---

Mr. Riddick: The Leader of the Opposition has talked about his desire to create a stakeholder economy under a Labour Government. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what he envisages stakeholding would represent in the railways if there were a Labour Government?

Mr. Wilson: There are many ways of stakeholding.At the moment, we are all stakeholders in the railways. We all share a stake in the railways and we shall always do so because as taxpayers we shall all subsidise them, no matter who owns and operates them. Another way of being a stakeholder in the railways is to work for the railways. If the hon. Gentleman's idea of stakeholding is for Stagecoach to come in and make 1,000 people redundant or for Wisconsin Railways to come in and make 4,000 people redundant, that is not my idea of stakeholding.

The kind of stakeholders whom I respect are not just those who own and profit, but those who work and those who travel. That is my idea of stakeholding. That is the kind of railway that we shall have--an expanding railway. People will be able to look across to the continent and say, "Yes, let us have some of that." No Government of any country in the world would be prepared to sacrifice their railway network on the altar of lunatic, bigoted, dogmatic privatisation. The British people do not want it either.

I make Conservative Members one final promise.Let them go ahead with this if they wish. Let them do the vandalism. Let them carry out the scorched earth policy. But let none of them be unaware that they will pay a high electoral and historic price as the party which, in the face of all rational advice, set out to destroy our national rail network.

6.46 pm

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): The House always enjoys the wild man of the north act from the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), but much less impressive is his failure to explain clearly his party's position. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), had a chance to do so when she opened the debate and the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to do so in replying to the debate, but he has failed. Perhaps nothing different should be expected of a party which in all things says one thing and does another.

7 Feb 1996 : Column 385

I will give the hon. Gentleman an eleventh hour opportunity to answer three key questions. If so-called new Labour ever forms a Government at some time in the future, will Railtrack be renationalised and, if so, how? The hon. Gentleman's leader, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), said at the 1995 Labour party conference that there would be a publicly owned and publicly accountable railway system under a Labour Government. The hon. Member for Wrexham(Dr. Marek), with the honesty that comes from the Back Benches, said that Railtrack must be in public ownership. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) also made his position crystal clear.

On 8 January the hon. Member for Ladywood said:

"It is for this reason that we are committed to a publicly owned railway. There is no other way to protect the national interest.We will announce our plans for Railtrack if and when the prospectus is issued".

Perhaps she will humour us on this side of the House and accept that the prospectus will be issued.

Ms Short: Read my speech.

Mr. Watts: Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to tell the House now.

Ms Short: The Minister can read my speech--it was all in there.

Mr. Watts: I listened carefully and there was not an answer to that question.

Ms Short: The Minister wrote his speech before the debate.

Mr. Watts: I did not, and I have made copious notes as I have listened to the debate.

Would new Labour breach new contracts with private franchise operators? Opposition Members seem to despise such operators. Will the contracts entered into with the first two franchise companies and those that will be entered into with the next four and in subsequent tranches be honoured or not? If investment of more than £1 billion a year by Railtrack plus investment by rolling stock companies and train operating companies is inadequate, how much should be invested and who will pay?

Ms Short: It is extraordinary that the Government, who are in the process of implementing a policy, should assume that they are going to lose the election to Labour and therefore spend the whole debate asking the Labour party what it will do about the mess that the Government have created.

Mr. Watts: The hon. Lady said that I should have listened to her speech. She should have listened with greater care to what I said. I asked the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North three questions--one, two, three--about what would happen if so-called new Labour were ever to form a Government. I note that we have still not had any answers to those questions.

Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Watts: No.

7 Feb 1996 : Column 386

Mr. Wilson: The Minister asked for answers.

Mr. Watts: If the hon. Gentleman is going to answer the three questions, I willingly give way.

Mr. Wilson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood said, it is pathetic for the Minister to be asking questions instead of spelling out a policy for the railways. [Hon. Members: "Answer, answer."] If Conservative Members say it three times,I will answer three questions.

First, on Railtrack, we will spell out our precise position on the flotation, which we must. Secondly, on the franchises, we have made our position absolutely clear and specifically answered the question that the Minister asked. Thirdly, on rolling stock it is interesting to note that if the Government had accepted our proposals on leasing railway rolling stock years ago, we would not have lost 8,000 manufacturing jobs in the railway industries, the York carriage works would not be closed and we would have new rolling stock on the London-Tilbury-Southend line. We do not have to take lessons on that because we suggested it to the Government.

Mr. Watts: I noted one answer out of three to the questions that I posed. I am glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman that the contracts with franchise operators will be honoured. It is important to hear that from his mouth, as well as from that of the hon. Member for Ladywood, because sometimes it is not clear who is the principal transport spokesman for the Labour party.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) asked whether Labour spoke for the people or for the trade unions. His question shows why we cannot get a clear answer to my other two queries. It is the fear of its trade union masters that prevents the Labour party from spelling out its policy on the renationalisation of Railtrack and its attitude to investment.

We have often heard allegations that the flexibility allowed in passenger service requirements for a commercial franchise would lead to dramatic cuts in services. It is worth spending a couple of minutes examining how, in practice, the first two private operators have planned their services. Great Western, far from slashing services as was predicted time and time again by the Opposition, is committed to continuing to run at least the current number of services and to reducing journey times. That includes services to Fishguard, which I recall were a central feature of one of our earlier debates. There is a commitment to refurbish rolling stock. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, said earlier from a sedentary position, "Ah, a coat of paint." He could not be more wrong. I was talking to Brian Scott, the managing director of Great Western Holdings, on Monday evening at Paddington station.

Mr. Wilson: South West.

Mr. Watts: It is Great Western--Brian Scott. My facts are correct.

I asked Brian Scott when he was going to introduce new livery on the trains. He said that he was in no hurry to do that because he wanted his customers to have refurbished interiors and more comfort inside the trains before turning his attention to cosmetic treatment of the exteriors of the trains. I take great comfort from that.

7 Feb 1996 : Column 387

In the case of South West Trains and Stagecoach, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North will know that Stagecoach is planning to maintain the current levels of service and make significant improvements in the reliability and the punctuality of the services that it runs.

I say to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) that Stagecoach has owned South West Trains, by my calculation, for a little under 65 hours. He should be a little more patient and wait to hear details of its investment plans for improving stations and further plans that it may announce in respect of rolling stock. I am sure that the company will be pleased to share its plans in detail with him and with other hon. Members and their constituents whom it serves as customers.

The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who clearly wants a job as a station announcer--I am sure that he would do it extremely well--asked what assurance there was that there are not other routes where revenue is shared between British Rail subsidiaries and London Underground and where similar irregularities may be taking place. He will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explain that in the past few days British Rail has sent its audit teams to all stations where the allocation of revenue between London Underground and British Rail subsidiaries is significant. The result of the checks on those stations revealed one irregularity--at Walthamstow central, involving 30 tickets worth about £250.

The hon. Member for Thurrock also asked me to speculate about the reasons why other employees of LTS Rail have been suspended. It would be unreasonable for me or for anyone else to speculate on reasons for those suspensions until the investigations have been completed and the facts are known. It is unreasonable for those individuals to be placed under suspicion in that way until their role, if any, in those events has been established and we know the full facts.

---