HC Deb 08 December 1998 vol 322 cc216-32

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

7.56 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro and St. Austell)

Like me, the Minister will probably be rather pleased that this Adjournment debate is taking place earlier than it might have done. Although I do not intend to speak at length, I am more relaxed about timing than I was.

The train network is an integral part of our daily national life and it will become even more important as we strive to cut the number of unnecessary car journeys to avoid congestion and unnecessary environmental destruction. As things stand, car ownership is predicted to rise by 15 per cent. each decade, and many roads and motorways are already running at full capacity. The rail network is vital in reducing the resulting congestion and air pollution.

Rail could take a bigger proportion of travellers and freight, but it will not do so unless it is made more attractive to passengers and to business. In general, rail fares are too expensive and the fare structure is too complicated. Fares have increased sharply in real terms in the past 20 years, but motoring costs have remained stable or have fallen.

According to Government figures, rail fares rose in real terms between 1974 and 1996 by 74.8 per cent. above inflation. By comparison, the real cost of motoring fell by 3.5 per cent. Travelling by car became far more affordable and train travel became less affordable, so it is no wonder that our roads are so clogged.

According to a Union Bank of Switzerland survey last year, rail fares in this country are now the most expensive on the planet. The cost of train travel in the United Kingdom is almost three times the world average. Since privatisation, the franchising director has regulated key commuter and leisure fares, including saver tickets, unrestricted standard return tickets and all standard weekly season tickets. Indeed, the franchising director has a duty under the Railways Act 1993 to regulate those fares where he considers that regulation is required in the interests of passengers.

The Conservative Government believed that market forces would prevent excessive price increases, leaving operators with the freedom to apply commercial judgment in setting a range of non-regulated fares. Those unprotected tickets include the supersaver—the cheapest national long-distance walk-on rail ticket—cheap day returns, family rail cards and the network card.

As Liberal Democrats predicted, companies have been increasing unprotected fares at rates well above inflation; they are clearly taking advantage of the legislative loopholes in the Railways Act. The increases are targeted largely at casual travellers, such as families, shoppers and people who cannot or do not book in advance, who account for about 40 per cent. of ticket sales. There is a very real fear now that, sooner or later, many of the low-cost regulated tickets will be phased out altogether.

Virgin Trains is the worst offender—perhaps unsurprisingly, since that name comes up regularly in these debates—and recently raised the supersaver on its cross-country network by four times the rate of inflation. Virgin argues that it is introducing many new discount offers, but those cheap fares must be booked in advance, can be used only on Virgin trains, are limited by train, number of tickets available and time of day, can be purchased only at main stations or by credit card, are often not available for journeys to and from stations on connecting routes and both outward and return trains must be specified in advance. That is confusing, restrictive and clearly by no stretch of the imagination equivalent to the simple supersaver system.

Virgin is not by any means the only railway company poised to take money from many passengers. Midland Mainline is raising its open first-class return fare from Kettering to Sheffield by 26 per cent. On the politically sensitive west coast main line between London and Glasgow—where passenger complaints run at a startling one for every 100 journeys—there will be rises of up to 19 per cent.

In London, the regulator has already punished rail companies for their dismal performance by ordering them to keep increases below 1.9 per cent.—below inflation. Connex, which operates some of Britain's busiest commuter routes through south London, Kent and Sussex, has got around the restriction by raising the price of cheap day returns—which are not protected by the regulator—by an average of 6.5 per cent.

In my own county, we have been hit by two recent examples. In the spring, Great Western Trains restricted the use of saver tickets, banning them from early and late trains. This meant that passengers using the 5.35 pm from Paddington had to pay £120 return, rather than the previously available £58 saver fare. That is the last train to Penzance. Booking in advance would get passengers a fare reduction, but not everybody can do that. The day return discount remains, but a day return from Cornwall to London is hardly realistic, since it would leave only few hours at most in London. If one cannot book in advance, one must pay far more to travel at reasonable times.

Similarly, in 1995, Great Western planned to withdraw group travel arrangements for school parties from certain services. I took that up and got it reversed but, this October, the company did it again. Schools either pay full fare, or must travel when it is convenient for Great Western. In the case with which I was presented, that meant that people were not travelling on an early train to get home at a reasonable time, and were forced to arrive very late at night. Previously, we got the decision reversed almost immediately I took it up. On this occasion, after two months, Great Western has not even bothered to reply to my representations—despite repeated attempts to chase the company up.

Mr. Don Foster (Bath)

My hon. Friend is right to say that it is not acceptable to have effective fare increases while punctuality is getting worse. However, does he accept that Great Western—which uses his constituency and mine—is not entirely responsible for some of the difficulties? Some of the punctuality problems lie at the door of Railtrack, rather than the operating company. Does he accept that a survey has shown that only 30 per cent. of punctuality problems are the result of Great Western, while 70 per cent. are the result of Railtrack? Does he agree, therefore, that Railtrack should get its act together and do more to help the companies?

Mr. Taylor

I thank my hon. Friend, and there is time for him to elaborate on that point in a speech, if he wishes. The point is well made. There are problems with Railtrack. As a regular user of Great Western, I have relatively few complaints about the quality of service, and the staff do a superb job. However, on fares, Great Western and others have used the unregulated system as a means of making up the costs of the restrictions on regulated fares. That has done a considerable disservice to passengers in Cornwall, who may, on average, end up paying a little less, but do so for a service that is not at the times they want. There is also the risk that, if they cannot travel at those times, they have to pay considerably more.

All the rail companies argue that, by offering advance booking discounted tickets instead of supersavers, they are not penalising passengers, but that is nonsense. The tickets are generally limited in number, more limited in terms of which services are included and require considerable pre-planning. There is no flexibility if those plans go awry.

The railway is traditionally a "turn-up-and-go" carrier—greatly to the benefit of passengers—and the application of an airline pre-booking style arrangement undermines the flexibility of rail travel. Ultimately, that will reduce the flexibility of passengers to use the service and, therefore, the numbers using it. My fear is that, as the ability of the service to take more passengers increases, profits will be taken from the increases, but flexibility will not be restored. Not all passengers can plan their journeys days or weeks in advance—especially the return leg. They therefore have to choose between a loss of flexibility or a higher—sometimes much higher—fare.

Analysis of ticket types by the Central rail users consultative committee revealed larger fare rises for passengers who purchase their tickets at the time of travelling and smaller fare rises for passengers who buy tickets in advance. Fares that could be purchased immediately before travel went up, on average, by 3.4 per cent., while tickets that had to be purchased in advance went up, on average, by 1.8 per cent.

Average fares paid by passengers are often quoted by the rail companies, and by the Government in official responses, on the ground that average fares paid by passengers have fallen. Those fares have fallen slightly in real terms, it is true, but that masks gains for some at the considerable expense of others. There has been an overall reduction in the flexibility of the service that passengers receive. These have not been free cuts: they have been cuts at the expense of the service that passengers get.

The Central rail users consultative committee—the statutory watchdog protecting and promoting the interests of rail passengers—has revealed that nine out of 25 train operators increased prices in real terms in spite of deteriorating performance, punctuality and reliability. It is not even the case that all companies are offering reduced real-terms prices on average. For instance, Connex South Eastern was able to raise fares by an average of 4.4 per cent. during a period when major delays increased by 30 per cent. and cancellations on the Kent coast services rose by a staggering 100 per cent.

A report issued yesterday by the Central rail users consultative committee set out the passenger charter figures for the year ending September 1998, and showed that the proportion of train delays is now 35 per cent. higher than in the year ending March 1997, which marked the completion of franchising. Complaints to the local committee network have also continued to rise, and are now more than a third up on the same period last year. In July, August and September of this year, the committee received nearly 5,000 complaints—an increase of 39 per cent. over the same period last year, and a 45 per cent. increase over the April-June total.

In Devon and Cornwall, the South West rail users consultative committee recorded a 200 per cent. increase in complaints last year—the highest in the country, but by no means exceptional. In November, the same committee made one of the more bizarre announcements by the rail industry—almost on a par with "the wrong kind of leaves". It announced that it could not cope with the rising tide of complaints—this is the body set up to receive complaints—and would no longer answer calls in the morning, so that it could deal with the backlog. I suppose refusing to answer the telephone is one way of cutting complaints, but it is not a solution of any help to irate passengers.

Since privatisation, companies have been concentrating their efforts on introducing their own fares, which are available only on their services and from which they keep all the revenue. Revenue from national fares is divided up between the companies. That reduces choice and price competition, and makes arranging travel far more complex.

For inter-city companies, we are moving towards an airline approach—multiple classes, multiple fares and multiple hassle, complication and misery. It is possible with certain companies to pick up cheaper advance fares, but the downside is that the fares structure becomes an impenetrable jungle, which the staff—never mind the passenger—have difficulty in understanding. For example, three different companies operate between Gatwick and central London, offering a total of 36 different standard-class fares.

Rail travellers are now being hit by a further blow: the withdrawal, not for the first time, of cheap travel over Christmas. That is a Scrooge-like measure at this time of year. Supersaver tickets have been cancelled from 18 December to 1 January. With increasing complaints, delays and cancellations, and the certainty of packed trains, the least the rail companies could do this year is to stop being Scrooge and offer a little Christmas spirit by maintaining saver tickets; that is, if anybody can find the right train in the first place: the Christmas timetable should have been available in early October but, like many services, it is running late. Some Christmas journey timetables have still not been published two weeks before Christmas.

Liberal Democrats opposed the Conservative Government's privatisation of the railways because we foresaw problems such as higher fare increases on non-regulated tickets, confused booking arrangements and deteriorating service. We and the Labour party did not believe that privatisation would deliver either a high quality of service or the necessary investment. Since privatisation, quality has indeed continued to decline. Private partnerships to increase investment in the system would have made sense; the botched system that we got did not. No wonder not a single Conservative Member is present for this debate.

I know that the Government accept that they need to tackle rail companies that continually abuse franchise loopholes, but their commitment to rail travel has so far failed to get legislative backing. I welcome the news that the Deputy Prime Minister announced this week: that, as a result of agreement on the handling of House of Lords reform, the Government hope as a priority to introduce legislation to establish a strategic rail authority. But that is not definite, to say the least, as the Conservative leader clearly has other ideas about that agreement, as we all know.

Frustrated rail travellers this Christmas may well wonder why the Deputy Prime Minister failed to secure the Bill in the Queen's Speech in the first place. They have heard the rail companies blaming the wrong kind of leaves for delays; perhaps this is an example of the wrong kind of Lords.

It is time for action. Welcome as the Government's words have been, non-regulated fares are going up at high speed, despite the fact that more and more trains are late or cancelled. The only answer is high-speed legislation from the Government to sort out the situation in the new year, not a further delay into the new millennium.

8.12 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

I am grateful both to the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) for allowing me to make a brief contribution.

My hon. Friend, who normally speaks loudly and clearly on behalf of Cornwall, has taken a national perspective this evening, so I shall indulge in being rather more parochial than usual. I have one of the most rural constituencies in the United Kingdom, with only 100 yd of mainline railway. We have a branch line of which we are all extremely proud, and we hope that we can keep it, but we do not have a great railway service. Far be it from me to suggest that we should reopen all the lines that used to traverse the constituency, because that would cost a great deal.

Any effort to assist those who live in sparsely settled rural areas to get access to public transport will be a long and difficult process. We warmly welcome the Government's commitment to assisting people in rural areas, but access to the main railway network is extremely difficult for many of my constituents. That does not mean that we should not attempt to improve access. Many of my constituents have to travel many miles before they can reach a railhead, but it is none the less important for them to have access to the national and—through the channel tunnel—international rail network.

Cornwall has a high percentage of people who, through age or disability, have no access to cars. Welcome as the Government's commitment to rural public transport is, it would be even more impressive if we had more commitment to those who want to use that transport. There is no contradiction: it is perfectly possible to devise subsidies to support services that will not provide what people in fact need.

That is why we were especially glad that the Deputy Prime Minister committed himself to a national concessionary fare for public transport for all retired people. I hope that the Minister will spell out in a little more detail how that will work and what the time scale for implementation will be.

The comparatively urban communities that can provide concessionary fares tend to be the ones that least need them, for the simple reason that the distances to be travelled are much shorter, while more rural areas tend to have few or no concessionary fare schemes for the retired and the disabled. It is clearly preferable to subsidise passengers to fill trains—and buses—rather than subsidising operators for the losses that they make through vehicles being empty. I hope that that principle will underline the introduction of the scheme. More detail, please, and as early as possible. Many organisations and individuals feel that the scheme is the right way forward, but it must be introduced urgently.

As my party's Chief Whip, I underline our commitment to say godspeed to any legislation that will improve the Government's strategic control over the rail network: both Railtrack and the operating companies. That is urgent. If, as a result of the shenanigans at the other end of the Corridor last week, there is real progress in other legislation, I hope that the Government will find it possible urgently to introduce legislation to improve public transport.

I know that there are other candidates for any vacant slot in the legislative programme, and I would not want to express any great preference between freedom of information, the food standards agency and the strategic rail authority, but I hope that the Minister will take it from us that we wish her the very best of luck in trying to get the rail legislation into the programme.

8.18 pm
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes)

I entirely agree with the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). The fact that there are so many Liberal Democrats present tonight underlines my party's commitment to rail issues. Excluding yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, 75 per cent. of those present were Liberal Democrats, until the most recent arrivals—the figure may now be 60 per cent., and declining as I speak.

Mr. Matthew Taylor

Still no Tories.

Mr. Baker

That is true.

We must consider rail fares as a crucial part of the rail industry as a whole. Rail fares are important for social reasons. Many people who depend on public transport have no access to private motor vehicles, and it is doubly unfair for those—often in rural constituencies such as mine and those of many of my hon. Friends—who cannot afford cars to have to pay over the odds for train tickets.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell said, rail fares have increased dramatically compared with the increase in the cost of motoring over the past 20 years. That cannot make any sense socially or environmentally, as I am sure the Minister will agree. We and the Government want more people on trains and fewer on the roads. It would be helpful if the Government would commit themselves to a target under the road traffic reduction legislation, so that we can know that in a set period, perhaps four or five years, there will be a reduction target for the vehicles on our roads or the mileage that they clock up.

The Minister said earlier this Session that if no action was taken there would be a 9 per cent. increase in vehicles on our roads, or their mileage. That cannot be allowed to happen. We must get more people on trains. A key way to do that is to reduce fares—to eliminate some of the problems that have occurred over the past 20 years, when rail fares have rocketed.

I, too, will be parochial in this short debate and speak about my constituency. We have had a plan in my constituency for the massive upgrading of the trunk road—the A27—between Lewes and Polegate. I declare an interest, living next to the trunk road and next to the railway line. We live in an old railway cottage and therefore benefit or otherwise from both of those pieces of infrastructure.

The previous Government had a plan to spend £80 million on adding four lanes to the existing two lanes of the A27, without even looking at the potential of the parallel rail line. This Government have said that they are prepared to consider the integration of road and rail, and they must do that. If rail fares can be cut, even if that involves public money, that will help to solve traffic problems far more than spending on infrastructure works.

We must get away from the days when we were told that money spent on roads is investment and money spent on rail is subsidy. That is nonsense. Money spent on rail is investment as well, no matter whether it is spent on reducing fares or on infrastructure. Whether it meets a social and environmental end, helps to move people around or helps the economy, those are the criteria that the Government should use, rather than some artificial Treasury figure created in 1942, in setting out what should be invested in our infrastructure. The Government should not shy away from considering direct investment to reduce rail fares, if that is the most satisfactory way of achieving their integrated transport objectives.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell rightly mentioned Connex and what the company has done to certain fares in south London. I have been negotiating with the company in my constituency, and I am happy to say that partly as a consequence of that—no doubt other factors are involved—certain off-peak fares from Lewes, Newhaven, Seaford and Polegate to London have been cut by 25 per cent. That is what we should encourage other train operating companies to do.

On the Carlisle-Settle rail line a few years ago, British Rail used to shut stations, reduce services, increase fares and then say that the line was not economic. After much pressure from the public, BR reversed its policy and started opening stations, marketing the line and attracting passengers, and the line is now a success. Rail companies can improve financial accountability and profitability by cutting fares. That is the message that I have given my local rail company, and I hope the same message will come out of the House tonight.

