---

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I can see the point of this. We have got a rather anomalous situation that mirrors that which I believe existed on the Continent in the mid-19th century. France and everywhere had ID cards and controlled the movements of their citizens extremely rigorously. The only people allowed to travel freely, who could get on with life and trade and other things, were the mad English, who did not have any form of identity, not even a passport. The Continent had to accept that they could have freedom of movement, so they lived a much more privileged existence. That would be completely the wrong way round to treat our citizens and would cause a lot of trouble, so we need to get this right.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Amendment No. 9 would include the number and details of any ID card issued to an individual by another nation under the list of registrable facts under Clause 1(5).

The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, has, I think, half-anticipated our response. Simply, the amendment is unnecessary, as that information may already be recorded on the register. Clause 1(5)(g) lists among the registrable facts,

"information about numbers allocated to him for identification purposes and about the documents to which they relate".

The corresponding parts of Schedule 1 are: paragraph 4(1)(h), which allows the recording in an individual's entry of,

"the number of any identity card issued to him by the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom";

paragraph 4(1)(m), which provides for the recording of,

"the date of expiry or period of validity of a document the number of which is recorded by virtue of this paragraph";

and paragraph 7(a) of Schedule 1.
 
16 Jan 2006 : Column 494
 

Noble Lords made points about visitors. It is an expectation and requirement that those coming to this country will have to have valid travel documents. Short-term visitors—those staying here for less than three months—will not be obliged to have an identity card, whether from the EU, other countries or, indeed, British citizens living abroad. They will not be required to register unless and until they are resident for three months. After that time, however, as we carefully explained in Committee, it will be a requirement to register, so a document will exist for them.

I think that answers the points, and I am happy that the noble Baroness has moved this amendment so that we could give some further explanation.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. There is more thought to go into this, because it is not all straight and easy to understand. It is important that the citizens of this country feel that it is all straight, above board and understandable. At this stage, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.30 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Rail Travel

7.30 pm

Lord Faulkner of Worcester rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to provide capacity to match the increased demand for rail travel.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I start by expressing my thanks to all noble Lords who have put down their names to speak in this short debate. I know that in the world outside Parliament, the efforts of those who speak up for the railways are always appreciated.

Britain's railway is now the fastest growing in Europe. In the past 10 years passenger numbers have grown by 40 per cent, which is faster than in any other European railway. The numbers have outstripped those carried by the SNCF in France, and are exceeded only by German railways. Numbers are now higher in Britain than at any time since the late 1950s. Freight-tonne miles have also increased by more than 50 per cent since 1994. I expect that my noble friend Lord Berkeley may have more to say about that in a moment.

The growth in passenger numbers has taken place across the board—in long distance journeys which, in British Rail days, we used to call InterCity, in London and the south-east, and in regional services, including virtually all those that used to appear with depressing regularity on potential closure lists—particularly
 
16 Jan 2006 : Column 495
 
those that have benefited from association with the community rail partnership. Thank goodness that the railway has now stopped planning how to make itself smaller, and is instead planning for growth.

There are three reasons for that. The first is economic growth. Demand for rail travel rises with GDP. A strong economy is good for the railway, and the railway is good for the economy. Secondly, the railways have improved their marketing and passenger appeal. New and more frequent trains are popular, and the railways are rather better at telling the public about them.

The third factor is a negative one. It is people's realisation that travelling by car is not as much fun as it used to be. Private motorists find themselves caught up in traffic jams, and when they get to their destination, they find the streets clogged with traffic, parking spaces hard to find and, for most people, it is increasingly expensive.

Governments of both parties in the past failed to realise the potential of our railways to offer solutions to those problems. Instead they believed that they could deal with them by building more and more miles of motorway—the classic predict and provide approach.

The success of the congestion charge in London is prompting us to look closely at a national system of road-user charging. That cannot come a moment too soon, and already those trends have encouraged rail growth and the switch from car usage. In the past 10 years, train mileage has increased by 20 per cent, and the number of trains run has gone up by 12 per cent to a total of almost 20,000 passenger trains run each day. The network is larger, with 148 miles of new or reopened lines for passenger services in the past 10 years, with 51 new or reopened stations.

That programme of expansion and reopening needs to continue. It is doing so in Scotland and Wales with their devolved administrations thoroughly committed to their countries' railways. In Wales, for example, the Vale of Glamorgan line has already been reopened, and provides a link with Cardiff International Airport. The reopening of the line to Ebbw Vale is planned for next year as part of the regeneration of that former steel town.

The Scottish Executive has made railways a priority in transport and economic development terms, with many major new rail schemes being implemented or planned. Committed investment includes longer trains for Edinburgh suburban services, and a strategic freight scheme to provide a direct route for coal to Longannet power station, which releases capacity on the Edinburgh-Glasgow line and on the Forth Bridge. That scheme also restores a passenger service to Alloa, which I am sure will be a matter of great satisfaction to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. Until now, Alloa was the largest town in Scotland not served by rail. Other big schemes planned include rail links for Edinburgh and Glasgow airports, redevelopment of Waverley station and the reopening of the Borders line from Edinburgh to Tweedbank, though sadly not yet as far as Carlisle.
 
16 Jan 2006 : Column 496
 

In both Wales and Scotland there is a clear strategy of enhancements and reopenings, sponsored by their devolved administrations. Sadly, so far there is nothing comparable on the horizon for England, although I hope that my noble friend will be a little more positive than perhaps I can be at the moment.

Train operators have done well in getting more out of their resources. GNER, for example, runs 22 per cent more services on the east coast main line with the same fleet with which it started in 1996. On other lines, many services have doubled in frequency—for example, between London and Derby and Nottingham; between London and Norwich; and between London and Cardiff. But the system cannot take much more growth. Most of the spare capacity that existed 10 years ago has been used up, with the result that punctuality and reliability performance is more difficult to maintain as it is that much harder to recover from any service disruption.

All the same, performance has steadily improved since the low point of 2001, and the latest public performance measure for the second quarter of last year reached 87 per cent, which was four percentage points higher than in the same period the previous year. The number of complaints has dropped, and the national passenger survey shows satisfaction levels up to 77 per cent. It is not ideal, but it is a great improvement on where they were.

The rail industry has adapted and accommodated much of the growth with limited investment in increased infrastructure. That has used up most of the available spare capacity, and further growth would result in a deteriorating performance unless there were some investment in increased capacity. There are many examples of routes where capacities could be enhanced by some fairly modest infrastructural investment. Take, for example, the Cotswold line, which runs from Oxford to Worcester and on to Hereford. Earlier short-sighted decisions led to much of the route being reduced to single track. That affects reliability and makes it impossible to run the hourly service that the growth in passenger demand justifies. So, some redoubling of the track is essential, as it is on routes such as Salisbury to Exeter.

The Government have provided significant funds to support the railway. Indeed, the sum is substantially more than used to be provided to British Rail, both in terms of franchise support payments and in Network Rail grant. Franchise payments are coming down, and the most recent franchise awards have required premium payments from TOCs to the Government. It is important that this income is reinvested in the railway to accommodate the expected growth.

Looking ahead, investment in completely new infrastructure is necessary. Crossrail is a vital project, and I hope that we shall have the opportunity to pass the necessary legislation in this House soon. A new high-speed rail route is needed to link the north and south of the country. It has the potential to reduce travel times between London and Scotland to three hours—the length of journey that Department for Transport studies show gives rail the edge over air.
 
16 Jan 2006 : Column 497
 
Given that more than 93 per cent of the business travel market between England and Scotland is by air—I suspect a similar number as a proportion of your Lordships make that journey regularly—a new north-south high-speed rail link would make a huge difference if journey times can be significantly less than four hours.

The rail freight business would also benefit as a dedicated high-speed passenger route would create space for freight on current tracks and allow it to expand further. Some good work has already been done on the new north-south line, particularly by the Institution of Civil Engineers and by Sir Rod Eddington and the so-called blue sky thinkers in No. 10. Perhaps my noble friend can show the House some of that unit's current thinking on the project.

It is not as if we are incapable of building new high-speed rail links in this country. The Channel Tunnel rail link demonstrates that we can. It is the first purpose-built high-speed line in the UK, and will be completed on time and within its £5.2 million project budget.

Increasing the number of passengers travelling by train is advantageous for all sorts of reasons. It will, for example, help to reduce UK air carbon emissions as rail is the most environmentally sustainable transport network to link the major cities. No longer can we be planning for the decline, as railways were forced to do through the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s. As a nation we should be proud of our railways, and of the men and women who work on them. With the Government's support and the support of everyone in public office, they will have a great future.

7.39 pm

---