House of Lords
Monday, 16th December 1996.
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers--Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.
Railtrack: Freight Services
Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they are aware of any representations which have been made to them or to Railtrack by a group of 25 freight operators, ports and wagon manufacturers alleging that Railtrack is favouring passenger trains while failing to exploit the potential of the network for freight.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I am aware of such representations by the Piggyback Consortium. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, chairman of the Piggyback Consortium, met my honourable friend the Minister for Railways and Roads and local transport last month to relay the consortium's concerns.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is evidence that Railtrack is obstructing plans to enable freight to be carried in increasing amounts on our railway system simply because it does not want to displace the more lucrative passenger services, and therefore priority is being given almost exclusively to those?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords, I do not accept that. With regard to the west coast main line freight upgrade, which I believe is at the core of the Piggyback Consortium's concerns, Railtrack is devoting much effort and spending a considerable sum of money on examining the proposal and attempting to produce costings. A number of new freight services have begun. Railtrack is well aware of the importance of freight. As a commercial organisation it is alive to the possibilities that freight provides in addition to passengers on the railways. However, Railtrack is also trying to facilitate the passenger railway.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware--I go a little further than my noble friend in saying this--that there are serious charges of incompetence against Railtrack right across the country? For example, the capital cost of raising bridges and lowering tracks was estimated by Railtrack two years ago at £100 million, whereas today the estimate is £340 million. That is an extraordinary increase. Will the Minister explain why that is so and why Railtrack is behaving in such a way? It is certainly not popular in Wales, if I may say so.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is clear that Railtrack is seeking to maximise all the opportunities
that are available on the railway. It has a substantial job in trying to make the most of the infrastructure that is in place. I cannot comment on the costing exercise which the noble Lord mentioned, but if he wishes to give me the details I shall investigate that further. Railtrack is a commercial organisation and it must look to all sources of revenue to make the most of its assets. Those assets include freight, which is an extremely important component.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is it not a sad reflection of the stewardship of this Government that after 15 years--
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am corrected by noble Lords opposite. After 17 years is it not a sad reflection that all the Government can come up with are more studies on how to modernise the west coast main line? Would it not be better if the Government modernised it rather than just studied the modernisation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, this has been referred to in previous questions. Railtrack is modernising the west coast main line. We have discussed in some detail the £1.3 billion-worth of plans to that end. We have also discussed the £8 billion that Railtrack expects to spend over the next five years in maintaining and improving the network. Those are substantial sums. Railtrack takes this matter seriously.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, what benefits in terms of freight are expected from the improvements to which the Minister has alluded? Is it not a fact that Railtrack has written to the Department of Transport stating that if the Government want more goods to travel by rail they will have to pay rather more for that? Do the Government accept that?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government have a scheme, the freight facilities grant, whereby under specified circumstances the Government can contribute to the infrastructure costs and the capital costs of key infrastructure where that would result in taking lorries off the road and enabling goods to be transported by more environmentally sensible methods of transport. The Government can contribute, they play their part and they have a scheme in place to do so. This is a partnership between the public sector, in terms of the Government and their ability to provide such subsidy, and the private sector in bringing the dynamism and investment to the railway which it so sorely needs.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is a great pleasure to travel by train as a passenger because the services have improved so much?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes. I find myself in wholehearted agreement with my noble friend. These days so many people are noticing the changes. They realise that the freight companies are working;
passenger companies are seeking to attract people on to the railways. It is only common sense that if you provide the service that people want at the price that they wish they will travel on the railways.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Platt of Writtle, on her exceptional good fortune?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend is exceptionally fortunate in sitting on our side of the House. Therefore she gives the best view possible of the improvements that the great policy of rail privatisation has brought. If the noble Earl wishes to benefit from that, he has only to walk behind the Chair and approach this side.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Viscount please arrange for his noble friend to travel from Euston to Holyhead?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is probably beyond my powers to compel noble Lords to travel on the railway. It seems that noble Lords wish to travel on the railway because of the great services that are on offer.
EU: Partnership of Nations
2.43 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they believe that war in Europe has been, and is more likely to be, avoided under the federal model of Europe proposed by Chancellor Kohl or under the partnership of nations proposed by Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the greatest achievement of the European Union has been to replace a habit of conflict which caused two world wars this century with a habit of co-operation. We believe that that achievement is most likely to be consolidated by maintaining the EU as a partnership of nations. Chancellor Kohl has explicitly rejected a "centralised European state".
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, I should have thought that it was NATO, and not the European Communities, which preserved the post-war peace in north-western Europe. Be that as it may, does my noble friend accept that the German Chancellor said on 2nd February of this year:
- "European integration is in reality a question of war and peace in the 21st century"?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, perhaps I may quote to my noble friend:
- "We want unity and diversity. We do not want a centralised European state that subsumes regional, national and cultural traditions or dismisses historical experience".
Perhaps I may add this. I feel that further discussion on this Question could pre-empt the Statement that is to be made this afternoon, when my noble friend the Leader of the House is to make a Statement. I believe that it would be inappropriate if I were to answer further questions.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it has hitherto been the received wisdom emanating from Her Majesty's Government that the peace of Europe has been maintained by our possession of the nuclear deterrent?
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the more that European countries work together on economic, social, political and military grounds, the less likely is war to break out between them?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page