All the way through my constituency, we have rail lines parallel to roads. It would make a wonderful example for a case study, if the Government were minded to do that. We would be happy to co-operate if such a study were undertaken. The congestion problems on the trunk roads in my constituency could largely be solved if rail travel was made more attractive by reducing fares, introducing new rolling stock and making stations safer. If that is done, there will not be a problem on the A27 or the A26. We must start considering lateral solutions.

I shall mention one or two other matters, to which I hope the Minister will respond. National rail inquiries is not coming up to standard in terms of the number of calls answered within the due time—less than 90 per cent., according to the most recent figures. More to the point, it gives conflicting and inaccurate information regarding both the appropriate route for passengers to take and the cost of fares available on particular routes.

What quality measurement is taking place at national rail inquiries? It is easy to measure the speed of response to calls, but who is measuring the quality of the answers given by national rail inquiries? The answers given leave something to be desired. I suggest that quality is being sacrificed in an effort to reach the target of 90 per cent., as failure to meet it could result in a fine. That is not to the benefit of rail passengers.

The powers of the strategic rail authority need to be clarified. We are told that it will be introduced in shadow form or in full during this Session. What powers will it have? What powers will it take away from Railtrack? In my view, it should take away Railtrack's safety responsibilities. What powers will it have over fare levels? How will it interact with the rail regulator, Opraf?

My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall mentioned the problems of elderly people travelling. A parliamentary answer that I received from the Minister this afternoon showed that the number of people who have bought a senior citizens railcard has dropped dramatically since 1990, although it has gone up over the past year. The population is getting older, so there should be more, not fewer, people buying such tickets. A disincentive has been applied to that ticket. Presumably, if older people are not buying the railcard, they are either using their cars or not travelling, neither of which is satisfactory if we want to encourage freedom of movement for all sections of society, including the elderly.

I accept that the problems are not the Government's fault because of what they inherited. I hope that they will be tough on the train operating companies where necessary, and perhaps also tough on the causes of the train operating companies, although they are not present tonight. I hope that the Government will introduce the strategic rail authority as soon as possible, give it firm powers and ensure that fares on our trains are cut.

8.25 pm
Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am delighted to make a brief contribution to the debate. My constituency is not as rural as that of my hon. Friends. Harrogate and Knaresborough is an urban constituency, but we rely heavily on rail transport for the economic regeneration of the town and to get people in and out of the former West Riding conurbations, where they travel to work each day.

Harrogate boasts one of the largest conference and exhibition businesses in the United Kingdom. The Liberal Democrats will be holding their conference there next year. The conference and exhibition facilities attract visitors from all over the world. They arrive at Leeds-Bradford airport, which is an excellent regional airport, and travel to the constituency by road. It can take them as long to get from the airport into the conference centre as it took them to fly up from London, because of traffic congestion on the roads.

If people come up by train from London to York, they will have one of the best rail services in Europe. Great North Eastern Railway undoubtedly runs a Rolls-Royce service between London and Scotland on the east coast main line. I have no difficulty in praising GNER for running such a first-class service. However, people get off the train at York and have to wait for what can only be described as a horse and cart. The service provided by Northern Spirit between York and Harrogate and on to Leeds is unacceptable as we move towards the next millennium. It is a service more fitting for the 1950s than for the 21st century.

Because of the poor quality of the service and of the rolling stock, it is difficult to sell the service to the public who would wish to use it. The part of the line from Harrogate to Leeds is well used, especially at peak commuter times. It is impossible to get on the train particularly at the Leeds border, the point at which it hits the former West Riding passenger transport executive area. From that point on, there are subsidised fares, and, it is possible to travel at significantly reduced rates at peak and off-peak times. As soon as the train crosses the border from Leeds and North Yorkshire into my constituency, there are no such benefits or subsidies, and the people who rely on the line must pay the full fares despite having all the inconveniences of the line.

The Minister's right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister claimed that passenger transport executives would be extended, and that all authorities in the United Kingdom would receive the same benefits. Then, groups of people in large conurbations would not be treated differently from others in more rural and isolated areas, who, it could be argued, are more dependent on public transport. The people of my constituency certainly rely on public transport, and I hope that the Minister will tell us her plans to extend the benefits of passenger transport executives across the UK, and particularly into Harrogate and Knaresborough.

Many people in my constituency are elderly. People traditionally retire to Harrogate and Knaresborough as the constituency is beautiful and has many advantages. However, if they want to use the rail transport network to get to Leeds or York at either end of the line, especially if they have an ambulant disablement, they face real difficulties. The two ends of the line boast two of the largest stations in the UK, but they have not one escalator between them. Huge improvements are happening at York station, but when I asked when escalators would be installed, I was told that there would be none. I asked about the multi-million pound investment in Leeds station, and was again told that there would be no escalators.

It is extremely difficult for people who have mobility problems to use our stations. If we want people to use the railways, we have to provide facilities not only on trains, but in stations. Only then will people of all classes be attracted to using the system.

8.32 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) not only on securing the debate, but on managing—though not single-handedly—to introduce it earlier than expected into the House's programme this evening. He has afforded an opportunity to several of his hon. Friends to make speeches.

The hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), for Lewes (Mr. Baker) and for Bath (Mr. Foster)—I regret that the last-named hon. Member is not in his place— have each, in their individual and inimitable ways, raised the issue of rural transport, or, rather, the marked lack of it. Although the essential thrust of the debate raised by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell had to do with the failure of the railways to provide a first-rate service to the millions of people who are willing to travel on them, other issues have been raised.

The hon. Member for North Cornwall spoke of access to the railways from his rural constituency. He will be aware of the sizeable rural bus grant—£50 million every year for the next three years—which is being specifically targeted at tackling the type of issues that he and his hon. Friends have raised. Additional sums were available for a rural bus competition that sought innovative schemes to deal with the most sparsely populated and most dispersed rural communities, and we shall soon announce the results.

The hon. Members for North Cornwall, for Lewes and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) spoke of how pensioners feel themselves to be impacted against. There again, the Government have taken steps to redress that position. Although few local authorities provide concessionary fares for their pensioners, as the House will know the Government have said that there will be a national scheme and it is proposed that all pensioners will be able to have them for a down payment of £5.

In the first instance, we are obviously concentrating on our bus network. We want bus services to increase and to integrate with rail services. The hon. Member for Lewes mentioned the availability of senior citizens' railcards and I have noticed the downturn in applications for the railcard in the past few years. In common with the hon. Gentleman, I am delighted that the figures are now rising, but I am not convinced that the failure to apply is necessarily due to the cost; it is due to the fact that our railways have not provided the type of service that we need.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough mentioned the inaccessibility of many stations. Through the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Government are committed to ensure that all public transport is accessible to all our citizens. Indeed, from 1 January all new rolling stock must be accessible to everyone, but I would not attempt to convince hon. Members—nor would I be believed if I did—that all rolling stock will be accessible on that date; nor would I be believed if I attempted to convince them that all our stations will be accessible.

All hon. Members who spoke mentioned the need for a strategic rail authority. The lack of investment that marked the previous Administration for decades underlies all the specific and general problems that were raised tonight. The fact that investment in our railway network—

Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester)

Will the Minister comment on the total absence of the official Opposition? Is that a boycott, a snub, or evidence of a could-not-care-less attitude on the part of the Administration who left us in this situation?

Ms Jackson

I would like to think that that absence is due to a sense of shame, but that is highly unlikely as the Opposition markedly failed to express any of that attribute in anything that they said before or after their crushing defeat.

Essentially, the issue is the failure to invest adequately post-privatisation. As the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell said, the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties campaigned ferociously against what we still believe to have been a benighted policy. Post-privatisation there has been no strategic authority capable of directing, in the national interest, where investment should go. That would be one of the central responsibilities of the strategic rail authority and I was delighted that hon. Members welcomed the Government's proposal to create one.

I took on board the suggestion that the necessary legislation might be introduced sooner rather than later because of what I can only describe as some bizarre goings-on at the other end of the Corridor and the even more bizarre reactions to them by the Leader of the Opposition. As hon. Members will know, however, we have given a commitment that a shadow strategic rail authority will be in place by next April—we hope.

Mr. Tyler

I am glad to hear that, but will the Minister deal with the problem of co-ordination between the rail and bus networks? In the previous Parliament I was our party spokesman on transport during part of privatisation process and, as she rightly said, Labour and Liberal Democrat Members stood shoulder to shoulder to try to prevent the desecration of our rail system. One problem that resulted from the deregulation of the bus network in 1983 was the overall lack of co-ordination and integration between public transport services. In a constituency such as mine, if bus services do not link with train services, all the work that the strategic rail authority might do could be undermined.

Ms Jackson

I entirely agree and the train operating companies are beginning not only to talk to each other but to take on board the fact that—

Ms Candy Atherton (Falmouth and Camborne)

I am seeking a meeting with Great Western to put the views of my constituents on rail fares and the lack of a train service to meet their needs. It has been brought to my attention that travel between Falmouth and Camborne and Paddington was faster in the 19th century than it is today. I find that staggering, as I am sure does the Minister. Does she support me in seeking that meeting to make the case for my constituents?

Ms Jackson

I strongly support my hon. Friend in her desire for a meeting with her train operating company. She is right about journey times. Across central London, they are about the same as they were in the 18th century. That is another thing that the Government are committed to addressing and redressing.

The hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned the integration of the various transport modes. I believe that both the train operating companies and the bus providers realise—certainly we have urged them to—that the competition is not with one another but with the private car. That is not exclusively because bus and train companies are often one and the same, although bus companies have invested in train operating companies. As I have had occasion to say before, if they cannot provide high-quality services, and the choice is between sitting in an ever-growing traffic jam and standing on a wet, windy pavement or platform waiting for a vehicle that may not arrive, the car will win hands down every time.

Mr. Matthew Taylor

As several bus operators have taken over rail companies, does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable for companies to think that branch line services in particular can be replaced by bus services? There is a tendency in that direction. They clearly believe that there may be profits to be made from doing it.

Ms Jackson

If companies are approaching the matter on the basis of not expanding and increasing services, it is clearly something that one would not welcome. However, I will not say categorically that, in every instance, the best quality of service that can be provided, particularly in sparsely populated rural areas, must be the maintenance of a branch line, when an infinitely better, faster, more modern, more accessible service could be provided by, say, a coach that linked up with the main line.

However, all such proposals must be considered individually; there cannot be a blanket yes or no. That is one reason why the Government have found extra money for two new funds—the investment fund and the passenger fund. They will act as the seedcorn to bring together a partnership comprising several interests to advance a business case that could, for example, revitalise a branch line if custom warranted it.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough mentioned passenger transport executives and authorities. The recurring theme that informs Government thinking is the integration of our transport modes. We are looking to local authorities to create integrated transport plans for their areas. Again, we have made a major breakthrough, because they will be expected to submit plans that will take three to five years to complete, and involve budgets that will run for three years. We have got away from the annual begging bowl round for local authorities in presenting their transport plans. The integrated transport plans will have to fit in with the much wider regional transport plans.

I was impressed when I took part in four of the eight meetings between Ministers and the regional authorities by just how much co-operation and partnership is already in place throughout the country. I was impressed by the willingness—indeed, eagerness—of local and regional authorities to work together and to advance policies to produce the transport plans the country so desperately needs. We are talking about integrated transport, which requires that everyone involved should work together in a genuine spirit of partnership.

Mr. Willis

I am grateful for the response that the Minister has just made. May I clarify the issue of subsidies? The huge subsidies that are going into some of the existing passenger transport executives do not equate with the subsidy that goes into a county such as North Yorkshire. Is the Minister saying that resources will be equalised on a regional basis, or shall we still have inequities in grant aid?

Ms Jackson

If the hon. Gentleman is thinking of some of the passenger transport authorities and executives of which I am aware—I hope that he will not take it as an insult, but the one that most immediately comes to mind is Greater Manchester—my reply is that we have seen massive investment in rail infrastructure by those local authorities. The hon. Gentleman would call it special grant, but there has to be a balancing of the amount that such authorities have already invested to ensure that the investment gives a return.

