HC Deb 16 February 1983 vol 37 cc283-5
8. Mr. Canavan

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the chairman of the British Railways Board.

Mr. David Howell

I expect to discuss a wide range of subjects of mutual interest at my next meeting with the chairman of the British Railways Board.

Mr. Canavan

In view of the widespread concern in Scotland and elsewhere about some of the Serpell report options, which would annihilate the railways in many areas, will the Secretary of State ask the chairman to do what the right hon. Gentleman has so far failed to do, which is to come clean and tell us exactly what options in the Serpell report are still being considered and exactly what proportion of the existing railway network he intends to retain?

Mr. Howell

We had a full debate on this issue, during which I made it clear, as I have elsewhere, that while I rule out the extreme option of closing down virtually the entire railway network and leaving only a few hundred miles—

Mr. Foulkes

Thank you.

Mr. Howell

—the network maps in the Serpell report are merely illustrations of cost. The Government do not regard them as policy choices for the structure of the network. If we were to do so, far wider considerations would have to be taken into account in future. It is necessary, no doubt, that they should be. However, we now know more about the costs of running the passenger network. That is an asset and an improvement on the stale, sterile and rather useless debate that took place previously.

Mr. McCrindle

Among the many matters that will no doubt be discussed at the meeting between my right hon. Friend and the chairman of the British Railways Board, will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that somewhere on the list of topics is consideration of the replacement of the rolling stock on the eastern suburban commuter route, without which by the end of the decade my constituents will be faced with an even more uncomfortable journey than they face now?

Mr. Howell

As British Rail becomes more successful in curbing costs, and if it can avoid further unnecessary and expensive industrial disputes, I hope that it will have more room for investment in modern railway equipment and be able to make better use of the new equipment which it already has, but which, alas, is sitting in sidings unused.

Mr. Huckfield

We recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is doing his best to bury the Serpell report before the general election. Does he recognise that it would be much better if he cremated it? Will he condemn the more ludicrous recommendations in the report, including the one that states that one of the ways in which railway management can save money is to cut railway safety standards?

Mr. Howell

I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is so frightened of information. The Serpell report illustrates the costs of running the passenger network and various services and sets out how much revenue is obtained and how much they cost in terms of public support. Why is the hon. Gentleman frightened about that? I accept and recognise that safety must be paramount. The Serpell report does not question the importance of safety—it would be entirely wrong to do so—but poses the question whether high safety standards could be achieved more efficiently. That seems to be a legitimate question to which those interested in a modern and efficient railway should not shut their eyes. That should not prompt them to demand the burning of reports and books, which is an unhealthy sentiment.

Mr. Eggar

Is not the main message of the Serpell report that the railways are being run extremely inefficiently? When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the British Railways Board, will he make it clear to him that one of the most unacceptable features of the way in which the railway is being run is the high number of administrative staff—about 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. of the work force? Will he take this issue up with the chairman?

Mr. Howell

I agree with my hon. Friend that the central overheads of monolithic nationalised industries, of which British Rail is one, which we inherited from the Socialist past, are quite often excessive. It is high time that in this nationalised corporation and in others a far more vigorous look is taken at the way in which overheads can be reduced and a more efficient, decentralised and modern structure established.

Mr. Stephen Ross

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not really want to go back to 1938 and the "fair deal" for the railways. Is he aware that British Rail cannot place new orders for rolling stock, especially coaches on the west coast main line, without the Secretary of State's consent to extend its external financing limit? Is it not a fact that it definitely needs new rolling stock for the west coast main line and for the southern region Portsmouth and Bournemouth routes?

Mr. Howell

The answer is no. The external financing limit has been set at a high level and within that there is room for British Rail—I hope very much that it will take advantage of it—to remove its self-imposed investment moratorium and step up its investment programmes. That depends on preventing a repetition of last year's tragedy, when large amounts of funds were sucked away and drained off in useless strikes. It depends also on its ability to get going and to proceed with the cost savings identified in the Serpell report, which, to the credit of British Rail, both the chairman and the chief executive have embarked upon.

Mr. Stott

Is the Secretary of State aware that he mentioned during the debate on the Serpell report and today that he has ruled out acceptance of the extreme options contained within the report? Can we take it that the right hon. Gentleman has ruled out option H, which is the high investment option? Is that an extreme option? Will he say that he and the Government are committed to the maintenance of the existing 12,000 track miles on which British Rail currently has to operate? Will he tell me and the House that he is committed to the maintenance of the 12,000 miles?

Mr. Howell

The hon. Gentleman will remember that a few moments ago I stated exactly what the Government ruled out for the long-term future size of the network. The other illustrative costs in the Serpell report tell us how much the network costs and how much parts of it cost. They do not provide a basis for policy choices. As the report shows, much more work would be required before those choices could be reached. The hon. Gentleman's supplementay question is based on a presumption of what the Serpell report states, which is not founded in fact.