---

Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South): Railtrack has said that in the first 10 years after privatisation, it intends to spend £1 billion a year on upgrading track, signalling and so on. If, after the general election, we had a Labour Government, would the hon. Lady be able to match that investment or would she leave Railtrack in the private sector?

Ms Short: Conservative Members seem to read handouts from central office rather than listen to the debate. I have already dealt with that point. [Hon. Members: "Answer the question."] So few Conservative Members seem to listen. They are simply here to barrack, which the public do not like.

I have already dealt with the point that Railtrack's 10-year investment plan promises a lower level of investment than British Rail's record, and we all know that previous levels of investment were too low, so that is nothing for Conservative Members to boast about.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Lady should check her facts.

Ms Short: I have checked my facts, unlike many Conservative Members.

Railtrack has been valued at £6.5 billion in modern replacement value for the purposes of setting the costs of access to the track. City experts believe that it will sell for about £1.5 billion. This is a valuable public asset, but it is to be sold off cheaply--£5 billion of taxpayers' investment is to be thrown away.

The scandal goes on because £1.5 billion worth of debts are to be written off in order to help the sale--another £1.5 billion of taxpayers' money thrown away. Most recently, £80 million owed by Railtrack to the train operating company for its failure to meet its contracts is to be paid not by Railtrack but, to fatten it up for the sale, by the taxpayer--another £80 million of taxpayers' money thrown away on this dogma-driven scheme.

The net result is that City experts expect Railtrack to sell for about £1.5 billion and to continue to receive£2 billion each year from the taxpayer with no public accountability. That is an outrageous proposition.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): What does my hon. Friend think would be the reaction if, for example, a Government decided to purchase assets worth £6.5 billion that were privately held for £1.5 billion? What

7 Feb 1996 : Column 342

would the newspapers say about such a Government? Would not they say that that was theft, expropriation or robbery? Are not the Government proposing precisely the same thing now for publicly owned assets?

Ms Short: I agree. This is a disgraceful scandal. It is an ideologically driven project which is throwing away massive public investments and resources in return for a less good rail service. It is an outrage and every Conservative Member should be deeply ashamed.

Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point): Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Short: No, I must get on. I am sorry.

There is a further scandal which concerns the land and property owned by Railtrack.

Dr. Spink rose--

Ms Short: I have made it clear that I do not want to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Will he please resume his seat? I must get on. [Interruption.] I am simply referring the hon. Gentleman to the rules of the House.If I do not wish to give way, he must resume his seat. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist. The hon. Lady has made it clear that she is not giving way.

Ms Short: I shall press on, if I may.

There is, I am afraid, beyond the scandals that I have listed, a further scandal. It concerns the land and property owned by Railtrack. I can best summarise the situation by quoting from a couple of newspaper stories. On 14 January, in the business section of The Observer, Anthony Barnet wrote:

"Property companies are queuing up for a slice of the lucrative development pie expected when Railtrack is privatised in May . . . On Friday"--

the Friday before Sunday 14 January--

"property consultants submitted tenders for the lucrative contracts to manage Railtrack's retail portfolio . . . One of the property consultants who bid, but refused to be named because of the sensitivity of the deal, said: 'In retailing terms, Railtrack is one of the biggest shopping centre owners in the country. But it has been wasting its potential. It has some plans which will be controversial, but could be immensely profitable'."

And we thought that this was all about running our railways.

In The Independent on 20 January, after the regulator had decided that 25 per cent. of the proceeds of windfall profits from property would go to the train operating companies and 75 per cent. would go to Railtrack, Christian Wolmer said:

"The decision to allow the company to keep the lion's share of a property portfolio that some analysts estimate could be worth £2bn"--

taxpayers' money--

"follows a fierce lobbying campaign by Bob Horton, Railtrack's chairman . . . Sir George Young, the transport secretary, also backed the idea of putting what Railtrack's advisers call a 'property kicker'

7 Feb 1996 : Column 343

into the sale, so that the company can be marketed as a high-yielding utility with the added spice of potential property development profits."

There we have it. That is how the Government view valuable land currently owned by the public in the centre of every town and city across the land--added spice to assist the privatisation process.

Mr. David Congdon (Croydon, North-East): Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Short: No, I must get on.

What is to be done about this terrible scandal? I say to people such as John Humphreys, Christian Wolmar, Keith Harper--journalists whom I like and respect, who think that Labour can wave a magic wand and stop all of this--that the problem is that, as yet, we are still in opposition and do not have the votes to prevent the privatisation unless, as I have made clear, some Tory Members of Parliament have the integrity to vote with us to prevent the sale of Railtrack.

Those journalists who constantly ask what Labour will do are letting the Government off the hook and asking a question that cannot be answered by a serious political party preparing for government. The Government have not yet said whether they will sell 51 per cent. or 100 per cent. of Railtrack. We do not know the timing of the sale or the price. No serious party can say precisely what it will do in conditions of such uncertainty.

What the leader of the Liberal Democrats and his spokesperson on transport claim is simply not true.If Labour said that it will buy all the shares in Railtrack, that would not halt the sale. On the contrary, it would mean that there would be no risk in buying Railtrack's shares. They could be sold cheaply, thus wasting taxpayers' money--again--and bought back expensively, wasting further taxpayers' money. Those who think that Labour can somehow stop this flotation by such an open-ended commitment are simply wrong. It is all right for the Liberals, who are not expecting to take power, to make such promises, but it is not all right for the Labour party, which is preparing for power.

How dare the Secretary of State and Tory Members ask what Labour will do after they have done their best to damage and break up our rail network and waste vast sums of public money? Perhaps the Government are so driven by zealotry that they cannot see the reality. Perhaps a simile might help them to understand what is proposed: the Government and Tory Members are behaving like a bunch of thugs who come marauding into a town and threaten to burn down all the civic buildings before an election and then ask someone such as me, who is standing for election in the town, what I would do, if I won, with all the burnt civic buildings. My answer is that I will do all in my power to stop them burning down the civic buildings now and that, if I fail, unlike the thugs,I will do in all my power to restore and protect the civic treasures. Perhaps Tory Members will now understand what their proposals for our rail network really are.

Labour's view is that a crucial public service that receives a large annual injection of public money--that fact makes this unlike any previous privatisation--should be publicly owned and publicly accountable. That is why we vehemently oppose privatisation. We believe that we need higher, not lower, levels of rail investment. That is

7 Feb 1996 : Column 344

why we have for a long time supported the leasing of rolling stock and public-private partnerships to mobilise higher investment levels from the private sector.

It is because we know that it is morally wrong and deeply destructive that we will try to halt the sale of Railtrack. We ask the public to help us by putting pressure on Tory Members to vote to halt the sale. If that fails, we will make our position clear before the sale so that anyone who contemplates buying shares knows Labour's view. We will set out our view when the time is right but, meanwhile, for the benefit of anyone contemplating buying Railtrack, I will list our concerns.

First, there must be public accountability and a return to the public in relation to an annual subsidy of £2 billion to a company that may sell for as little as £1.5 billion. Secondly, 100 per cent. of the proceeds from property development should go into rail investment. Thirdly, health and safety cannot be left in the hands of a company driven by commercial considerations.

Fourthly, we are concerned that track access charges are so high that they make the marginal cost of enhancing rail use prohibitive. We are attracted by the Dutch and Swedish models that direct subsidy into the infrastructure, thus creating profitable train operating companies and allowing rail to compete on an equal basis with roads. Fifthly, we are concerned that the separation of the signalling operation from train operators is inefficient and dangerous and must be reviewed. Sixthly, we are aware that a high-quality rail service requires decent employment conditions for staff. We will oppose savings driven by cuts in pay and conditions.

Labour will use its powers to legislate and to regulate, and the power of the subsidy to create a nationally integrated, high-investment, high-quality rail network that is better used by passengers and freight than the existing system. No one should doubt our seriousness, but, unlike the Government, we will not spend public money irresponsibly on dogma-driven schemes. So much needs doing in this poor old country of ours and so much spending is needed on reducing unemployment and improving the health and education services, housing and much else, that every penny must be spent wisely.

I advise anyone who is thinking of investing in Railtrack not to do so because the structures being created by the Government cannot be left in place. With the help of the electorate, Labour will form a better Government and create a better rail system. That is our promise.

---