|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Is it inherent within it, although she says that she is opposed to wholesale renationalisation, that some renationalisation may take place?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I believe I made it quite clear that, at a cost of £4.5 billion, renationalisation simply cannot be a priority, considering the other pressures on public expenditure. There are major problems in the current system of regulation. Those are the problems we are addressing, both in the short term by the measures announced on 6th November by my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport, and in the longer term through an integrated transport policy.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the dramatic improvement in the train service on the Edinburgh line since privatisation? Is she further aware that the 15-year franchise awarded to the privatised companies is not long enough to enable them to re-equip with rolling-stock? Will the Minister consider whether the franchise should be increased in order to encourage investment in new and better rolling-stock?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, on the second point, we are certainly interested in encouraging proper investment in the rail network and improvements in service quality. I am sure that local authorities, for example, will welcome the new emphasis on the need for the franchising director to build a constructive partnership with them. When franchises come up for renewal, we shall be examining those questions very carefully.
I am interested in the noble Lord's anecdotal experiences of improvements in rail services since privatisation. I suspect that they are not echoed everywhere in the Chamber, nor everywhere in the country.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if my noble friend agrees that the present system of privatised rail services is not so efficient and not delivering a proper service, and that British Rail delivered a much better service, would not £4.5 billion be a small price to pay to have efficient railways?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, even after six months in government, I cannot say that I think £4.5 billion is a small price to pay for anything. It is important to set the priorities that we said we would set when in government. Those priorities are expenditure on education--we have just heard how strongly the House
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I join with the Minister in her implied comment that not everywhere in this kingdom is everyone 100 per cent. satisfied with their current rail services. Do I need to mention South West Trains, Connex South Central or trains serving East Anglia? Does the Minister agree that one of the problems with the new system is that it is very difficult to place the public interest in a sufficiently dominant or powerful position in the complex of interests that currently rule the network? Can she give any further indication of how the Government propose, through the new regulatory system, to achieve that aim?
Baroness Hayman: Yes, my Lords. The Government's aim is to introduce a strategic rail authority which would allow some co-ordination of exactly the sorts of issues of investment and improving the quality of service to which the noble Baroness refers. As I said, on 6th November the Minister for Transport announced new objectives, instructions and guidance for the franchising director. He announced the publication of OPRAF planning criteria, and a concordat with the rail regulator containing a statement of the Government's objectives for the rail industry, the regulator's aims and objectives and a framework of communication between Ministers, the franchising director and the regulator. That is an attempt to introduce some integration into what is at present a very disintegrated system of regulation.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I know of my noble friend's long-standing concerns about rail services in Wales. I understand that Virgin is committed to exploring with Railtrack the case for electrifying the line between Crewe and Chester. It remains to be seen whether that electrification project will represent good value for money. It is an area that I know they will explore.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that the Question stems not so much from personal interest as from experience as a trustee in one case where the costs involved and time spent seemed to be far more than was reasonable. Is the noble and learned Lord prepared to examine matters and so to arrange them that much of the ground can be covered effectively before the case ever comes to court, without the involvement of counsel, so that the high costs and long duration of time are avoided?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am aware of the case to which the noble Lord refers. I have looked into the case and have discussed it with him. As I said, I share his concerns. In the Attorney-General's office we are particularly acute to avoid both time and costs being wasted because we are aware that all costs spent in relation to these matters are costs effectively taken away from the charity. However, the use of counsel by the Attorney-General's chambers will often reduce the time spent in court, because counsel will be able to reduce the issues, thereby reducing the time. That is our aim.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that charities depend on voluntary contributions, which saves the Exchequer a certain amount of money? Would it not be a good idea to consider extending legal aid to charities, rather than
|Next Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|