| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Luff: Ah, a pledge. Labour would invest more in the railways. How pleased I am to hear something concrete at last.
Mr. Luff: How much more? That is the next obvious question to ask.
Mr. Tony Banks: Do not exchange comments with a trainspotter.
Mr. Luff: We hear no more about the amount. Perhaps to expect more would be asking too much--but I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she did say.
One very distinguished figure connected with the railways is the Rev. W. Awdry, whose works are well known to the children of this country. He once observed:
I am glad that the Great Western now has the chance to do it the right way again.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock):
I shall not take any interventions. I am not sponsored by a railway union, but in the abortive legal action that I tried to undertake before Christmas in an attempt to halt the franchising of the London-Tilbury-Southend line the rail unions gave me some assistance with legal expenses.
I am implacably opposed in principle to privatisation of the railways, but, putting that aside, many people who welcome the concept of privatisation still consider the Government's method barmy and foolhardy in the extreme--and that includes some Conservative Members of Parliament. The Conservative-dominated Transport Select Committee has often cautioned the Government about the prudence of the course on which they were embarked, citing especially the problems of inter-ticketing and the transfer of revenues between rail operators.
I am a member of the Transport Select Committee. During hearings, I asked the then Secretary of State for Transport--the right hon. Member for South Norfolk(Mr. MacGregor)--and the chairman of the British Railways Board how there could be transparency and probity when management teams were preparing and marshalling bids at the same time as they were running the railways. That problem is emerging in relation to the LTS line.
The Secretary of State has not given adequate information, to which we are entitled, on when the alleged scam was discovered, by whom, when it began and how widespread it is. It is not sufficient to say that auditors have been called in. He should be able to give us much more information and reassure us that similar problems do not arise--
Mr. Luff:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said that he was not sponsored. Although I accept that an entry in the Register of Members' Interests may change, the register shows clearly that at least a year ago he was sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I think that this is the fourth time that a similar point of order has been raised. I have ruled on each occasion. Hon. Members know full well that it is their responsibility to declare interests--indeed, it is a rule of the House that they should do so.
Mr. Mackinlay:
The hon. Member for Worcester(Mr. Luff) will notice in Hansard tomorrow that I said with great precision that I was not sponsored by any rail unions. I went on to declare the absolute extent of my involvement with them, which was an attempt to frustrate the decision to franchise LTS in the High Court. The hon. Member really should know the difference. He is a silly Member and I regret that he felt it necessary to interrupt in such a way.
I regret that there have been diversions into people's film careers and into other privatisations and that hon. Members have not addressed the central problems, which is what I will do and why I shall not give way. What reassurance do we have that other similar alleged scams or problems will not arise in interfaces with rail operators such as Thameslink, Network SouthCentral and even down as far as Exeter station? The problems with ticketing and fares could arise again and we want assurances that they will not.
How sure is the Secretary of State that what is clearly an irregularity has not interfered with the tendering process? Can he assure us that it has not given some advantage to Enterprise Rail? If he does not know, he should say so. If he can say that there was no problem, he should do so from the Dispatch Box.
Some Enterprise Rail staff have left the company or been suspended. We are told that Mr. Colin Andrews, the commercial director, has departed. On what terms did he leave? If he resigned, terms must have been established. Has he offered a reason for his resignation? Above all,I want an assurance that no money has been advanced as a sweetener, either for his silence or his swift departure. Mr. Andrews' deputy, the commercial manager, has been suspended. Two area managers, better known as station masters--one at Fenchurch Street and one at Upminster--have also been suspended, as well as two others in the commercial department.
In my experience as a trade union official before I entered the House, it was common place for people to be suspended for two reasons: first, so that they would not be able to influence an inquiry and, secondly, in their own interests to be able to demonstrate that they would not be able to influence an inquiry. Therefore, why has not the managing director, Mr. Kinchin-Smith, been suspended? I do not rush to judge him; I know him. It would be in the interests of everybody, however, including him, if he were not at his desk. Clearly, it is inappropriate forhim to stay. Will the Secretary of State tell us whyMr. Kinchin-Smith is still at work?
Mr. Kinchin-Smith was also the architect of the penalty fares scheme. When he was running the LTS line, I told him that many of my constituents considered the scheme foolhardy in the extreme. Legitimate, fare-paying passengers who had wanted to purchase tickets but were unable to do so because ticket machines, even those issuing permits to travel, were not working were embarrassed by the scheme. The scheme was a charter for people who did not wish to pay but who were prepared occasionally without any embarrassment to fork out £10.
It has been discovered that the scheme thatMr. Kinchin-Smith introduced and which he described as the greatest thing since sliced bread has been arbitrarily abandoned. I want to know why. Was London Underground receiving its just receipts? Was it consulted about the abandonment? Were there irregularities in the handling and ending of the penalty fares scheme and,if so, are they the subject of further investigation?
Reference has been made to the franchising director. The Secretary of State has said that he wants the investigation to be conducted thoroughly, and I expect no less of him. When I was spying on the franchising director at Waterloo station on Monday morning, however, he made it abundantly clear to every journalist who was listening that he saw the LTS scandal as a hiccup and
that he hoped--indeed, he was determined--that the LTS franchise would be transferred in three to four weeks' time.
That does not make me confident that the franchising director is not pre-judging the inquiry. Indeed, I regard him as a puppet of the political machine. He is prepared to play the Government's tune, keep his head down and remain determined that the franchise will go through, regardless of what may be discovered. He should resign or be sacked because there is little or no confidence in his stewardship of the LTS franchise and there is little or no confidence in any of the other franchises that have been let.
Unhappily, the South West Trains franchise was wrongly allowed to go ahead on Sunday. The management team, under Mr. Peter Field, marshalled a bid, but it was inconceivable that the Government and the franchising director would let two management bids go ahead. Clearly, room in the garden was guaranteed for Stagecoach and other operators. I am deeply concerned about the way in which the management team at South West Trains was overlooked. It had all the hallmarks of the franchising arrangements for independent television, which resulted in Thames Television's quality bid suffering.
I also noticed on Monday, amid all the trumpeting about two franchises being let, that a Stagecoach bus was parked close to platform 13. I thought that that was a sign of things to come. Inevitably, over time, Stagecoach will reduce its rail services and introduce coaches if it is allowed to get away with it.
For a number of years I had to spend a great deal of time at Surbiton station. I remember it well. The announcement used to go something like this: "The train arriving on platform 3 will call at Esher, Hersham, Walton, Weybridge, West Weybridge, West Byfleet and Woking. Join the front four cars for Brookwood,Ash Vale, Aldershot, Farnham, Bentley and Alton. The other part of the train is for Worplesdon, Guildford, Farncombe, Godalming, Milford, Witley, Haslemere, Liphook, Liss, Petersfield, Rowlands Castle, Havant, Bedhampton, Fratton and Portsmouth and trains to the Isle of Wight."
Trains would also go to Hinchley Wood, Claygate, Oxshott, Cobham, Effingham Junction, Horsley, Clandon, London Road and Guildford, and going the other way they would stop at Berrylands, New Malden, Raynes Park, Wimbledon, Earlsfield, Clapham Junction, Vauxhall and Waterloo.
I cite that list because the areas from which many of those great stations take their names are represented by Conservatives Members of Parliament. It needs to be borne in mind that many of those stations will disappear if the franchises are allowed to endure. Where are the right hon. and hon. Members who represent such constituencies as South-West Surrey, Epsom and Ewell, Kingston upon Thames, Richmond and Barnes, Twickenham, Mole Valley and North-West Surrey to speak up for the maintenance of services that will disappear when South West Trains, under Stagecoach, has been operating for a few months and decides that it is necessary to close intermediate stations and end off-peak services? That is what is threatened--if not promised--by the insistence on Stagecoach being awarded the franchise for South West Trains.
"There are two ways of running a railway; the Great Western way and the wrong way".
6.17 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |