| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.48 pm
Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey): I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few comments in this interesting debate. I welcome the privatisation of rail services for the reasons on which my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) touched. Like all other privatisations, rail privatisation will improve the service that the public receive, improve the management of the business, lower the cost to the public of using the service and enhance investment in it.
The Opposition say that the Conservative party is driven by dogma in wishing to privatise and franchise rail services, but that is far from the truth. We are driven by a desire for rising investment, better services and more use of the railways. I represent a constituency that is riven by two motorways. I know as well as anyone the damage that cars do to the environment and the pollution that they cause, so the matter is of great concern to my constituents. I deplore the fact that, under nationalisation--despite the £54 billion that has been poured into the industry since 1948--there has been such a dramatic decline in rail use by passengers and for freight.
Nationalisation of the railways has not worked; it has been an unmitigated disaster. It is not dogma that drives Conservatives to want to see the liberalising effects of privatisation, but an urgent desire to see an improvement in the service. If we are looking for dogma, we should look to the Labour party, as its only solution to the problems of the rail network is to renationalise it.
It is one thing to have principles and to believe in state control--I understand that some Labour Members are still prepared openly to admit to that--but it is quite another to offer as the only response to the declining use of rail the very formula that has proved such a disastrous failure in the past.
My constituents want investment. They want the investment that privatisation can harness. They want the £1 billion a year that Railtrack has said that it will invest in renewal and maintenance work in the 10 years following privatisation. Instead of endlessly escalating prices, they want fares pegged to the rate of inflation for the next three years, and to below inflation for the four years after that. They want independent regulation of service standards. They want the statutory protection that privatisation will introduce for the very first time.
The fact that British Rail was accountable to nobody for the service that it provided probably accounts for the fact that, in many cases, that service was famously deplorable. Under nationalisation, British Rail became a national joke, an emblem of British decline--the British disease. People were fed up with being left standing on cold, dark platforms with no information, not knowing when the next train was coming, and not knowing when they would get home or get to work. It was a peculiar hell
invented by British Rail. It even reached the stage where Saatchi and Saatchi, I think, launched a campaign, for which the slogan was, "Sorry seems to be the hardest word". It certainly was for British Rail because, instead of sorry, all too often we got a shrug as the member of staff shuffled off to get another cup of tea.
My constituents want an end to the restrictive practices that have flourished under the vast, monolithic structure that was BR. As with so many other nationalised industries, the overriding feeling of the people who used the service was that it was run for the benefit of the employees, not the users. Under privatisation, all that will change. To be successful, the new franchisees will have to make themselves attractive. That means investing more in equipment and people. In the private sector, the old BR shrug simply will not do.
It is extremely sad that, whereas in 1953 24 per cent. of all goods were carried by rail, only 5 per cent. are today. We all want more goods to be carried by rail. The Railways Act 1993 will help substantially and the greater flexibility that is being introduced should encourage more freight on to rail. In that context, I commend the work of the piggyback consortium--
Mr. Wilson:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have noticed in the Register of Members' Interests that the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) is a consultant to S. G. Warburg Group plc, which is advising Railtrack on the flotation. Do you think that the hon. Gentleman should have declared an interest?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
That is purely and simply a matter for the hon. Gentleman concerned. Hon. Members know the rules of the House, including the new rules.
Mr. Ainsworth:
I have had no discussions of any kind with S. G. Warburg on the subject of Railtrack. Had I done so, I would of course had made that clear earlier in my remarks.
I return to the subject of the piggyback consortium, which includes 40 freight operators, port and terminal operators and local authorities, who have got together to develop a scheme that will increase dramatically the capacity of the rail network to carry fright at relatively little extra cost. I commend the work that it is doing and I wish it well.
That is more than I can say for the proposal by Central Railways, which involves the construction of 180 miles of new railway between Leicestershire and Calais. There is growing evidence to show that that proposal is technically flawed and economically dubious. In the meantime, it is causing severe blight to my constituents and those of other hon. Members the length of the line. The best thing that I can say about it is that I hope that it reaches an early resolution. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is listening carefully to these remarks.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West):
The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) should have declared the fact that he was a parliamentary affairs
I do not want to be controversial, but rail privatisation is total lunacy. It makes no sense whatever, however it is examined. It is not based on any rational transport or economic arguments, and none of the arguments for it has persuaded the public that it makes any sense. If there is any sanity left on the Conservative Benches, the Government would abandon this proposal, because clearly it is not doing them any electoral favours. No other country in Europe--despite the Secretary of State's comments on the split between the railways and the operators in other countries--is splitting its railway system into all these organisations. No one would follow that crazy example. If any countries were so doing, the Minister would have been able to answer my question.
The procedure is pretty straightforward. The Government scrap British Rail's debt--a debt that is owed to the people of this country because the money was borrowed. We deserve to see it coming back to us, as we would expect if we had lent money to any other concern. Having scrapped the debt, they sell the assets at knock-down prices. Even the lunatics on the Conservative Benches could sell the assets, because they have discounted them heavily. We know that Railtrack was originally valued at about £6.5 billion. The Government are prepared to accept about £1.5 billion. I would like to know what the real figure is. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how much they are prepared to accept for Railtrack. It will not be anything like the £6.5 billion valuation.
Private operators receive subsidy to the tune of an extra £700 million--from taxpayers again. What sort of privatisation is it when the Government sell off an industry cheap and still expect those who have had their assets taken away to continue to subsidise the private operator?
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley):
Would the hon. Gentleman care to remind the House which union he is sponsored by, and does it invest any of its pension fund money in privatised companies?
Mr. Banks:
I am sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union and I have not faintest idea where it puts its income. If the hon. Gentleman wants to find out, he can read its annual report in the Library. Will he then tell me how we can ever find out who puts money into the Tory party, which will not publish its accounts and show which crooks and fascists from abroad invest in it? The hon. Gentleman should not lecture us about honesty and openness in accountancy, either in the unions or the political party. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker;I feel much better for that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |