| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I agree with all the remarks that have been made hitherto by noble Lords. I am proud that six of the 12 speakers today are members of the Liberal Democrat Party. I hope that the public will notice that we are primordial in the promotion of a modern railway system. The UK system has the capacity to be extremely effective, but we are in the difficult intermediate stage of horrendously overcrowded trains that are still putting people off and causing lots of grumbling. There are overloaded platforms; the one at Banbury Station was a telling example from the chief executive in his statement a few days ago. As the Government are once again part-owners of the total entity through renationalisation, which I am glad about, they have a strong obligation with the rail regulator to try to get this right in the long term, at long last. They must make this country, the inventor of trains, the great leading train country of Europe again.
I was grateful to attend the opening of High Speed 1 the other day; it was a great occasion. I took the opportunity of speaking to a number of French executives and businesspeople who have been involved in many of the subsidiary construction activities, both of the station and the high-speed trains. What a pity that the Hitachi locomotive could not have been British-made, but at least it was substantially made in Britain despite being originally a Japanese model. The French executives paid tribute to the work done in the creation of this modern railway system.
The nightmare period is over and we can think about the future. I conclude with one or two brief points about that. We now have 110 kilometres of high-speed line; France has 7,000 with another 2,000 already on the stocks ready to come through. The dense high-speed networks of the European countries which we have seen recently in Spain, Germany, France, Belgium and Italy—now with trains coming from the east of France—and so on, are all linking up together into a Europe-wide network. We have got High Speed 1 just in time to play a part in that, but we must have a high-speed line going up as far north as possible in the United Kingdom to make that total network logical. It will presumably gradually go up even into the Scandinavian countries; although their trains are very modern anyway, so maybe they do not need it. That is therefore an obligation upon the Government.
Finally, I refer to the Bill now coming through from the other place. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie for telling me what I was going to talk about today, so I have left this to the end. Clause 2 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill is about the rail regulator’s function, under an amendment, for the Channel Tunnel rail link. Importantly, will the Minister today make a point of assuring us that this does not mean any reduction in the competitive free-access system which we believe in for all these and future high-speed lines; and that both foreign and British applicants will be able to play a full part in these matters, including, of course, freight through high-speed lines into the Channel Tunnel? Now that the Channel Tunnel company mark 2 has been reformed so successfully by Jacques Gounon, the French chairman, there will be freight on freight trucks as well as lorries on freight-carrying coaches, as in the present Channel
29 Nov 2007 : Column 1374
4.13 pm
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I am not a railway enthusiast. Like the noble Lord, Lord Snape, I simply laboured at the mill in trying to run the system, as we both did also in the bus industry. One of the most important things we can focus on today is oil prices; I mentioned it in my question to the Minister yesterday. What oil price scenario is built into the planning of the airports and the railway? If people are thinking of $20 a barrel, I can tell them that they are in cloud-cuckoo land. I am still convinced that by 2035, if not sooner, it will cost £4 a litre to put petrol or diesel into a car or lorry.
The world is short of oil, demand is going up and people are increasingly willing to use oil as a political weapon to get their own way. The House needs a real explanation of the basis on which the Government are building models through which they can condemn possible expansions of the railway and justify the expansion of Heathrow. The Minister was not present last Tuesday at the Second Reading of the Climate Change Bill, but the scenarios that were painted by a number of noble Lords, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, were quite frightening, and the only way that we can confidently predict providing a railway service is if it is electrically driven because electricity can be got from all sorts of power sources. I believe that it will come from nuclear power, which will give a firm basis for our economy. It almost ranks as one of the essential elements in the defence of our national life because if the oil is turned off a lot of problems will arise. We must plan for that fairly early because even if the Minister, in a fit of generosity, were to get up today and say that we will go ahead with some electrification and with the high-speed line—which I do not expect—we shall wait years before we have the locomotives and the track, get through the planning processes and weather the protests that we shall, no doubt, have on the way.
Can the Minister give us some justification for the fare rises that are taking place? The people who get franchises seem to have extracted from them promises that can only lead to fares going up. There is nothing else they can do. If they want the franchise, they have to agree to increase the fares. The Government may like to shelter behind the fact that it is the private companies that put up the fares, but the decisions behind that are all made in Marsham Street or in the Treasury.
The franchising process is one of the products of the system that the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, so rightly condemned. It is a very good system for keeping lots of consultants in work and for employing lots of civil servants at the Department for Transport and it is well subscribed to by paint manufacturers because often the only new thing on a train is the coat of paint and otherwise it is the same service as before. Why can we not have a franchising process that is longer, demands that the franchisee invests money—
29 Nov 2007 : Column 1375
One of my noble friends mentioned that we have been told four times that we will get 1,300 new carriages. It may be that we will hear that a few more times before some orders are placed. When are they going to be placed? Many franchises around the country are absolutely desperate for more capacity. I could mention the Great Northern franchise and the First Great Western franchise, and could take the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to many other places where that is a major problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, may say that he does not have the money to buy new rolling stock, or that the rolling-stock companies will not lease it, or that they are so concerned with being brought before the Competition Commission that they will not lease it, but there seems to be nothing to prevent the Government leasing it. You do not actually have to pay; you pay an annual rental charge. A market that is as sclerotic as the rolling-stock market in this country wants a good bit of old fashioned competition. The Government should buy 200 or 300 new trains and put them on the railway. Let us see what that does to the ridiculous prices that are being charged for the Pacer trains that are about to be reintroduced to Devon and Cornwall. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, might agree that introducing in 2007 what were Leyland National buses, which I think the bus industry got rid of 25 years ago, is absolutely disgraceful.
The Government might also consider safety regulation, which is almost strangling parts of the railway. It has been put together in bits, and because of it, we close two lines of railway on a Sunday. There used to be single-line working on the railway for which the noble Lord, Lord Snape, and I used to work. Much of our railway is now signalled for two-way working, but we do not use the second way. If the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, cannot tell me now, will he find out later why we are not using it? We did not go around killing lots of people; that is a complete misinterpretation of the facts.
When the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, answered a Question from me on Monday, he cited,
- “the likelihood that, on current projected trends, over the next decade there will be an increase in the number of rail passengers of about 30 per cent”.—[Official Report, 26/11/07; col. 1026.]
29 Nov 2007 : Column 1376
He does know, does he not, that we are at present getting more than 6 per cent? If, at the end of 10 years, one trajectory is at 3 per cent and another is at 6 per cent, there will be a very big gap that will be filled with dissatisfied, disaffected customers, despite the eulogy started by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who said that things were getting better. Doubtless they are in some places—they are certainly getting better for freight, for which British Rail had almost a death wish. However, it is the satisfaction of customers to which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, should turn his attention, because in the end the customers are voters who will get very cross with him and his Government if something more positive does not come forward.
4.23 pm
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for introducing the debate this afternoon. I am acutely aware of my limitations in this because I have no background in the railway industry. I do, however, understand technology a little.
Whenever I talk to anyone who has expertise on the railway industry outside this House, one name always comes up: that of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. He is not some anorak who will tell you some obscure detail about the utilisation of a particular piece of rolling stock. He had a substantial track record, and few noble Lords can match his experience. He continues his excellent work with his chairmanship of the Rail Freight Group.
The noble Lord teased me slightly about our policy on these Benches, but actually we are quite enjoying watching the business flourish in the private sector and in the way he described. He said that in the UK we were about 30 years ahead of our EU partners.
I noted the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dykes. Like the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, I am not quite sure why the noble Lord did not join the Liberal Democrats much earlier than he did. But it would be quite easy for me to be really—
Lord Dykes: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Earl that I was sorely tempted from 1995 onwards. I have always disapproved strongly of crossing the Floor of the House because you usually cheat the public by not having a by-election and the mandate therefore is distorted. It is a party system rather than a personal system. Once I was freed from that by being defeated in 1997, some while later I joined another party.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that comment. My MP is the Member for Grantham and Stamford. It would be easy for me to be quite negative. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, might have expected me to be. But we are talking about a problem of success. I shall not repeat the figures that we have heard today, but the challenge is to increase capacity, reliability and utilisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, started with a predictable attack on my noble friends. None of them is contributing to the debate, and it is disappointing.
29 Nov 2007 : Column 1377
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about the carbon cost of road and aviation transport, compared with rail transport. He suggested a four-hour rule. But how would overseas businessmen coming to Scotland feel about that? What would be the effect on the Scottish economy? I would not want to be responsible for implementing that policy. It seems to me that the railway system comprises civil engineering assets, the permanent way, the signalling and power systems, the rolling stock, the staff, and then the passengers and freight customers. As far as I can see post-privatisation, the problem of the poor condition of rolling stock is largely solved, but I listened very carefully to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.
Because of the system of penalties for breakdowns and the need to attract customers in order to maximise revenue, operators have gone for better rolling stock. Old or unreliable rolling stock does not make commercial sense, but in the day of the noble Lord, Lord Snape, it kept plenty of rail maintenance personnel in work, as he indicated. At one time I thought that the noble Lord was auditioning to join these Benches. He then slightly spoilt it by resurrecting the road-rail debate, and longer and heavier vehicles. I am surprised that he did not challenge me on the policy on that. But we should wait and see what the report from the Heriot-Watt University says.
Lord Snape: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I have been a member of the Labour Party all my life because my father was, too.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I do not think that I need to respond to that.
The noble Lord made some quite forceful observations about the road haulage industry. I can see little advantage for the road haulage industry in going to longer and heavier vehicles because all the productivity advantages would go to the consumer, as they did with the advent of 38-tonners and 44-tonners.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made several detailed observations about rail connections, and he is right. The disappointment is that it is taking so long to sort out these problems. No doubt, long waits or the disruption of connections are a real deterrent to the use of rail rather than car. This month, Network Rail published its strategic business plan, which was derived from the high-level output statement. It is certainly exciting and seeks to address some of the problems arising from the success of railways post-privatisation. The SBP covers control period 4 from 2009-14.
In asking questions about the long-term budgets, I accept that the situation is much better than the one described by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, many years ago when we had very short-term budgets, but can the Minister tell us whether the strategic business plan is all funded in the CSR in future expenditure plans, or
29 Nov 2007 : Column 1378
Prior to privatisation in the mid-1990s, I read a report about capacity constraints. This was many years ago so I cannot remember all the bottlenecks, though there many even then. But, for example, I recall that the Welwyn viaduct was mentioned. Can the Minister arrange for details of all the current bottlenecks in the rail transport system to be placed in the Library? The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, painted what I am told is an accurate picture of the increase in requirements for transport. The Freight Transport Association is extremely exercised about the lack of capacity both of the ports and from them, so I hope that the HLOS does enough to provide an increased freight capacity.
I share the concern of many noble Lords about the poor utilisation of the Channel Tunnel. It is bizarre to have lorries going from the Midlands all the way to Italy when their freight could go by train. Can the Minister indicate what the problem is, what he is doing about it, and whether he will follow up the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and have a go at the EU Commission?
Prior to privatisation there seemed to be some confusion in the rail industry as to whether it existed for the benefit of those within it or its passengers and freight customers. There is little doubt about the answer today, at least in the UK. The noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, suggested that it was not privatisation which raised the utilisation of the railway system, but that congestion elsewhere made it essential. I do not know the answer, but if we had not reformed the industry, we really would be in a mess now. However, passenger care still has some way to go. This week we had some interesting media reports about the lady annunciator, if that is the right term, who will be experiencing severe delays before her next assignment arrives. But why are some of the announcements so dreary, Stalinist and unintelligible? There is plenty of good practice around, so why is it not universal?
I use the Tube system extensively, but I never bother to buy a ticket because I use an Oyster card. For how long are we going to persist with the antediluvian system of buying a ticket immediately before starting an ad hoc train journey? Why can there not be some form of national Oyster card? Of course it would have to be smarter than the current system, but it would avoid the risk of missing a train by a few minutes and the associated stress of that, and it would save the cost of issuing tickets in terms of labour, capital and space. I hope sincerely that the Minister can also tell us what progress is being made in extending the Oyster card system to all of the London commuter rail system. It would be interesting to compare the number of ticket machines at Victoria station with the number of retail outlets. Quite often at Victoria you see queues of very frustrated customers at each and every ticket machine, trying to buy a ticket before their train departs.
29 Nov 2007 : Column 1379
Finally, the signalling system is clearly key to safety, reliability, productivity and even fuel emissions, and we have been extremely lucky to have the contribution this afternoon of the noble Lord, Lord Methuen. I understand that the safety problems associated with SPAD have largely been solved, but now accidents at level crossings are the biggest risk to the system. Noble Lords did as much as they could during the passage of the Road Safety Bill to reduce that risk, but I am unhappy about the reliability of the signalling system. I do not understand why, from a technical point of view, we have such reliability problems. I am guessing, but I would not be surprised if a more sophisticated signalling system could produce a nugatory acceleration and deceleration of trains, which are very heavy, thus saving even more emissions. However, I recognise that rail transport is already very efficient on emissions.
Fortunately, my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch is not in his place and so I can safely mention the European rail traffic management system so well described by the noble Lord, Lord Methuen. I am told that it will provide greater capacity, efficiency and reliability. If we want a pan-European rail freight system, as advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, we will need to accept this European system.
As to our aspirations of what we can do with signalling in the long term, we have to ask whether they are ambitious enough. I am not an expert on signalling—I cannot answer the question—but if I were the Minister I would look very closely at it.
4.36 pm
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I join in the general congratulations to my noble friend Lord Berkeley on securing the debate. In fact, I will go further than that and say that I have benefited greatly today from listening to the contributors to the debate. They obviously know far more about the history and development of the rail network than I do and I feel somewhat humble and inadequate in their presence. There is a wealth of knowledge in your Lordships’ House, both on the Opposition Benches and on the Benches behind me, on the rail network and its development. I pay tribute to all noble Lords who have contributed.
It has been a good debate because it was framed in a positive mode and was full of encouragement. It is a rare pleasure these days to be involved in debating issues where there is a genuine recognition that great improvements have been made, particularly over the past decade or so.
I share the sadness that was expressed at the outset by my noble friend Lord Berkeley about the absence of contributors on the Conservative Benches. I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for playing his part. It is sad that there has not been more of a contribution because the Conservative Party has a lot of explaining to do for the damage it did to the rail network during its 18 years in government. We have worked hard to put that right. Many of the problems we still have are because of the long-term lead-in necessary to solve them. This prefigures what we have to do in order to roll out continuous improvement.
29 Nov 2007 : Column 1380
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, was right to discuss a renaissance in the railway network. That is certainly what is happening and we want to continue that renaissance. As many noble Lords have said, we are seeing record levels of train patronage. In the most recent full-year figures the railways saw annual growth in passenger numbers accelerating to 7.5 per cent, up from 3.6 per cent in 2005. That takes the number of of passenger journeys to well over 1.1 billion, the highest level for 60 years, which is a real achievement when the railway network is now between 30 and 40 per cent smaller than it was in the 1940s. This makes our railway network the fastest growing in Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, made a good point when he said that we will have to take account of this more recent rapid growth when considering our forward plans and our current prediction of a 30 per cent growth in passenger numbers. It is a fair point that has not escaped my attention; I have made it to officials on more than one occasion.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |