§ 17. Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his plans for increased investment in British Railways.
§ 18. Mr. Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Transport what response he intends to make to the British Railways document, "Rail Policy", a statement of their policies and potential for the 1980s.
§ Mr. FowlerThe investment ceiling currently stands at £325 million. I believe that this is adequate to meet the present needs of the railway businesses. As for the future, I am concentrating on the board's corporate plan for 1981 to 1985, which argues the case for increased investment based on improvements in productivity. I hope to make a statement about this in due course.
§ Mr. HamiltonDoes the Minister agree that there its a wide consensus, both inside this House and outside, that it is in the national interest that there should be, as speedily as possible, substantial investment in British Railways? Does he recall that, in answer to a question a few moments ago, he said that it would take him two months to make a statement? He said the same thing a month ago—that it would be two months. Will he now give us a specific date when he will make a forthright and imaginative statement on the investment programme of British Railways over the next decade?
§ Mr. FowlerI cannot give a specific date, nor do I know whether the hon. Gentleman would regard the statement as forthright and imaginative. We want to make a statement on the matter as soon as we conceivably can. We have already increased the external finance limit for British Rail this year to £920 million. We have also increased the PSO. Very considerable funds are going into British Rail, and the hon. Gentleman would do well to understand that.
§ Mr. Nicholas WintertonWill my right hon. Friend tell the House what consideration he has given—I have put this question to him before—to the investment required by British Rail to support the building of the Channel tunnel.? 783 Does he agree that British Rail would be responsible for the facilities of London termini, or at least one terminal, and for other costs outside the portal to portal expense, which would fall to private contractors? Is he giving favourable consideration to British Rail's request for investment in this valuable project, which can be of vital importance to this country?
§ Mr. FowlerThere is a question later on the Order Paper about the Channel tunnel. Clearly, any project about the Channel tunnel must be concerned with the future of British Rail and be important for British Rail.
§ Mr. SkinnerIs the Minister aware that there is a very strong suspicion in trade union circles and other places that one of the reasons, perhaps the major reason, why he will not announce this very important decision on investment—which is absolutely necessary in terms of jobs on the railways, and outside, bearing in mind the extra investment—is to do with the current wage negotiations? Will he promise that investment will not be hindered or based upon the settlement reached by the respective trade unions involved?
§ Mr. FowlerThe decision has not been held up because there are wage negotiations taking place. But a reasonable wage settlement—not just this year but in future years as well—must be a matter of the greatest importance for the Government and the railway industry. It is absolutely crucial for the railway industry to achieve maximum productivity and efficiency.
§ Mr. Kenneth LewisDoes my right hon. Friend accept that it would be right to have further investment in the railways on one condition—that the money does not go into the payment of inflated wages? Will he clear that point with the unions concerned?
§ Mr. FowlerMy hon. Friend's point is that the money should not go into the payment of inflated wages. I agree with him, and I am sure that the chairman of British Rail would also agree with him. The future of the railways is not just a matter for the Government; it is also a matter for the railway industry. I believe that a considerable number of Labour Members also understand that point. I hope that the message can go out from both sides.
§ Mr. AndersonDoes the Minister agree that the case for extra investment in British Rail can stand on its own merits without screwing down the wages of workers in the industry? Will he accept that a consensus has grown up that this positive public investment will not suck in imports but will provide extra jobs in Britain? When will the expression of that consensus get through to the Cabinet?
§ Mr. FowlerThere is no question of screwing down pay. It is reasonable for the chairman of British Rail and I to say that important issues are at stake that will affect the future of British Rail. The future level of investment is one of them. However, productivity and the cost of labour are also important issues. This is a matter not only for Government but for the industry.