| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Dunwoody: He was running his office while riding the train.
Mr. Tredinnick: If the hon. Lady wants to intervene again, I shall give way.
Mr. John Heppell (Nottingham, East): Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many times Bob Horton has been working on the footplate in the past year?
Mr. Tredinnick: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make a point, and I do not blame him for that, but I said riding on the footplate, not working.
Why were those railway companies held in such high regard? Why did they have that esprit de corps? I am provoking Opposition Members. I will give way to the Labour Front-Bench spokesman.
Mr. Wilson:
The merest twitch of a muscle and the hon. Gentleman offers to give way. It is very encouraging. We are on a serious point. Let us get a little consensus. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in condemning any of the franchisees that reduce the two-man operation of trains to single-man operation by removing the guard?
Mr. Tredinnick:
The hon. Gentleman is very ingenious in somehow linking the good name of the Great
Mr. Wilson:
We are in a debate.
Mr. Tredinnick:
We are, and the facts are that some trains can now be run without two men--that happens on the underground in London because of the improved signalling system.
There will be a different level of service on the new railways because of the new blood that is coming in.I shall give two examples of that new blood. A French company is buying in--I should say investing--as is an American company with much experience. That transfusion of new ideas is in no way detrimental to the interests of passengers or of anyone else in this country, and I foresee extra employees on trains.
On the Japanese Shinkansen system, a trolley of food and drinks is constantly taken up and down the carriages and there are telephone services. I understand that Virgin is going to introduce telephone and even television services in the first class section. That is the way to get passengers back. Those needs have to be serviced with such facilities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) and I had the honour of serving on the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill. As you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, consideration of that Bill took longer than the Great Western Railway Bill in the 19th century. I think that the Committee sat for 300 hours. In fact, we sat for a year--long enough to walk from here to Madrid at a leisurely pace across the Pyrenees with a short stop in Paris. It was an instructive experience considering the difference between the French and British rail networks and the problems of the network in Britain.
Looking to the future, if we imagine Britain's rail network coming into London as the branches of a tree, the channel tunnel rail link, when it is built--and it will be--represents the trunk. As people and freight travel down that high-speed rail link, it will become increasingly important for Britain's links with Europe and its prosperity. That new and vital railway is to be built, not by the state but with private money and to a very high standard. That is another reason why the railways should be privatised. It is incompatible to run the east coast, west coast, midland, Great Western and southern main lines--the five main groupings--as state industries when there is a tendency in Europe towards private systems, which are more effective.
The principal hub in London will be at St. Pancras and there will be another at Waterloo. With the privatisation of our railway companies and the new CTRL line, we will have a dramatically improved service for everyone. Bringing the west coast main line into St. Pancras--the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill Select Committee did not recommend that, but the company that is to build the line has volunteered to do it--is significant and important for all hon. Members whose constituencies lie on or near that line.
I must refer to two more issues, freight and the environment. First, one of the great catastrophes of the post-war British rail network has been the decline--one might say the demise--of freight. It is appalling that so little freight is carried on British Rail. In fairness to
British Rail, it has been difficult. The improvement in the road network has been a disincentive, but British Rail's pricing policy and the quality of the service has been poor. If we are to be competitive in Europe and to get our goods over there, we need the enhanced system that the channel tunnel rail link will bring. I certainly welcome the proposed new freight terminals--the one near the M1 and A5 near my constituency will be significant. Through privatisation, I hope that we will not only enhance passenger services but make it easier, cheaper and of greater interest to businesses to put freight back on to rail.
Secondly, on the environment, people are increasingly concerned with environmental matters. The road programme is being cut and there is huge concern about fumes and congestion, as well as worries about protecting our countryside. I do not think that we will see improvements in the scale of the network, which is expanding again, or in the quality of rolling stock and equipment in a nationalised industry. For example, one notices quite a lot of pollution when travelling on diesel trains and I think that the denationalised private companies will start to filter the air on trains--[Interruption.] It is perfectly possible and the public will demand it.
My hon. Friends have referred to improved facilities for the disabled--I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford did so. People demand and expect better facilities for disabled people, and that is absolutely right.
The midland main line goes through Leicestershire and I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I briefly refer to the importance of that line. National Express is the preferred bidder and I understand that the bid is with the Office of Fair Trading. To understand the possibilities for the midland main line when it is privatised, my constituents must consider what has happened with Great Western, South Western and the other lines that have already been privatised.
A betting person would have to say that, given the new facilities that have been introduced, many benefits will flow to the midland main line, which goes from London St. Pancras to Leicester and on to Sheffield. I expect a much enhanced service. Having served on the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill and having always taken a great interest in railways, I look forward to pressing National Express, if it wins the franchise, to provide the kind of service that my constituents expect. If it wins the franchise, that company will have a wonderful opportunity in that the service will finish at the new and soon to be much improvedSt. Pancras terminus.
Mr. Hugh Bayley (York):
The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) concentrated more on the railways and associated matters than many Conservatives
To say that privatisation will magically shift freight from road to rail, which needs to happen for environmental reasons, and to say that without any evidence of the policy changes to make it happen, is simply to express a pious hope. We need those policy changes, but it will be harder to introduce them when the freight companies are not run by the Government.
The hon. Gentleman said that the quality of service on a publicly owned system is poor and inevitably poorer than on a privately run system, but that is not so. His examples of what a private company could do are already being done by a public sector British Rail. There are telephones on trains--I use them every week going up and down to York. I say "telephones" because there are more than one. A trolley service goes up and down the train offering tea and coffee, and there are complimentary seat reservations.
The man who used to run the east coast main line service travelled on it every day. Unfortunately, he has not won the franchise to run the service. When he ran it as a British Rail service, it made a profit of £76 million a year, which went to the Treasury or to British Rail's coffers and was recycled to provide other services that needed a public subsidy. The person who has won the franchise to run the east coast main line will be paid a similar sum to run the service but he will be subsidised by the Government instead of contributing the profits to the rail network.
It is not true that all public rail services are bad and all private rail services are good. Rail services in which decent investment is made are good and those in which it is not are bad.
The Independent yesterday carried an article stating that Railtrack's executive directors will pick up bonuses this year that could double their salaries. That will cost almost £1 million a year. According to The Independent, the bonuses will be paid in Railtrack shares.
From the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who has now left the Chamber, we heard the new politics of envy--the Conservative party saying that it is deeply upset that a number of successful business people are contributing to the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman felt that that was a disgrace.
The public in general are angry about the telephone number salaries of directors of recently privatised companies. They are surprised because those directors are doing broadly the same jobs as they did when they ran public sector water companies or various public sector utilities. In the main, their jobs are substantially different from those of directors in sections of the economy that have always been in the private sector.
If a company is manufacturing a product in competition with another company manufacturing the same product, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to be rewarded if he takes market share from the competitor, but the vast majority of the newly privatised utilities are private monopolies.
A senior manager of a big food company in my constituency recently told me that he was seething with anger at the way in which the bosses of the privatised industries had inflated their salaries two, three or fourfold. He was angry because he said that they are not engaged in competition. They work in monopolies and can simply abuse that monopoly to pay themselves more.
The public will therefore perhaps not be surprised by the news in The Independent that Railtrack's executive directors are getting on the gravy train with which we have become so familiar. However, I am surprised because of the answer to a question that I asked on23 October last year. I asked the Secretary of State:
I received a simple, straightforward answer from the Minister for Railways and Roads:
However, we now find that the directors are to double their salaries and that that doubling will be paid in shares.
The pathfinder prospectus, which was issued on Monday, is meant to promote the sale that we are debating, but it reads more like a dodgy estate agent's list of property particulars. We all understand the technique. Such particulars say, "This property has panoramic views", which means that the sunlight is blocked by the gasworks; or they say, "This property has excellent letting potential", which means that it is not suitable for owner-occupation. That very technique is used in the pathfinder document.
The important thing about the 250-page document is not what it says but what it skates over, weaves around, or leaves out. For example, page 15 states:
"how many shares and share options will be issued free or at a reduced price to Railtrack directors when the company's shares are put on the market; what he estimates the total value of directors' free shares and discounts will be; and how many directors will be eligible".
"There will be no share options for Railtrack directors."--[Official Report, 23 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 581.]
"It is Railtrack's policy to develop its property portfolio with a view to maximising the benefits to Railtrack's customers and shareholders."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |