HC Deb 16 January 1989 vol 145 cc1-3
1. Mr. Dunnachie

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the figures for British Rail of passenger train miles and passenger seat provision in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon)

I have arranged for the available information to be published in the Official Report. Broadly, this shows that passenger train miles increased by 5 per cent. between 1983 and 1987–88. British Rail is trying to match the capacity that it provides to demand.

Mr. Dunnachie

I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that although new stock has been brought in, it will result in fewer seats for passengers? Will this not lead to excessive overcrowding and a lowering of safety standards?

Mr. Channon

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will be pleased to know about the large amount of railway investment that is going ahead. In real terms it is at its highest level for over 25 years, and by the end of the decade British Rail will have renewed over 85 per cent. of its diesel passenger trains and will have electrified 60 per cent. of inter-city routes.

Mr. John Browne

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the standing passenger is more vulnerable to accident and to causing an accident, even to sitting passengers; and is not getting "fare" value? Will he look at this issue with particular regard to the design of carriages, the separation of standing and sitting passengers and the availability of seats at peak hours on main lines? Will he look into the feasibility of the issuance by the guard of part refund vouchers to passengers who have had to stand during specified stages of the journey? Is he prepared to make recommendations to British Rail about these matters?

Mr. Channon

Most of what my hon. Friend says, although not all, is a matter for British Rail. I understand his point about "fare" value. New rolling stock is now needed to meet agreed standards. It has been and will continue to be approved and, as my hon. Friend knows, an enormous investment programme is going ahead in British Rail. I know that my hon. Friend, among others, welcomes that.

Mr. Matthew Taylor

The Department of Transport's publication last week of the study on London transport shows that in 1985–86 there was a 36 per cent. increase in the overloading of trains and that in 1987 there was an 8 per cent. further increase in overloading on the Department of Transport's agreed targets. Is the right hon. Gentleman not also concerned about the safety risks that the existing rolling stock may present to passengers?

Mr. Channon

The House agrees that overcrowding is unsatisfactory and the hon. Gentleman asks about its implications for safety. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the report on that that I received last year from the chief inspector of railways. We are anxious to have a far better quality of service in terms of overcrowding and punctuality. We are setting British Rail very serious and difficult targets and I am determined that they should be reached. As I have said, there is a massive programme of investment to achieve those aims.

Mr. Adley

The serious and difficult targets to which my right hon. Friend refers are, of course, the targets set by his Department for the investment criteria. Will he seriously reconsider the need completely to evaluate the investment criteria for road versus rail? For example, is he aware that I have failed to obtain from the Home Office—because it does not know the figures—information about the time that the Metropolitan police and other county police forces spend on work connected with roads, such as on accidents, administration, court cases, and so on? That has to be set alongside the fact that British Rail has to provide its own police force. Is it not nonsense to exclude police time, health costs and other matters from these assessments? If they were included does he agree that a completely different pattern would emerge that would enable the Government to provide investment funds to British Rail based on reality and not fiction?

Mr. Channon

My hon. Friend and I have corresponded about this. There is not a great deal of difference between the criteria, or between the bases for deciding on investment in road or in rail. If necessary I shall of course write to my hon. Friend again. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the planned investment, at 1988–89

1983 1984–85 (15 months) 1985–86 1986–87 1987–88
passenger train miles 202.6m 251m 200.9m 202.8m 212.6m
passenger miles 18,350m 22,610m 18,780m 19,328m 20,593m
average passengers per passenger train 95 95 98 100 102

The number of seats on a train ranges from 65 on one-car class 121s on the Paddington-Greenford service, 161 on a 2-coach Sprinter, 317 on a class 319 4-car suburban multiple unit, and 486 on HSTs on the east coast main line, up to 1,212 on some slam door trains operating from Charing Cross.

BR does not compile statistics of aggregate passenger seat mile provision as the result would be misleading. Instead, it undertakes sample counts of the number of passengers on timetabled services, and the information is used in planning the timetable to match the capacity provision to demand so far as practicable.