§ 7. Mr. Sainsburyasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he will issue a statement defining the objectives that the Government will expect the British Railways Board to pursue in operating its London and South East services.
§ The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell)I wrote to Sir Peter Parker last November outlining my views on what the objectives should be. I am now discussing them with the board and will make a further statement when these discussions have been completed.
§ Mr. SainsburyWill my right hon. Friend confirm that when he makes that further statement he will make it abundantly clear that British Rail must make significant improvements in punctuality, reliability and cleanliness? Unless it does that, it cannot hope to retain the present volume of passenger traffic, let alone increase it. Unless it can make those improvements, it will not be able to keep some jobs. Furthermore, will my right hon. Friend stress that those necessary improvements must be paid for not by fare increases that are greater than the rise in the cost of living, but by improvements in productivity that can easily be made?
§ Mr. HowellI agree with my hon. Friend. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission said that the quality of service in London and the South-East could be improved without an increase in costs. That is a relevant consideration.
§ Mr. Christopher PriceWould the Secretary of State like to join me on the 8.24 from Forest Hill to London Bridge tomorrow morning to experience for himself the grotty conditions that British Rail have to offer their passengers because of his refusal to allow it the necessary capital investment to produce a railway system that would attract passengers?
§ Mr. HowellI do not want to join the hon. Gentleman on the 8.24 tomorrow morning.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursWhy not?
§ Mr. HowellI want to see higher quality and better rolling stock serving the commuter areas and the southern region. That can be done. The resources are available. There is a £150 million social grant to London and the South-East each year. I believe that the objectives that I put to Sir Peter Parker in November can be met. I shall make a further statement on them. I am afraid that the ASLEF industrial action has delayed matters with regard to the British Railways Board's work of updating essential information. If we can overcome the problem of the dispute, improved services can be given with the money available.
§ Mr. AdleyIn principle, does my right hon. Friend agree that commuter railway services are part of the nation's transport infrastructure and are a social service towards the provision of passenger transport in many cities? Can my right hon. Friend name any major city in the world where the State or corporate railway system is able to operate a commuter passenger service as a profit centre?
§ Mr. HowellAs my hon. Friend will have heard, I have explained that the London and South-East region receives £150 million of grant, which is a substantial proportion of the total grant for British Rail. That is the basis on which an efficient commuter system can be run. I am glad to see that there are plans for changing and improving the management of the London commuter services and that the manager of the London commuter services is to be appointed director of the entire London and South-East sector. Improved management and the cutting of costs will give the reliability, punctuality and cleanliness that the commuter rightly wants.
§ Mr. Walter JohnsonDoes the Secretary of State understand that the cut in the PSO of £15 million in real terms must mean a reduction or worsening in services, or an increase in fares?
§ Mr. HowellI do not think that the hon. Gentleman could have heard the figures that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave clearly in refuting the observations of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). Those observations turned out to be incorrect. An increase is proposed for the social grant this year of £100 million more than the originally accepted claim for 1981. It is true that an unprecedentedly large increase was granted to British Rail—a further £110 million for the large drop in passenger traffic in 1981. Nevertheless, the increase this year is £100 million more than was originally accepted. That is £200 million more than in 1977, a year in which the Labour Government made a more substantial cut than anything that is proposed now.