---

Railway Costs

6. Mrs. Patsy Calton (Cheadle) (LD): What steps are being taken to reduce costs within the railway industry. [179614]

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): We return to the cheery subject of railway costs.

As a result of the regulator's review, Network Rail is required to achieve efficiency gains of 31 per cent. over five years. The SRA is also working to reduce costs during the franchising process.

Mrs. Calton: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. He will know that considerable costs have been incurred in the somewhat failed TCS or train control system on the west coast main line. Can he tell me whether the masts erected for the TCS system on the west coast main line are operational now for the purposes that we were led to believe they would fulfil? If they are not operational, when will they be?

Mr. Darling: The answer is that the masts are being tested at the moment. I shall certainly let the hon. Lady know when they come into operation.
 
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1171
 

Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab): Given the immense costs associated with infrastructure investment on the railway and the skill shortages across the industry, can the Secretary of State tell us what recent discussions his Department has had with Network Rail in trying to fill those voids of skill shortages in terms of engineers and the people who will be involved in rebuilding the railway?

Mr. Darling: We have had discussions with Network Rail about that issue. It is one of the reasons why costs have gone up. After many years of under-investment, considerable sums are now being spent not only on the west coast main line, but on upgrading the power supply for trains south of the River Thames. A whole lot of other work is also being carried out, which has an effect on labour costs. Network Rail is looking to see what it can do to improve the situation. Taking maintenance back in house has saved a substantial sum. Indeed, Network Rail is spending a lot less than it thought it would have to spend to get the same amount of work, simply because of the efficiency that it is driving through, having taken over from Railtrack what was a pretty shambolic situation.

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Is anybody currently reviewing the optimal size of the network and thinking about closures of any portions of it? If so, will those involved consider conversion to busways or dedicated freight lorryways, rather than wasting those routes?

Mr. Darling: When I announced the review, I said that one of the things that we should be doing as a matter of course was keeping under review the new markets that were emerging for the railway, as well as the railway services that were not being so well used. The House will recall that, in January last year, when the SRA announced the removal of about 180 Virgin Cross Country services, many people were concerned. In fact, many of those services were not carrying many passengers. As a result of having taken them out, the reliability of Virgin Cross Country in respect of the remaining trains has improved, because the lines are less congested.

I have also said that passenger transport executives in particular need to ask themselves whether heavy rail is the right option and whether light rail or buses might be better. The cost of running heavy rail, especially if it is not carrying significant numbers of passengers, is substantial. The point that the right hon. Gentleman makes is one that I have dealt with previously. Provided that these matters are looked at sensibly, we might get a better deal for the travelling public in some areas.

Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): I am sure that my right hon. Friend accepts that private investment is one way to reduce costs in the rail industry. Some of us were looking forward to the Central Railway project, which would have provided significant economic benefits to the north of England, not least to Tinsley in my constituency, where a major rail freight terminal was planned. Members of Parliament and local authorities in Manchester, Yorkshire and the east midlands support the scheme, and the company says that it cannot envisage a situation in which the project
 
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1172
 
would require public funds. Will my right hon. Friend consider whether the project can go ahead, bearing in mind that the Government say that they cannot support the proposed private Bill?

Mr. Darling: Unfortunately, I cannot see a way forward for that project, which is a point that my hon. Friend the Minister of State made clear earlier in the year. I favour bringing private money into the railways—the Government spend about £77 million a week on the railways, and a similar amount comes in from the private sector—but I was not satisfied that sufficient private money was available to pay for the Central Railway project. I feared that, when the project was half built, the promoters would come to us and say, "We are awfully sorry, can you take it over?" On a number of occasions, I asked the promoters to guarantee that that would not happen, and they could not do so, which is why the Government made it clear that they could not make such a substantial commitment. I am keen to obtain private sector money, but if such private sector projects are to go ahead, we must be sure that they can be delivered.

Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk) (Con): In a spirit of helpfulness, which is appropriate at this early stage of my relationship with the Secretary of State, I shall suggest how to dispel the black cloud that hangs in his office on the issue of railway finance. Will he confirm that the dual regulatory system imposed by the Labour Government has substantially increased the costs carried by the rail industry? Does he agree that the burden that those costs place on passengers and taxpayers could be cut at once if the Government admitted their mistakes and rationalised the operations of the Strategic Rail Authority and the Office of the Rail Regulator?

Mr. Darling: I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman wants to have a close and cordial relationship. In that spirit, I point out to him that on 19 January this year, I announced a review of the railway industry, and that review is examining the structures that he complains about. The SRA does not add greatly to the cost of the railways, but the structure set up under privatisation, which includes numerous interfaces between private companies, is undoubtedly costly. We set up the review to control costs and to obtain a better organisation to run the railways. If the hon. Gentleman and I can agree on that point, our relationship will be fruitful, cordial and perhaps even lasting—I look forward to seeing him on the Opposition Front Bench for many years to come.

Speed Cameras

7. Mr. David Rendel (Newbury) (LD): What plans he has to change the number of speed cameras. [179615]

11. Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): How many speed safety cameras have been removed in the past month because they did not comply with the siting criteria. [179620]
 
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1173
 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): Decisions about increasing or decreasing the numbers of speed safety cameras are made locally by the safety camera partnerships, taking account of the handbook of rules and guidelines issued by my Department. At the beginning of the year, safety camera partnerships confirmed that all their camera sites fully met the deployment criteria. However, approximately 5 per cent. of cameras, although meeting the criteria for placement, may not reduce accidents, and we have asked local authorities and the police to examine other measures to reduce casualties.

Mr. Rendel: The Department for Transport's recent survey into speed camera sites shows welcome reductions in speeding and in the number of people who are killed and injured, including a 43 per cent. reduction in the Thames valley area. Will the Minister accept that he should brave the wrath of the selfish 20 per cent. of drivers who think it more important to avoid fines than to keep people safe on the roads? Will he examine those roads where there are still useful prospects for speed cameras, including, for example, the B4009 in my constituency, where the two fatal accidents in the past two years might well have been avoided if a speed camera had been in use?

Mr. Jamieson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments on speed cameras, the presence of which has meant a substantial reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured. One would hope to hear whether the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) has changed his view on the policy. I am sure that he will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, if he can.

The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) makes an important point. Authorities of all political perspectives, including Tory authorities, have contacted the Department to ask us to relax our rules because they want the cameras put in other places. It is important, however, that such decisions are made locally by local authorities and local police—they understand the local issues best.

Bob Russell: Following the 95 per cent. success rate to which the Under-Secretary referred, I draw his attention to a true story that was published in the Colchester Evening Gazette last week, which stated:

"The number of people killed or seriously injured at sites where safety cameras are in use in north Essex has dramatically fallen."

I want to refer specifically to one of the 17 sites in my constituency. In the three years before safety cameras were installed in Cowdray avenue, there were five serious—some fatal—crashes. In the two subsequent years, there have been none. In the light of that, has the hon. Gentleman received any messages of apology or retraction from politicians who are apparently prepared to envisage death and injury continuing on our roads?

Mr. Jamieson: I have yet to hear from the hon. Member for Ashford in the House or after the correspondence on 29 January, when I wrote to him to ask whether he could tell us the location of the 4,000 sites at which cameras had been installed unnecessarily. When we opened the post this morning, there was still no response.
 
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1174
 

I acknowledge that there has been a substantial reduction in casualties in the area that the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) represents. We all know about the misery that death causes but should reflect on the misery caused by serious injuries that include lacerations, crushed or broken limbs, brain injury and sometimes permanent paralysis. I am sure that the new shadow Secretary of State wants to revoke any policy to remove the cameras that are successfully driving down casualties.

Jeff Ennis (Barnsley, East and Mexborough) (Lab): I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows that the press sometimes reports examples of speed cameras being vandalised, presumably by irate drivers. Are there statistics for the number of cameras that have been vandalised in the past couple of years? What is the Department doing to ensure that such vandalism is kept to a minimum?

Mr. Jamieson: Those who vandalise cameras put people's lives at risk. They must answer a question: if a camera is vandalised and out of operation for a period of time, how many people have consequently been killed or injured? I have not got to hand the figures for the number of cameras that have been vandalised but it has happened to only a few and a minority of people are responsible. I hope that Conservative Members would not support such people—a minority who are determined to continue speeding and put people's lives at risk. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of motorists would reject that idea and such action.

Jim Sheridan (West Renfrewshire) (Lab): On the assumption that speed cameras are designed to save lives in all our communities, is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary aware of the perception that there is a far higher proportion of drivers who speed in more affluent than in less affluent areas? Will he assure hon. Members that the cameras are located for genuine reasons, not by postcode?

Mr. Jamieson: The decisions about where to place the cameras are made locally by local authorities and the police. In the past three years, child casualties have fallen rapidly. In particular, the casualty rate among child pedestrians, who are mainly in the built-up areas of our cities, has fallen by approximately 33 per cent. That must be welcome and is another statistic on which Conservative Members should reflect. I hope that the hon. Member for Ashford will be successful in catching your eye so that he can tell us his current policy on the matter.

Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): Although there is clearly an important role for speed cameras, which anyone of sense and reason would accept, does the Under-Secretary agree that the general public must be persuaded that the siting of the cameras is appropriate? Does he accept that some limitation might be placed on the power of cars that are available to young people to prevent over-powered cars from being in the hands of young, irresponsible drivers?

Mr. Jamieson: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that his own Front-Bench colleagues have not shown sense and reason on this
 
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1175
 
matter, but I shall leave the House to reflect on that. It is important that the cameras are placed where there have been high numbers of casualties. The Department set out those rules very clearly, and the response from the partnerships throughout the country was that the sites met those criteria. In all those areas, the vast majority of cameras are now reducing the number of deaths and injuries on the road.

We have looked at the type of vehicles driven by younger drivers. Unfortunately, even some of the smaller vehicles are very high-powered and are certainly able to go at well above 30 mph; some can do well above 100 mph. The issue here is proper training for drivers, and proper enforcement of the law.

Kevin Brennan (Cardiff, West) (Lab): Did my hon. Friend see the recent case of the pensioner who was prosecuted for taking his hands off the steering wheel to make a gesture at a speed camera? May I encourage my hon. Friend to make exactly the same gesture at all those who call on him to reduce the number of speed cameras, and who put the rights of people who break the law before the saving of lives?

Mr. Jamieson: As I understand the case, the person who was prosecuted had both hands off the steering wheel, which I would not commend to anyone. In the light of the independent report on safety cameras, I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Ashford on this issue. After six months of asking him to withdraw his allegation about the 4,000 cameras, I hope that he will now take back what he said then and put safety ahead of opportunism.

Mr. Damian Green (Ashford) (Con): I am delighted that, this morning, on his own admission, the Minister has withdrawn the absurd claim that he made when he wrote to me in January, that 100 per cent. of the cameras were in the right place. Even he has now admitted that only 95 per cent. are in the right place. He is, however, missing a serious point made in the report that the Government produced last week, which is that there are 384 camera sites at which the number of serious or fatal accidents has increased since the camera went in. If the Minister wants to take the credit for a reduction in accidents at the places where that has happened, he must also take responsibility for the increase in accidents at those 384 sites. Has he told the camera partnerships to take down the cameras that are making our roads more dangerous, and if not, why not?

Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman is now wriggling. What I asserted back in January was that we had been told by the partnerships—many of which are led by Conservative authorities—that all the cameras were in places that met the Department's criteria. The independent report that we commissioned and published has shown that about 5 per cent. of the cameras—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would be quiet for a moment, he would be able to hear what I am saying. The report has shown that, although the cameras are in the right place and meet the criteria, 5 per cent. of them are not having the effect that we want them to achieve. But does that not mean that 95 per cent. of them are having the effect that we want? The hon. Gentleman should now go back and reconsider his
 
22 Jun 2004 : Column 1176
 
policy of taking cameras away because they are ineffective. It seems that the only person on whom that policy has been imposed is the former shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May).

---