| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Corbyn: Before the right hon. Gentleman finishes his eulogy of the privatisation of the railway network, will he comment on the increase in the number of complaints against individual train operating companies, and on their inefficiency since privatisation began?
Mr. Redwood: People think it more worth while to complain now than they did under nationalisation because
there is a proper complaints system and it is more likely that something will happen. As a train user myself, I know that services in my area have improved, but also that they are not yet good enough. I want further progress to be made as a result of more investment and more enlightened attitudes. Services are a great deal better than they were 10 years ago, although considerable room remains for improvement. As the Secretary of State has often pointed out, performance around the country is patchy. We would welcome anything that could sensibly be done to raise the performance of many operators to the performance of the best.
Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro and St. Austell): The right hon. Gentleman should be wary of saying that services are a great deal better than they were 10 years ago. The passenger figures to which he referred followed a dramatic drop during the recession engineered by the previous Conservative Government. The numbers have risen merely back to where they were before that recession.
Mr. Redwood: My point was well made from my own observation of standards of service in my local area. It can be borne out by many of my constituents, who recognise that there have been improvements in punctuality and reliability, but that there could be even more.
Mr. Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central): Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the sale of Railtrack for £1.9 billion--it is currently valued at more than £8 billion--is a clear example of how the British taxpayer was ripped off by privatisation? Does he further accept that giving away Railfreight for £240 million of taxpayers' money, just so that people would take it off our hands, is a complete disgrace? Any idiot could have predicted the increase in freight transportation under Governments of either political persuasion. This Government have advocated constraining the growth of road traffic, and everyone wants to see more rail freight and greater profitability in that industry.
Mr. Redwood: I remember how the then Labour Opposition succeeded in doing everything that they could to undermine the rail privatisation and sale. Labour did everything it could to damage the sale price and to lower the proceeds. We warned at the time that Labour was doing damage, and that is what occurred. The shareholders of that company are now benefiting from its success. It has picked itself up after that unwarranted criticism--and in the face of unwarranted criticism from the Secretary of State on bad Tuesdays--and has developed a much better business.
Mr. McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, if the Government produce privatisation plans--they tell us occasionally that they will do so, as is the case with air traffic control--he will not call from the Opposition Front Bench for renationalisation? Will my right hon. Friend enable the Government to secure the true market value of the industry concerned--unlike Labour did to us?
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend can rest assured that I am unlikely to call from this Bench for renationalisation.
He will also be well aware that I am always in favour of taxpayers getting a good deal. Conservative Members will do everything in their power to encourage a fair--even a good--valuation of any assets that the Government wish to sell.
Mr. Prescott: I recall that a previous Administration nationalised Rolls-Royce--but I shall leave that aside. Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that when the then Opposition attacked the then Government's privatisation programme for British Telecom--there was concern about the share price--the Government did what we advocated with regard to Railtrack: they waited until after the general election and then brought forward the proposal so that the taxpayer did not lose out in terms of the share price? The previous Government could have done that with Railtrack, but refused--presumably because they thought that they would lose the election.
Mr. Redwood: We thought that we needed to get on with it because the railway industry deserved privatisation. We have seen that the results of the privatised industry are much better than those achieved under the nationalised regime.
Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) has a brass neck to level the charge that he has just made? The twenty-fourth report of the Public Accounts Committee on the flotation of Railtrack, which was published on 13 July 1999, underlines precisely the point that my right hon. Friend has made--namely, that political opposition to the flotation undermined investor confidence and the share price. Does my right hon. Friend think that the hon. Gentleman should do his homework before contributing to the Second Reading debate?
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right, but I must now make some progress.
The Secretary of State began by saying that "A Fair Deal for Motorists"--a popular policy that we launched last week--represents the sum total of our policies in this area. He should know from our debate last week that our fair deal is popular, but it is only part of our transport policy. We also have exciting policies to promote more rail, tube and bus travel to ensure that people get out of their cars and on to the buses and trains. The Government still do not seem to understand that most people do not live by a bus stop or a train station. We need to make it easier for motorists to get to the bus stop or the train station and be able to park when they get there. That is a truly integrated transport policy--rather than the disintegrating policy over which the Secretary of State is presiding.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Public Accounts Committee report, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) referred, revealed that an unprecedented four pages of Labour's policy document spelling out what it would do with the railways should it be elected depressed the price
Mr. Redwood:
My hon. Friend has admirably strengthened my point.
Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test):
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of one of the key findings of the PAC report? It states that:
Mr. Redwood:
It reinforces my case. The main reason for any undermining was because Labour made matters as difficult as possible by putting the accent on all the negatives and on none of the positives--as they were so good at doing in respect of privatisation policies and much else.
The Secretary of State said that the other day I was on the radio arguing with a train operating company representative over railway policy. He clearly did not listen to the broadcast. As I made clear on that programme, my argument is with the Secretary of State himself: it is his policy that has miscarried; it is his inability to persuade the Treasury to give him the money that he needs in order to do up public transport facilities; it is his transport policy that is falling to bits--clobbering the motorist but not providing a better alternative. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen a little more carefully the next time that I am on the radio.
Mr. Prescott:
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. As John Humphrys pointed out, we were talking about the Strategic Rail Authority--we can listen to the tape if the right hon. Gentleman cares to do so. The train operating company's representative made it clear that the operating companies fully supported the authority. That was his point. It was also John Humphrys' point--even though the right hon. Member for Wokingham wanted to talk about anything but the SRA.
Mr. Redwood:
My worry about the way in which the Government have presented the Bill to the public and to the House is that, until today, they have concentrated on only two clauses--those that relate to the power to fine companies that do not perform--and have ignored the wide-ranging powers contained in the other 32 clauses. Those powers will greatly strengthen the hand both of the Secretary of State and of his creature, the new quango. I have repeatedly made the point that that is a dishonest spin on a massive piece of legislation; it is a backdoor nationalisation measure, which would give the Secretary of State extremely wide-ranging powers to play at trains exactly as he sees fit.
"The timing of the sale was a factor in the poor value achieved, and the Department themselves acknowledge that the large increase in Railtrack's share price since flotation was because it had been undervalued and sold in haste"
Does that not completely undermine the case that the right hon. Gentleman is making?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |