| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.41 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East): I have been in a minority in the House on many occasions and I am afraid I am again today, because I am one of the few who are not looking forward to the Strategic Rail Authority and who believe that, because of its excessive powers, it will undermine the good performance achieved by the railways since privatisation.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) offered several generalities, but we should try to work out the truth. He said that privatisation had resulted in increased
fares, but the information I have received from what I regard as a reliable source is that, although fares consistently went up under nationalisation, there has been a reduction of 1 per cent. in real terms since privatisation. That is either true, or it is not.
Sir Teddy Taylor:
The hon. Gentleman might disagree, but he should go along to the Library of the House of Commons, get some impartial information and see for himself.
Mr. Efford:
I seek clarification: in respect of fare increases, is the hon. Gentleman talking about fares as they stood in May 1997, or as they stand today?
Sir Teddy Taylor:
I am talking about what has happened since privatisation, which is a fair way to look at the question.
Mr. Efford:
Would it not be fairer to talk about what has happened since the election of the Labour Government, who have required a better public transport service? Would not that provide a more accurate interpretation?
Sir Teddy Taylor:
Not at all. We have to look at the facts, not try to make points about what has happened since election day.
Mr. Pickles:
My hon. Friend is quite right. It is wrong of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) to try to claim credit for the fact that privatisation set up the mechanism whereby fare increases were restricted to 1 per cent. below inflation. That has nothing to do with the Labour Government or with changes made since the general election. It is about time that Labour Members understood that life did not begin in May 1997.
Sir Teddy Taylor:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is, as usual, spot on--his observations are the most accurate in the House of Commons. However, I am not trying to make a political point, but merely trying to get across some of the facts.
I travel a great deal by train. Because I have unusual views, I get invited to speak in unusual places all over the country, to which I travel by train. There is no doubt that, however one looks at it, there has been a substantial improvement in rail transport. Let us take the subject of investment. We all knew that investment was deplorable when British Rail ran the network. That was not its managers' fault--they were nice people--but trains were getting old and signalling systems wildly out of date, so the service was becoming infinitely worse. Since Railtrack was established, investment has increased by 85 per cent.--not because its managers are nice people but because of the change in the system, Some might say that Railtrack talks too much about what it wants to do or what it might do, but the fact is that that increase has occurred.
A further point that my colleagues often forget is that there has been a substantial reduction in the public subsidy. There has been a massive cut. Since privatisation, the subsidy has fallen from £2 billion to £1.3 billion.
It would probably have gone up a great deal if privatisation had not gone ahead. The subsidy per passenger mile has decreased by 41 per cent. We know that the number of passengers has increased substantially, that the number of freight miles has increased dramatically, that the subsidy has fallen, that investment has risen and that services have been bettered.
Mr. Brake:
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that about £600 million worth of investment is outstanding on slam-door mark 1 rolling stock, which is one third more dangerous than the modern equivalent?
Sir Teddy Taylor:
I can talk only about my line, the Southend line. As he represents the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Gentleman will know that although there are no Liberal Democrats in my constituency, there are many in the next one, who I am sure have used the line. The line to Southend was the most dreadful line. I travelled on it and it was appalling; it was known as the misery line.
Mr. John Cryer (Hornchurch):
Notwithstanding the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, does he agree that there is still a predominance of slam-door mark 1 trains on the London-Tilbury-Southend line, four years after privatisation and about a year after we were promised that there would be new trains?
Sir Teddy Taylor:
I had a meeting with LTS just this week about that. There was a press conference in Room W3 to which about 14 hon. Members were invited, although I was the only one who turned up--[Interruption.] I am the only one, apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who always turns up for meetings to do with Essex and whose commitment is an example to us all. He will confirm the full story that the new rolling stock is to arrive from September.
As the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) is well aware, we were told that investment would not be forthcoming while the line was nationalised, and now it is forthcoming. That is not because people who run privatised companies are nice and those who run nationalised industries are nasty--far from it. It is merely that investment comes through the capitalist system; the Government save a great deal of money in subsidy and, by and large, services are improving.
There may be one or two terrible services. I am told that the Virgin line--wherever that goes--is deplorable, although I travelled on it once and it was fine. If the Government are trying to run an industry as complicated as the railways, which is a very difficult industry to run, why the blazes can they not just admit that there are some failures and some successes, and start naming the success stories? I am not in any sense pushing LTS, although it has been very successful. I am asking why, for the sake of the industry's morale, we cannot say that things are getting better instead of constantly bashing the rail network. The Government have a duty to try to help the image of the railways, especially when it comes to attracting people to the industry.
Some professions, such as teaching which is a perfect example, have a bad image. My third child is just finishing university and has no thought--nor have my other children or their friends--of going into teaching. It is unfortunate, but many say that teaching is not the way
to make big money and get on. That is wrong. I am afraid that the same is true of the railways. Because they have a bad image, many people will not work for them. I happen to think that the railways are doing well and that we should encourage them.
Mr. Quinn:
As someone who worked for the railway industry since 1979 until I entered this place, I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman has commended all the many members of the railway community. For the assistance of the House, will he please explain the damage that his Government did over 18 years, which caused the loss of many thousands of jobs and a paucity of services? He said that excessive powers would be granted to the Strategic Rail Authority. While he is on his feet, will he please explain exactly what those excessive powers are and why they do not complement the development of our railway industry?
Sir Teddy Taylor:
I shall certainly speak about those powers in detail, mention the relevant clauses and provide all the details for the hon. Gentleman. However, I hope that he will accept that it is simply not possible for the Government--whether Labour or Conservative--to find money for railway investment. As he will well know, when the Conservatives were in power, for a long time, money was demanded for many things, such as the health service, but the necessary finances were simply not available.
I felt sorry for British Rail, which was not receiving the investment that it required. The consequence of that lack of investment was that the industry became a shambles. Exactly the same has befallen London Underground. However, the problem with London Underground has not been its managers but the fact that the necessary investment was not forthcoming. Privatisation, which may be unacceptable to some, is a way of dealing with the investment problem. Although the Government are making arrangements with Railtrack that they hope will raise some extra money, we have to solve the problem of finding the necessary investment.
Mr. Quinn:
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that a consequence of the fragmentation of our railway industry is that an organisation that formerly was a whole now has more than 100 parts. As for giving excessive powers to a Strategic Rail Authority, surely the creation of such an authority will provide a focus for developing our railways--essentially bringing Humpty- Dumpty back together again--and ensuring that we really are looking forward so that, for the first time in about six years, we and our railway industry might see some light at the end of the tunnel.
Sir Teddy Taylor:
As I said, the subsidy has fallen whereas, this year, 2,000 new passenger vehicles are being delivered. In the old days, that simply did not happen. Privatisation--I am not talking about a group of nasties or of nice people--is producing facilities that simply did not exist before.
What about the new authority's powers? Although a crowd of new authorities is being established, the Financial Services Authority is the one that horrifies me most. It is the most appallingly powerful body, using its powers to treat cruelly and heartlessly those who run a business. Some of those businesses have been operated for years by very reputable people.
Clauses 8 to 17 deal with all the issues of the Strategic Rail Authority's powers of central direction. If those running the authority want to use those powers to the full, they will be able to rush around and direct those who, in a difficult situation, are trying to run the railway.
The Bill will also provide the authority with the power to impose massive fines. Clauses 19 and 20 will allow people at the authority to impose massive fines and to say, "We don't think that the railway is being run correctly. It's all wrong." Those idiots, who will probably be on very high salaries, with lovely big offices and enormously large staffs, will be able to tell railway companies, "We think you've made a muck of it. Here is a fine of half a million pounds."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |