| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Watts: I am happy to do so: Sweden, Germany and Holland, to name but three, are splitting their infrastructure from the operation of services. They have divided services between inter-city, freight and regional railways and they intend to privatise them. No doubt, as they develop the details of their policy, they will want to follow the successful model that we are implementing in this country.
Mr. Banks: That is fanciful nonsense. If that is the Minister's answer to my direct question about which country is breaking up its railways into different, competing parts, as we are doing, he has not answered the question.
Ms Short: It is misleading for the Minister to quote Sweden and Holland in particular, which we have examined as attractive models that seek to reduce track access costs so that road and rail can compete equally and which have two public sector companies. To suggest that that is anything like the Government's proposals is an outrage.
Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend again makes the point that the Government have been revealed as being prepared to deceive themselves and the country about this privatisation. The railway system will be disorganised and unco-ordinated if it is ever split up.
I get angry when I hear the argument about the lack of investment in British Rail. Yes, there has been a lackof investment. The hon. Member for Southend, East(Sir T. Taylor) complained about the line in his constituency and the lack of investment in the past15 years. Has it ever occurred to him that, in that time, his party has been in government? Why does he not blame his party for failing to invest in his British Rail line, as he has a right to do?
The Government say that the private sector will invest resources. Where is the logic in that? If private investors can profitably invest in the railways, why cannot the state equally do so? The only reason why it has not done so is that the Government would not permit it. The Government deprive undertakings and nationalised industries of investment possibilities, services become less efficient and the Government then say, "Oh, we must privatise industries because they are inefficient and they have failed to invest properly." The Government are responsible, however, for the failure to invest in British Rail and in all the other sectors that we have discussed. We know that the Government can always borrow money far more cheaply than any private company car. If they had had the will to invest, investment could have been made.
The Government have failed to invest in the railways and public transport generally. I could go on for a long time, but I will not--my few minutes are almost up.I should like to take Ministers around London, not in the armour-plated, plush limousines in which they get chauffeured around London but on the underground, on British Rail--what is left of it--in the south-east or on the clapped-out buses that belch out fumes and poison Londoners 24 hours a day. They might then not be so complacent about travel, railways or privatisation.
I am not a Front Bencher. I had a moment of glory a few minutes ago when I was left in charge at the Dispatch Box, when I thought that I discharged my duties very responsibly, but I do not have to be cautious and responsible in what I say. I say to my hon. Friends that, if I were in charge of my party, I would tell potential asset strippers of the railways that the buyer should beware and that legalised robbery by the Government of taxpayers' assets would be countered by a Labour Government taking back into public ownership all the assets at a discounted purchase price--assets that have been stripped out of industries that the Government gave to companies at a knockdown price. I would do so--this is a Liberal party suggestion as well, although my proposal is more radical--through interest-bearing bonds that would be redeemed in the future.
Who would be upset by the policy? It would not be the people whom I represent in the east end or, I suspect, the majority of people in this country. It would, however, certainly put off the asset strippers, the fat cats and the City slickers who just stand around waiting to cream off industries at the public's expense.
Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester):
I do not know about you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but for me this debate has a strange sense of dejo vu, both in terms of the Opposition's arguments and of the debate on classification between my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). There may be a case for another ten-minute Bill to classify the Opposition horror stories that we have been hearing, especially from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). They would be classified as fiction by any librarian, that is for sure.
Nostalgia, we often hear, ain't what it used to be, but we will be able to look back on today with great nostalgia. This is the last opportunity for Labour to peddle its horror stories with even a semblance of credibility outside this place, because when we next return to the subject the franchise operators will be providing services. Two are already up and running and we do not know what they will do yet, but we will have evidence gained over a sustained period of the improved service quality that they will deliver.
Mr. Wilson:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This relates to my previous point of order. Would it be in order for the hon. Gentleman to declare the rail privatisation interest of Lowe Bell Communications?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Again, hon. Members know full well the rules of the House. It is matter for them what they declare, or otherwise.
Mr. Luff:
I am not even aware of the rail privatisation interest to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I advisethe Chamber of Shipping through Lowe Bell Communications and no one else.
The current edition of The Economist states:
I say, "Amen to that."
I am already beginning to receive evidence in my constituency of improved service by Great Western Trains. I was delighted to receive a letter on 3 January from its managing director, Brian Scott, who said:
That is precisely the point of privatisation. He goes on:
Is that not interesting? Labour Front Benchers laugh at attempts to increase rail travel. I thought that that was what they wanted. It is certainly what I want. Their laughter speaks volumes for what they are really up to in this debate.
This morning I received another fax from Mr. Scott.I had asked him about the early experience of rail privatisation. [Interruption.] Labour Members can barrack all they want. They do not like the truth--I know that it hurts them. The truth is that privatisation is already bringing benefits. Mr. Scott says of Great Western Trains:
That demolishes the myth that there would be a lack of co-operation between railway companies. We saw co-operation in action yesterday, and it delivered people to their destinations, against the odds.
That myth is but one of a number that I want to demolish. The second myth is the idea of massive fraud. Of course, no part of any nationalised industry hasever suffered any fraud or inefficiency whatever;no constituency Labour party has ever been implicated in any fraud whatever--for the benefit of readers of Hansard, I am saying that ironically. In fact, taxpayers have been ripped off by nationalisation.
The third myth is that privatisation will mean a worse service. I heard your ruling earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about not being able to draw too many parallels with other privatisations, but I had personal experience of British Telecom this weekend when my telephone went wrong, and there has been a revolution in the service quality that it delivers. That will happen on the railways, too.
In my constituency even the preparation for privatisation has led to timetables that, for the first time in living memory, give bus connections, to improved timetable displays at stations, to better on-board services on trains and--I say this with no sense of apology--
to guaranteed services between Worcester and London, for the first time ever. The passenger service requirements, much derided by Opposition spokesmen, provide my constituents with a guarantee of express trains to London. Privatisation means better services, not worse.
The fourth myth is rather an odd one. It is that trade unions do not like privatisation. On the contrary, it seems that they do. We have heard a lot of evidence about their investments in privatised utilities, and the investors include even the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. Will the unions extend that love of the privatised utilities and buy shares in Railtrack? I hope that they will. Then we shall safely be able to say that it will be a case of "do as we do", as well as "do as we say".
The fifth myth, and probably the one that it is most important to demolish, is the Opposition's fanciful claim that nationalised industries are more responsive than the private sector. Of course they are not. I looked back at a debate that took place in the House on 15 December 1952. The Committee stage of the Transport Bill was being taken on the Floor of the House when the then Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, quoted from a Fabian Society pamphlet about the railways published two years earlier, in 1950. It said:
of the railways
Later Mr. Powell said:
That top-heavy organisation endured for 40 years, and only now are we beginning to see the end of that ridiculous situation.
Perhaps most tellingly of all, Mr. Powell quoted a letter from an engine driver living in Wolverhampton, which still rings true 44 years later:
[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) would do well to listen to this, because it might remove the smile from his face, for once. The letter said:
That is exactly what nationalisation led to--not to responsiveness but to a lack of responsiveness, and to remoteness.
According to Mr. Powell, the Fabian Society pamphlet concluded that
The Fabian Society got it nearly right 40 years ago: Opposition Front Benchers would do well to listen.
The official history of the Great Western Railway makes exactly the same point when it says:
There was no increased responsiveness there.
The sixth and final myth is the argument that investment will be jeopardised by privatisation, but is guaranteed by nationalisation. The history of the railways shows that one of the real problems with nationalisation was that it destroyed investment. After nationalisation, southern region could not pursue its electrification programme, as it should have been allowed to do.
The official business history of British Railways, written by Dr. T. R. Gourvish with the sanction of the British Railways Board, said the following about the first 25 years of nationalisation:
It then mentions one or two academic experts, one of whom,
"privatisation . . . is more likely to be a consumer's dream--the start of a new era which will revolutionise Britain's under-invested railway network. Those who jeered that rail privatisation would never get rolling have already had to eat their words.
Even discounting the better management that privatisation should bring, assured levels of subsidy and a stable fare-structure can hardly fail to deliver improved performance."
"I am confident you will see a nice balance between continuity and innovation."
"As far as the Worcester area is concerned we aim to heighten our profile, including the use of local advertising. In order to spearhead this, I am appointing a Cotswolds Business Manager with special responsibility for Worcester, Hereford and the Cotswold Lines."--[Interruption.]
"It . . . faced severe weather problems on its second full weekday of operation. With large sections of motorway and airports in the region closed, Great Western Trains was able to run 99 per cent. of its trains (one Hereford to Paddington cancellation only). Only 5 out of the 133 trains run were over half an hour late despite horrendous weather conditions.
There was excellent co-operation between Railtrack and Great Western Trains who were also able to assist other (BR owned) Train Operating Companies in difficulties by making four additional station calls."
"The paramount fact of centralisation"
"is the remoteness of those responsible for taking important decisions from those whom they affect . . . The term 'management' indicates, not an organisation of human beings, but an amorphous mass of anonymous individuals with 'no soul to save and no backside to kick'."
"British Railways at present are an organisation employing over 600,000 men and the responsibility for decisions in the whole of the system is substantially centralised. No commercial undertaking of so embracing a character as British Railways would endeavour to conduct that undertaking in the top-heavy fashion of British Railways as organised at present".
"Railway employees prior to 1948"--
"Railway employees prior to 1948 were, unfortunately, for the most part adamantly Socialistic. They have now received an effective dose of Socialism in practice, and verily, it has proved a penetrating lesson. They see with scorn an ever-growing superfluity of officials and inspectors, a daily deterioration in efficiency and a relentless intensification of muddle."
"some form of de-centralisation of management into smaller regions, each under a manager having overall responsibility for all departments, is preferable to the present centralised administration."--[Official Report, 15 December 1952; Vol. 509, c. 1071-76.]
7 Feb 1996 : Column 376
"For the railwaymen at large on the Western, nationalisation meant a remote British Transport Commission, headed by people of whom they had never heard, a Railway Executive manned by people only one of whom they knew, and a Western management who obviously would go on playing the traditional tunes."
"The early years of nationalisation were a bleak period in terms of investment, and many writers have traced some of the railways' enduring problems to this situation."
"Ken Gwilliam, also a transport economist, emphasised the difficulties caused by the accumulated disinvestment of the war and early post-war years, the result, he thought, of both the inadequacy of the war-time financial arrangements and the attitude of the post-war Labour Government. 'Facing inflationary pressure . . . [the government had] deemed that investment in railways was an expendable item in the short run.'"
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |