§ 9. Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for Transport how much money he now expects to be paid to British Rail out of public funds in the current financial year.
§ Mr. CarlisleDoes my hon. Friend agree that his answer shows that the Government are putting huge sums of money into the railways? Is it not also true that the Government and the taxpayer are providing about £2 million each day to keep open uneconomic lines for social reasons? I can understand the need to subsidise the railways, but is my hon. Friend aware that the public 1025 demand that the railways are run as efficiently as possible and that their money should not be used to maintain outdated working practices which other railway systems have long abandoned?
§ Mr. EyreI agree with all the points that my hon. Friend has made. In real terms, total support under the Government has been set at £186 million more than in the last full year of the previous Administration, but within the grant system there will be adjustments to take account of the strikes.
§ Mr. Brocklebank-FowlerWhat is the cost to public funds of maintaining uneconomic and marginal lines such as the Kings Lynn—London railway link? Will the Minister confirm that the future of those lines will depend very much on the present industrial dispute coming rapidly to a close?
§ Mr. EyreThe costs of the lines to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are borne partly within the PSO grant of £915 million, to which I have referred. It is realised on all sides that the continuation of the industrial strike will do enormous harm to the economy and future of the railways, which naturally gives rise to great concern about the pattern of the railway services.
§ Mr. FormanI recognise that when this damaging dispute is over it will be necessary for my hon. Friend's Department to continue subsidising the social services by British Rail, but what ideas does my hon. Friend's Department have for ensuring improved performance and productivity from the whole British Rail industry?
§ Mr. EyreIt is difficult to answer my hon. Friend fully when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is about to make, after questions, a serious statement about the railways. The earmarking of part of the PSO for maintaining lines was one of the steps that were taken to ensure more efficient use of resources in the railway system.
§ Mr. FlanneryWhen will the Minister realise that the present trouble on the railways is due entirely to lack of proper investment by the Government? When will he realise that not only is that bringing the Government to an unnecessary collision with the railway men but is antagonising the entire trade union movement and causing an unnecessary struggle? Does he realise that railway men have had to put up with so-called flexible rostering for years, that to try to intensify flexible rostering by making more and more cuts meant that a stand had to be made at some time, and that that stand by the trade union movement is now here?
§ Mr. EyreThe hon. Gentleman insistes upon ignoring the facts. I have given direct evidence that the PSO payable under the Government has been greater in real terms than under the previous Government. There has been more than £2 million of investment in the railways since 1976, one half of that since 1979. The hon. Gentleman must understand the significance of that, but the essential requirement is modern working practices to make good use of that investment.
§ Mr. Robert HughesI do not accept the Minister's figures for the amount of PSO grant and so on. Does he understand that one of the reasons why the Government were compelled to increase the amount of money was the economic plight facing the railways—a plight that was caused by the Government's actions?
§ Mr. EyreThe hon. Gentleman will realise that the railway also failed to hold this business in certain respects—for example, in parcel traffic. Those adverse factors were taken into account in the unusually high grant that was given to the railways last year.