| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir George Young: I am delighted to hear of the appetite for privatisation among my hon. Friend's constituents. I shall ensure that the franchising director is aware of my hon. Friend's enthusiasm that that particular franchise should be brought forward.
Mr. Hugh Bayley (York): When the Railways Bill was before the House, Ministers repeatedly assured the House that franchised services would be based on the BR timetable. The Secretary of State has now amended that to "broadly similar to". Will he tell the House whether that amendment would increase or reduce the minimum requirement for franchisees?
With specific reference to the east coast service between London and York, will he confirm that the passenger service requirement will allow franchisees to drop the number of weekday trains from 26 to 17 a day? Will his new formulation allow such a large drop? Will he say what will be the minimum number of daily weekday trains between London and York under his new formulation?
Sir George Young:
It is worth reminding the House that the Select Committee on Transport endorsed the broad approach that the franchising director has adopted in identifying minimum PSRs. The Select Committee stated:
Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the franchising director's announcement later this week for the London-Tilbury-Southend line will enable the successful bidder to state the level of service that is intended? I suspect that it will be far in excess of the minimum PSR. Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the successful bidder will announce the future investment programme which, I suspect, will also be welcome news for my constituents--although Opposition Members who represent the vested interests of the trade unions may not be so happy?
Sir George Young:
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Now that we have resolved the uncertainty, it is important to make progress and to put in the public domain the level of services that are being offered. When that happens, my hon. Friend's constituents will see exactly what is offered by those who have bid for the franchise. I hope that the franchising director will soon award the LTS Rail contract.
Mr. Kevin Hughes (Doncaster, North):
Does the Secretary of State agree that Doncaster is a major station on the east coast main line? At the moment, 33 northbound and 32 southbound trains stop at Doncaster, but there is increasing speculation that in April 1996 that number will be significantly reduced. In the light of last week's Appeal Court judgment, will the Secretary of State guarantee that those services will not be reduced?
Sir George Young:
The hon. Gentleman is making the mistake, to which I referred a few moments ago, of
Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester):
Does my right hon. Friend understand that his best Christmas present to the people of Worcestershire would be to put all the pressure that he can on the franchising director to ensure that the franchise for the Great Western main line service is announced this week? Does he understand my enthusiasm for winning for my constituents the improved services that franchising will bring and for the first ever guarantees of express trains between Worcester, Evesham and London since the Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton railway began services in, I think, 1853?
Sir George Young:
I welcome my hon. Friend's enthusiasm and I share his hope that we may be able to make progress with the Great Western railway in the near future. I think that we shall see franchisees offering services above the PSRs and, of course, they will have incentives to attract more passengers to their trains. We want to reverse the historic decline in the use of the railways. The structure that we are promoting is the right one to do that.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley):
If the Isle of Wight is at the bottom of the list, will the Secretary of State put Lancashire and the north-west there instead, because that would certainly be welcome? Despite what the right hon. Gentleman says about PSRs, people believe that they will lead to a reduction in service provision. Will he guarantee that those who win the franchises will not be able to come back at a later date and ask for a reduction and a renegotiation of their seven-year contracts?
Sir George Young:
They will have seven-year contracts with the franchising director. I invite the hon. Gentleman to wait. I hope that, within a few days, he will see for himself whether those who win the franchises offer services above the PSR--as I believe will be the case. The hon. Gentleman will also see whether they offer better services than British Rail. When that information is in the public domain, people will be able to judge for themselves whether our rhetoric or that of the Opposition is correct.
Mr. John Gunnell (Morley and Leeds, South):
Does the Secretary of State recall that, the last time a group of his hon. Friends rebelled on these issues, the Secretary of State gave commitments, one of which has been mentioned today, on the retention of timetables and the stability of fares, and about British Rail being allowed to bid for franchises? Is not it true that all the proposals have been watered down, that the Secretary of State is not honouring any of the commitments and that, overall, he will create a weaker service in the long run?
Sir George Young:
I am not aware of having broken any undertakings given by any of my predecessors. I have developed a policy that was worked on by a number of Secretaries of State and I have taken it forward. I hope to have the good fortune to be Secretary of State while the benefits of the policy come into the public domain.
Mr. Nick Ainger (Pembroke):
Does the Secretary of State accept that, on the first three franchises, he got off
Sir George Young:
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Appeal Court judgment he will find a response to his question about GWR.
Mr. Ainger:
It is a technicality.
Sir George Young:
The hon. Gentleman speaks about a technicality, but the Court of Appeal spoke about a "limited legal problem". It stated:
Mr. Nick Harvey (North Devon):
The Secretary of State drew great comfort from the court's finding one aspect or another of his policy not to be irrational. Does he see that it would be wholly irrational for the rest of the country to be served by franchise holders who guaranteed to provide services that were equivalent to the old BR timetable while those who served the south-west were at liberty to reduce them considerably? If the much-derided British Rail is capable of providing 14 services a day form Taunton to London, why should the new franchise holder be asked to guarantee to provide only eight? Will the Secretary of State make it a matter of policy to put the south-west on the same footing as the rest of the country regardless of whether there is a technical hitch with that part of the court case?
Sir George Young:
If the hon. Gentleman waits he will see whether SouthWest Trains or Great Western Railways are putting in only the minimum PSR. If, as I expect, they put in more than that, the hon. Gentleman's question falls.
"We also have no objection in principle to the omission of profitable services form PSRs since it would be in franchisees' interests to provide them."
The hon. Gentleman will find some reassurance in my statement because, when awarding future contracts, the franchising director will have regard not just to minimum PSRs but to the totality of services that are offered by those who are bidding for the franchises. It is important for people to understand that minimum PSRs are not the same as timetables. I hope that my statement goes some way towards removing concern.
"We confine our attention to the much more limited legal problem defined above. In approaching that limited legal problem the court must steer very well clear of any involvement in making or evaluating substantive decisions."
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that, if these matters reach the public domain, he will see for himself whether GWR plans to provide the basic minimum or whether it plans to provide much more than that. If we can make progress, the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question will shortly be in the public domain.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |