act, but will the hon. Gentleman consider the most important difference between the various privatisations, which is
Column 781
that British Rail is going to be axed into 95 bits and then sold? Does not that alter slightly the frame of reference within which he might wish to evaluate his comments?Mr. Hawkins: What my constituents want out of privatisation is an improvement in their rail services. I am interested in the lot of the passenger. Many of the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues were claiming that privatisation would not benefit the passenger-- [Interruption.] I am seeking to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. Long before privatisation, and before pre-privatisation work started, British Rail axed the direct through services between Scotland, part of which he represents, and my constituency, and between London and my constituency.
The hon. Gentleman cannot claim a link between privatisation and the cutting of services. British Rail axed those services at the beginning of a Labour party conference some three years ago. I said then that, when the private sector had the opportunity to be involved in the railways, we should get back those through services. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a private sector operator is proposing to reintroduce direct through services, which will benefit the passenger.
The result of the Government's policy, and the method that they have used, is bringing back to passengers services that the nationalised system got rid of. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. In part, it is also the answer to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy).
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) spoke about the £200 million--a mere bagatelle--that it would cost to take part of Railtrack back into the public sector, as is suggested by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). The Liberal Democrats propose imposing that cost on the British taxpayer for up to six years. If the hon. Member for North Cornwall believes that the pursuit of that Liberal Democratic dogma represents good value for the taxpayer, I beg to differ. The problem with the Liberal Democrats, as I think Winston Churchill previously said about another Liberal, is that
"he has sat on the fence so long the iron has entered his soul."
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting his historic allusions mixed up. At the next general election, the public will obviously have a political choice to make, based on what we have to offer and our list of spending priorities. No one in the House should take any lecture from any Conservative, when a Conservative Government have presided over the billions of lost public money which was the poll tax--its invention, destruction and replacement. We will take no lectures about the Conservatives' prudential fiscal approach, given that track record.
Mr. Hawkins: The most important current factor about the rail network, and what is best for its customers and passengers, is the damaging proposals of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen to disrupt rail services yet again. That will cost the taxpayer even more money and damage services to passengers, just as last year's signal workers' dispute led to the loss of £173 million.
Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford): I was not in the Chamber for the early part of the debate, so can my hon. Friend
Column 782
please remind me whether any member of the Labour Front-Bench team took the opportunity to condemn the proposed rail strike?Mr. Hawkins: No such opportunity was taken, but that is not surprising, because the Labour party has always been an apologist for the rail unions, which dominate it. Every member of the shadow Cabinet receives research help or sponsorship from a trade union, so it is hardly surprising that they simply support their union paymasters.
Mr. Keith Hill: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Conservative party always defends the right of workers to strike in a free society yet invariably condemns them when they make the effort to do so?
Mr. Hawkins: The point about the proposed strike is that many of the train drivers and ASLEF members either did not vote, or voted against a strike. Well under half of those entitled to vote supported the strike. The proposed dispute is damaging not only to passengers' interests but to those of the taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman's friends in the rail unions support that strike call, as they have others on many occasions, because they see it an opportunity to fight a political, ideological battle. It has nothing to do with anyone needing any more money.
The train drivers are being offered a 3 per cent. pay increase while many of my constituents, who are struggling in the private and the public sectors, have been offered nothing like that. Many people have taken a pay cut to keep their businesses going. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the 3 per cent. offer is inadequate, I invite him to stand up as an apologist for the train drivers. I note that he does not want to accept that invitation.
We have sensible rail workers, including many who learned lessons from last year's dispute involving the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. When the leader of that union recently called on his members to support the proposed strike, 9,503 staff voted against industrial action and just 8,980 voted in favour. I am sure that all the passengers who were delighted with that result are disappointed that ASLEF drivers, despite being offered a 3 per cent. pay increase, are calling for an unrealistic increase of 6 per cent. That is double the rate of inflation. They plan to damage passenger interests and to bring the rail network to a halt. We need to provide continuing opportunities to attract private sector companies to the rail network because they would offer good services to passengers by introducing competition and investing in the rail infrastructure and new rolling stock. That is in the interests of the customers and the passengers, and that is why I support the Government's policy of privatising the rail network. 5.44 pm
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale): As this is a Liberal Democrat Supply day, and reference has been made already to a by-election in another constituency, it is worth recalling what happened during the 1986 Ryedale by-election. The then successful Liberal candidate--in the old days of the Alliance--made it clear during the campaign that the privatisation of the buses would be a complete and utter disaster. What has happened since? The bus service in the Greater York area is now
Column 783
recognised, even by Labour-controlled York city council, as the best it has been for years. That is the consequence of that successful privatisation.People may say, "Oh well, there are few rural bus services," but that was always so, and just a few passengers use them. At least people are aware of the commitment to continue the public subsidy of those socially desirable rural bus services. Those same principles underpin what the Government are seeking to achieve with the railways.
I am a strong supporter of privatisation generally, but it must be recognised that it is difficult to accommodate and accomplish it in some industries. Without doubt, privatisation has been a success in the transport sector. One need only consider long distance coaches, the road haulage business, buses, the British Airports Authority, National Freight and British Airways--an undoubted success--to recognise that. Those companies have done considerably better in the private sector than in the public sector, to the point where they have become world leaders, which is undoubtedly true of British Airways. We must ask whether that same success could be achieved for the railways. What benefits would privatisation bring to the railways? Is it even reasonable to compare the success of those other transport operators with the railways?
Even the most avid enthusiasts of British Rail would acknowledge that the railways do not work as well as they should. That was even truer before the Government announced their privatisation policy five years ago. It is a paradox, but, if anything, the most notable improvements in railway performance have occurred in the past four years, since the Government's commitment to privatise the railways was established.
Many of those improvements were achieved after significant increases in investment, especially in new rolling stock. My part of the world, Yorkshire, has benefited from the successful completion of the electrification of the east coast main line, which now provides far better services than those to which we were used. Sadly, that does not mean that the trains always run on time, but the service has improved and it is recognised as an international leader. If there is a link between investment and improvement in railway performance, it suggests, as many hon. Members, particularly those from the Opposition, have sought to do today, that if we could only attract more investment, all the problems would be solved. I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Cornwall is not in his place, but I am sure that his colleagues will recount my following remarks. He referred to the annual report of British Railways Board, published just a few days ago, in which Mr. John Welsby, the chief executive, said that the current level of investment was not satisfactory. Mr. Welsby is in a good position to know that as he is the chief executive of the British Railways Board. He has told us that there is a need for more investment. Yet in January, as recently as six months ago, as the House heard earlier from the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley), the British Railways Board said that there was no commercial case for replacing old rolling stock on South Eastern Railways, especially in Kent, despite the fact that some of the trains are more than 30 years old.
Column 784
I believe that part of the reason why there was no commercial case was the constraint of trying to meet Treasury rules, in order to make out a case for leasing new trains, even by a private finance initiative. The House knows from previous debates that the decision by the British Railways Board, on one hand saying that there is not enough investment but on the other effectively rejecting a privately funded opportunity to acquire new trains, has had devastating consequences for the people of greater Yorkshire, in the form of the announcement in May that the ABB carriage works in York is to close. I remind the House that, even though the chief executive of the British Railways Board said that there was no commercial case for new rolling stock, as recently as December 1994 the head of South Eastern Railways told Conservative Members who represent Kent constituencies that new trains could be expected to be ordered fairly soon. As you are probably aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have taken a great interest in that matter because the carriage works has been local to many of my constituents, and I have tried, as has the hon. Member for York, to save the carriage works in his constituency from closure. We have considered carefully the possibilities of using private finance to get new trains on the railway by means of the private finance initiative, but, sadly, it has not come to pass. I am left with the overall conclusion that, the railway remaining in the public sector, the rules of public finance by the Treasury are too stringent.The British Rail chief executive, Mr. Welsby, said in his annual report that the current demand and emphasis should be on infrastructure. Despite the fact that I would much prefer more new rolling stock to have been built and ordered from the York carriage works, I believe that he is right about that. Indeed, the success of the electrification of the east coast main line is an example of what can be done when we are bold and when the funds are available to bring our railways up to date and make them the modern infrastructure that they need to be. The news that the west coast main line is to be re-electrified and modernised is very welcome.
I was an avid train spotter as a young lad, and I remember when the first electrification took place. It is staggering to consider that it is probably the best part of 35 or 40 years ago. All the steam trains disappeared, and we did not believe that there was much fun in watching the electrics go by; they were not the same.
I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, when we speak about infrastructure, please do not neglect the need to repair and renovate some of the rural lines, because they provide an extremely important service to local people. A privatised railway will continue to require a subsidy for those services from Government.
That argument for more capital investment--the debate has partly been characterised by that--always appears to be based on the assumption that only more public money can succeed in achieving that. The Government are blamed for not having invested enough money in the railway, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in his opening remarks, the Government's record on rail investment in recent years is very good. We should do more, but I fail to understand where in the public purse that new money will come from.
The fact that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) could not, in answer to my hon. Friend the Minister, answer directly what a Labour Government,
Column 785
God forbid, might do if they were in office about, for example, renationalising Railtrack or making a further commitment to capital investment in the railway as a public sector operation--the fact that no amounts can be pledged--is a clear recognition that the Labour party knows that money does not grow on trees for that type of investment.The House must face up to the reality that, if we want a truly modern railway, the amount of moneys that we need to make that a reality will come only from the private sector, not the public sector.
Any successful business reinvests out of retained profits or it seeks capital, whether by borrowing or in the form of share capital on which it expects a proper return. That is the basic economic fact of life. However, the key to the problem that we have with our railway is that, in the past 40 years, there has been a steady, gradual decline in rail passenger numbers. That has come in parallel with a dramatic increase in the use of the motor car and of road freight.
Mr. Stephen: They are more prosperous.
Mr. Greenway: That has been accompanied, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) said from a sedentary position, by many people having greater prosperity and the opportunity to buy their own cars and exercise their freedom. As my hon. Friend the Minister said recently, they can exercise their freedom to get into their own car and go where they want to in their own transport. There is, however, the opportunity for a dramatic change of public attitude and public behaviour, an opportunity to reverse that trend--to have more rail passengers, not fewer, and to get some of those cars off the road, especially for long journeys.
I shall always regard this period in the House as one of great sadness, because that opportunity to reverse passenger numbers must mean more railway trains, more carriages on our railway and more newly built modern trains, such as the Networkers, which are now being built in York for the Kent coast, and it is tragic, and sad for ABB York, that all that will happen too late.
I invite any Member of the House who is in the York region in the next few months to go and watch the gleaming new trains in the sidings being finished off--they will be running on lines in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) before too long--and to realise that, by Christmas, the carriage works will be silent and, just as we are about to embark on a period when we need more new trains, that modernised carriage works will be closed.
I mentioned earlier the need for more infrastructure investment and the fact that, in my eyes, that can come only from the private sector rather than the public sector. There is a parallel with what has happened in other privatisations in the past 10 years.
The water industry is perhaps the best example to draw attention to because, undoubtedly, for 25 to 30 years there was chronic under-investment in the water industry by successive Governments. That has not meant that putting that right has been popular with customers, who now must pay greater water charges for the improvement in infrastructure that must take place. However, had we left the water industry in the public sector, we should not have had the investment programme currently in place through
Column 786
the private sector, which is now so necessary. Those hon. Members who scream and shout about the extra charges to customers must recognise that there is a public demand for higher standards in water and in sewerage.The same argument applies to the railways. The public want a better rail system--of that I am in no doubt. But the funding for it will not come out of the Treasury, whichever party is in Government.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff, Central): The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting comparison between British Rail privatisation and the water industry. Does he agree that a more accurate comparison would be with the deregulation of buses? During the deregulation of buses, there has been little evidence of huge investment in better and improved buses, and no evidence of extra passengers on those buses.
Mr. Greenway: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I began my remarks, and I am not sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were listening at that time. I was saying that, in the Greater York area, the privatisation or deregulation of buses has led to the best bus service that York has had for years. There has been an increase in the number of passengers and there have been new buses--big, medium and small. The Labour-controlled York city council is now proud of the service that is being provided. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's argument stands up.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I was at one with the comments on the Treasury made by the hon. Gentleman before the intervention of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones). There is no doubt that, whichever political persuasion holds power in this country, the Treasury sees its remit as being to release as few funds as humanly possible, and it always will do.
I do not understand another aspect of the approach of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. By all means we can give the management of the railways more commercial freedom and flexibility to raise money and invest--I see no difficulty with that and it is not an ideological issue. The problem is that hiving the railways off into a multitude of individual companies and separating them from Railtrack goes way beyond the rational realisation of the policy that I think the hon. Gentleman, as a constituency Member, would want to see, and on which I agree with him.
Mr. Greenway: I am not totally out of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. If he waits until the end of my remarks, which I am coming to shortly, he may hear me say what he has been saying, but in a different way.
We have a structure which has been agreed upon, whether or not it is the right one or could have been better. I am not an expert in such matters and am not in a position to make a judgment. However, the hon. Member for York and I set up the York Railway Forum. In the early stages of that forum, it was clear to us, certainly to me, that a great deal of work and effort by British Rail employees, from board level to shop floor workers, had been put into creating the new structure. To stop it now and tear it up would create an even bigger hiatus than the hon. Gentleman alleges has resulted from privatisation.
Many of the present problems, such as the closure of the ABB carriage works, have occurred because the process has taken far too long. It is six years since we
Column 787
privatised the British Rail engineering carriage works. There is no question--even ABB itself says--that, three to five years down the line, there will undoubtedly be a huge increase in demand for new trains in the private sector. I should like to have seen the process speeded up, which is why I feel that the situation at ABB is so sad. I have taken up quite enough time, but I want to make one more point. In essence, far from blaming the current difficulties on the privatisation process on which the Government have embarked, the House and Parliament as a whole should now, as they should have done before, recognise the inevitability of what is happening and embrace it with far more enthusiasm. Even in this debate, the House cannot obtain a clear message from the Opposition about what they would do with the railways were they in Government. That is a clear recognition that they know that, were they to form the next Government, there is no blank cheque for the railways or for any other public sector industry.To conclude and to put the final cherry on the cake of my argument, I referred a minute or so ago to the York Railway Forum, which we established three years or so ago to talk about York's future as a railway centre. York city council commissioned a report from railway consultants Steer, Davies and Gleave. The report's chief recommendation was that York--the city council, the chambers of commerce and all the industries represented in that great city--should embrace privatisation with enthusiasm. The report suggested that York should be promoted as a railway centre, but we are not doing that. I can only commend that philosophy to the House, because I fervently believe that if we want a railway in the future of which we can be proud, we can achieve that only through private sector finance. I simply say to my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, "For goodness, sake, let's get on with it."
6.5 pm
Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester): This afternoon's debate has been interesting for at least two reasons. First, I thought that it was a Liberal debate, but Government Members have made all the constructive contributions--indeed, virtually all the contributions. One Back-Bench Labour Member has spoken and no Back-Bench Liberals--there have been only three of them in the House throughout the debate. It must be a Government debate after all.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Had he been longer in the House, he would know that, in a three-hour debate such as today's, we are not entitled to more than one speech at the beginning and one at the end. We could not intervene even if we wished to do so.
Mr. Luff: At least the Liberal Democrats could have come to listen to the hon. Gentleman, but they did not even do that.
