| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, progress made in relation to administration is obviously in part a matter for the administrator. He shares the Government's hope that the process will be completed as quickly as possible. As my right honourable friend has said, the Strategic Rail Authority is sponsoring a bid team assembled under the leadership of Ian McAllister to develop a bid based on the concept of a "company limited by guarantee". Interest has also been shown by other bodies.
With regard to the financial issues, upon making the administration order, Her Majesty's Treasury agreed to make a loan of £2.1 billion to Railtrack. It was provided to enable the administrator to discharge the administration creditors and to keep the rail network operational. This funding agreement was designated to keep Railtrack both liquid and functioning in administration, and business went on on the usual basis. It was always envisaged that the loan would be repaid once the Government had secured state aid, which they did in February. Railtrack and the administrator are currently in discussions with the banking community to arrange the refinancing of the loan. The Government will get their money—taxpayers' money—back with interest.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, reverting to the noble Viscount's original Question, does my noble and learned friend recall that one of the main virtues of the privatisation promoted and put through by the party opposite was that it would entirely remove ministerial involvement in the management of the railways? Given that, perhaps this is a rather odd question for the noble Viscount to ask today. Is he aware that many noble Lords on these Benches feel that the most important contribution that Ministers can make towards getting the trains to run on time is to choose the right people to run the industry? The appointments of Richard Bowker as chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority and John Armitt as chief executive of Railtrack have been universally welcomed in the industry.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, on the second part of my noble friend's question, I too very much welcome the appointments of Mr Armitt and
Mr Bowker and I agree that those appointments have been widely welcomed throughout the industry. The effect of administration has been to compel Railtrack to focus on its core activity; that is, to work for the good of rail users. Perhaps I may quote from Nigel Harris, the managing director of the publication entitled Rail. In the edition of 6-19th March he stated that:
- "Administration has finally both compelled and allowed Railtrack to prioritise on its core job".
With regard to the first part of my noble friend's question, I shall not be tempted to join with him in describing the noble Viscount's question as "odd".
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I declare an interest in that this morning I was a passenger on the Yorkshire Pullman, which nowadays is the 6.40 a.m. train from Skipton to King's Cross. From Leeds and Wakefield and then on to King's Cross, the train ran almost one hour late. Apparently the delay was due to the train not having left the depot on time; it was not clear whether it was the train that had not woken up or whether it was the driver.
Will the Minister join me, first, in congratulating Great North Eastern Railways—perhaps not on this morning's Yorkshire Pullman—but on its proposal to introduce in its new timetable a half-hourly service for much of the day between Leeds and King's Cross? However, would he also agree that there is no point in having the most visionary timetable in the world if the trains then in fact run an hour late?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree that one of the important objectives for which we should aim is reliability—that is, consistency with a timetable. It would be unwise for me to comment on what the right timetable would be for the Great North Eastern Railway.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, has any estimate been made of the economic cost to the country of these horrendous delays? If not, is it not time that we had such an estimate? While the Government are making that estimate, should they not also make an estimate of the economic cost of delays on the motorways?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know whether or not such an economic estimate has been made in relation to either the railways or the motorways. I do know, however, that it should be—and is—a priority of the Government to ensure that those delays are eradicated as quickly as possible.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if politicians spent less time intervening in the day-to-day management of the railways, that might give the management of the railways more time to solve some of the problems?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government have placed Mr Bowker at the head of the
SRA and Mr Armitt at the head of Railtrack and left them to get on with the task of making the trains run reliably.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend confirm that the reliability figures for the last period show that Railtrack's share of delays has gone down? Does he agree that that is probably because Railtrack plc and Group have been separated and that the plc people can now concentrate on running the railway? Is he aware—I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group—that the most reliable service on the network is operated by Consignia Royal Mail trains?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know the answer to the last part of the noble Lord's question. I shall write to him about that. The share of performance delays between Railtrack and the train operating companies remained little changed. There was a 2 per cent rise in Railtrack's share during the quarter, but that is typical of the autumn period.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the only government who have had any success in making trains run on time was that of Benito Mussolini? Is it the policy of either his party or the party opposite to induce a dictatorship such as that of Benito Mussolini?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is certainly not the policy of this Government. The noble Viscount will have to ask the Opposition for their view on that.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, many Members of the House will have noted the noble and learned Lord's difficulty in keeping a straight face when, in his original Answer, he spoke about the normal lessening of services in the autumn. Can he explain to the House the difference between the figures for this last autumn and, say, the previous two autumns?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am very sorry that my cheery disposition caused offence to the noble Lord. I shall seek to look suitably more serious from now on in relation to the Questions that I am asked. As to the figures for the autumn before and the autumn before that, the autumn before was the period immediately after Hatfield and so the performance during that autumn was probably worse than this autumn.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is the Minister convinced that it was entirely sensible for the ownership of the trains to be separated from the ownership of the tracks? If so, why?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord, in a spirit of inquiry, draws attention to the decision made by his party to separate the two. Obviously the administrator is looking at the next
stage of the process. As to whether or not it was sensible to separate trains and track, there are differing views on that issue.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that, about 25 years ago, my father wrote a short poem on this subject? The poem was:
- "Do you remember in 1908,
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Baroness's father had written a poem.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, can the Minister say what capacity restraints, such as those imposed on the Welwyn viaduct, have been recently eliminated? What plans are there for further elimination of capacity restraints?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not in a position to answer that question. I shall write to the noble Earl.
Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that later today my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will table a Motion on Afghanistan to be debated in the House next week on Monday, 25th March. The Motion will ask the House to take note of developments in Afghanistan and the war on global terrorism. The debate will follow the Second Reading of the Proceeds of Crime Bill. It will not be time limited and a speakers' list has been placed in the Government Whips' Office.
Business of the House: Debates this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Brennan set down for today shall be limited to two-and-a-half hours and that in the name of the Lord Parekh to three hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page