The other interesting feature about this debate was the disappointing speech of the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). It was long on waffle and short on facts. His speech consisted largely of a series of assertions in which he suggested that the reason for the debate was the Government's ideology. I should remind him that the
Column 788
reason for the debate is not the Government's ideology, but an attempt to correct the failures of the Labour party's ideology. As I said in the House in April last year, it was the Labour party whose approach to the nationalisation of the railways created all the difficulties in the first place. The Labour party created that ugly monster, the British Transport Commission, on 1 January 1948. Under Labour's Transport Act 1947, it had a duty to provide an integrated system of transport in Britain. But, as "The Great Western Railway History"--the official history, published in 1984--reveals:"Sir Cyril Hurcomb, Chairman of the BTC . . . made the mistake of organising rail, road and water in five separate Executives and . . . selected incompatible people for the Railway Executive, which left him with no hope of integrating road with rail, and no chance of integrating the four railways."
Nationalisation destroyed the hope of an integrated transport system in this country. The Government are setting about trying to correct that, which I welcome.
Declaring interests seems to have been the flavour of this debate. My interest is rather modest: I am a shareholder in two private railways, in which I take pride. The first is the Severn valley railway, in which I am a founder shareholder and where I recently took my first course in learning to drive a steam locomotive. The second is Eurotunnel, which is the most dramatic example of the contribution that can be made by private capital towards providing transport infrastructure for the next century.
I am a reasonably regular rail user and have benefited from the investment made in the Worcester to London services, which has transformed the use and quality of that line. I also look forward to benefiting from the upgrading of the west coast main line, which will be brought about by this Government's policies, using the private sector in imaginative ways. I believe that the railways should be allowed to benefit from privatisation in just the same way as all the other privatised utilities have benefited.
I recently gleaned intelligence from a journalist that the Labour party intends to target me because of my support for rail privatisation. I look forward to deriving some benefit from that in my constituency. I welcome anything that the Labour party can do to stimulate debate about rail privatisation in my constituency. We will win that debate, because the services will improve while Labour Members continue their foolish policy of support for industrial action that will only undermine the railway's long- term future. My real concern is the interests of my constituents-- particularly those who do not have access to private transport. The interests of the passengers are at the forefront of my mind when I offer the Government my unqualified support on rail privatisation. We have heard the figures about the declining usage of the railways, but they are worth repeating. In 1953, 17 per cent. of all passenger journeys were by rail; in 1963, the figure was 12 per cent.; in 1973, 8 per cent; and in 1995, 5 per cent. Something is going wrong, and the problem must be corrected. We need a new policy approach; not more of the same tried, tested and failed policies of the Labour party. The same decline has occurred in the transport of goods by rail. The percentage of goods carried by rail has declined from 28 per cent. in 1953 to only 5 per cent. in 1995. That is not good enough, and we must do something to correct the imbalance.
Column 789
I am not one who believes that everything is wrong with our railways; I believe that we have many reasons to rejoice in the way that our railways are functioning at present. The railways have an excellent record of coping with the needs of disabled passengers. There is no legislation in place, but ours is probably the best railway in the world in terms of the accessibility of its rolling stock to the disabled. All InterCity coaches are now accessible to people in wheelchairs, and I am told that there are more toilets for disabled people on British Rail trains than on all the trains in Europe combined. We should recognise that good things are happening on our railways.There is much talk about trains in this country running late. If I could arrive as reliably at my destination by car as I can by train, I should be a happy man. We think nothing of adding half an hour or three quarters of an hour to our estimated journey times by car, but the same thing is viewed as an abject failure when it occurs on the railways. The Eurostar receives appalling treatment whenever its service fails. It does not happen often, but it receives an incredible amount of press coverage when it does. How often do those who travel to Paris by air--I do not do it often, Mr. Deputy Speaker--face an hour or two-hour delay from air traffic control? There is no coverage by the tabloid press in those circumstances, but it is a scandal whenever a train breaks down. We do not serve our railways well, and they deserve better treatment.
InterCity is the only main-line railway in Europe that makes a profit and I think that it still has more trains running at more than 100 mph than any other railway in Europe. I concede that there is a lot to be done if we are to build on existing strengths. Labour Members referred extensively to through ticketing. I do not think that the marketing of our railways is adequate. The ticketing structure is extremely complex--it is so complex that Labour Members obviously do not understand that through ticketing does not exist at present--and interoperability is a real problem.
There is a complex framework of savers, supersavers and awayday tickets. One can see the notices at Paddington which say that a certain ticket is not allowed on this or that train; it is a complex issue. I do not believe that the railways are getting their marketing right, and that is one of the central reasons why I strongly support privatisation.
We have heard about the track record of other privatised industries, each of which has improved the quality of the service that it offers to customers. The same thing will happen with the railways. On 23 January 1994, the Financial Times wisely said:
"If the railways were working well, there would be an argument for leaving them alone. As it is, even with some of the highest fares in Europe they are under invested; passengers are still too often made to feel as though they are an incumbrance to the running of the railway, rather than the reason for it; and the trains do not run on time."
I think that the Financial Times is being a little hard on British Rail with that last remark. The railways need the injection of enterprise, flair, marketing expertise, management skill and new sources of capital that privatisation will bring.
In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) talked about accountability. The accountability that matters for the railways is its accountability to its passengers. That accountability is
Column 790
sadly lacking at present. I believe that privatisation will make the train-operating companies accountable to their passengers. I believe that the passenger service requirements and brand-new contractual conditions on operators will also play a vital part in improving accountability. At present, British Rail can run down its services on a line without being accountable to anyone. Now we have guarantees of service--I know what the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) said, but I still see them that way--never before enjoyed by the people of Worcester.When the PSRs were initially put out to consultation, scare stories were circulated by people who claimed to be friends of the railways but who only undermined them. They said that the service would be reduced from three to two InterCity trains per day. That is nonsense; for the first time, we will have a guaranteed InterCity service. Someone living in Worcester who wants to travel to London reasonably regularly will now know that a rush-hour train will travel in each direction. That is guaranteed under the PSR, and it is a huge step forward.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's logic. Is he saying, as a Member of Parliament and a rail commuter, that he is happier knowing that there will definitely be one fewer train per day than having one more train per day? He seems to be applying some bizarre logic.
Mr. Luff: There they go again. Two trains are guaranteed, the existing trains will still run and the Great Western managing director has said that he plans to run more services, not fewer. I will quote from the press release. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked a question, so he should at least have the decency to listen to the answer. The Great Western Trains press release of 31 January this year states:
"The timetable plan for May 1995 maintains the current level of services and consideration is being given to the introduction of additional ones".
It may come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman, but these things must be planned. I know that Labour Members do not understand the private sector, but it is a little embarrassing when they reveal their ignorance so spectacularly.
Levels of service are important, but the small things matter as well--they show that the railways care about their passengers. The standard of service is improving locally as the rail network prepares for privatisation. The new Thames timetable for the service operating between Worcester and London is a radical improvement on everything that went before it. It lists the stations and states what facilities are available at each. It sets out the route very clearly and, most interestingly--Labour Members would do well to listen to this--it lists the times of buses connecting with the rail service. The so-called fragmented railway has produced an integrated timetable which bears testimony to the success of the Government's plans.
There have been other improvements, such as better on-board service on the 125s--all first-class passengers are treated as though they are actually wanted on the train, and receive newspapers and a free drinks trolley service. The new timetables that are on display at my local stations enable people who do not understand how the railways operate to learn what trains go where. Those improvements are a direct result of the Government's plans.
Column 791
Things will only get better. Some problems need to be addressed, but the Government have fostered a creative tension in the railways, rather than a complacent, monolithic bureaucracy. It means that individual companies are fighting for market share and for customers-- and hopefully they will fight Railtrack from time to time. Railtrack still has a lot to answer for locally. The weeds at Shrub Hill station are a disgrace.Mr. Keith Hill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
| Next Section
| Home Page |