We have managed, following the comprehensive spending review, to make available an additional £700 million for local authorities' transport plans. We have also introduced hypothecation. Local authorities will, via congestion charging and a private non-residential parking levy, be able to raise an income stream, which they will be able to use only for improving transport in their area. I repeat that local authorities will be expected to submit plans. They can plan for three to five years with the assurance that there will be budgets. We have got away from the annual begging bowl round.

I trust that the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell will forgive me for concentrating in the first part of my speech on the points made by his hon. Friends, many of which were inherent in his speech. I assure hon. Members on both sides of the House, and, indeed, the entire country, that issues surrounding transport in rural areas are central to the Government's thinking. We are well aware of the difficulties in many rural areas. We have taken major steps to address them. This is not empty rhetoric. We have put the wherewithal—money—behind it, to begin to address and redress the issues.

I am sure that the House and the country will agree that the last thing that rail passengers want for Christmas—the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell dubbed some of the train operating companies Scrooges—is news of even more fare rises. But with key fares now regulated by the franchising director, widespread annual above-inflation January increases are now a thing of the past.

However, despite that good news, I remain concerned—the speeches by other hon. Members this evening have confirmed that I am not alone in my concern—that some unregulated off-peak fares continue to increase above the rate of inflation. The growth market in discount fares has not stopped some operators putting up the prices in real terms of unregulated cheap day returns, supersavers and similar discounted fares. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell gave some detailed information on that issue.

That has happened not only in the south-west but in many parts of the country, which will be of no comfort to the hon. Gentleman or any of his constituents. Basic economics surely dictates that higher fares will not encourage more people to travel by train. Train operators have to consider whether increasing off-peak fares is the best way to attract new rail passengers and fill spare capacity.

The absence of control over unregulated fares is a consequence of legally binding franchise agreements inherited from the previous Government. I regret that there is little practical scope for altering the current arrangements in the short term. However, we have made it clear that, when opportunities arise for negotiating franchises, the new strategic rail authority will ensure that arrangements are made to ensure that train operators structure and market their fares to offer value for money for their passengers, and to reflect the fact that our railway is a national network, which needs to be marketed accordingly and in a way that encourages people to switch from car to train.

Mr. David Drew (Stroud)

I should like to raise two issues on which my hon. Friend the Minister might care to comment. The first is the definition of "peak" times, which is a fairly elastic phrase. Secondly, the problem is not only what people pay, but the service they receive. The trains are now a worse-kept secret, and many people use the train only to be put off by the low-quality service they receive—for example, the train is overcrowded, or there is no buffet car. The two problems must be tackled together.

Ms Jackson

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In his own way, he underlines a point made by several hon. Members, which is that there has been a lamentable lack of investment in our railways, not only in infrastructure, but in rolling stock. We cannot drag back the wasted years, but we can, via the strategic rail authority, begin to ensure that investment is not only adequate in terms of amounts, but strategically placed, so that the improvements that everyone wants take place.

Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives)

Following the points raised by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), would the Minister care to comment on one of the many anomalies resulting from the way in which the rail service was privatised—the role of rolling stock companies? In my part of the world, many trains on branch lines run with only one carriage when there should be three or four. The Minister may correct me, but my understanding of what the service operators tell me is that they have no recourse against the three rolling stock companies that supply those shoddy services.

Ms Jackson

The hon. Gentleman introduces the subject of rolling stock companies. If I get started on that subject, any benefits the House has gained from the Adjournment starting sooner than expected would totally disappear. It was surely one of the most crass aspects of rail privatisation that the rolling stock companies were sold off at a fraction of their real worth, and entirely outside the regulatory system. Orders are now being laid, and new rolling stock will come on to our railways, but that is not before time.

The pieces of good news that I recounted at the start of my speech will be of little comfort to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell, as many of his constituents have seen their fares increase by more than inflation. Last summer's decision by Wales and West Passenger Trains to ban cheap day returns to several popular holiday resorts in Cornwall might have made sense to the train operating company and helped it to manage overcrowding, but it is a bitter pill for passengers, many of whom are totally reliant on those rail services for their own essential travel. In addition, I very much doubt that high local fares benefit the Cornish local economy, dependent as it is on tourism and holiday travel.

I know that Great Western Trains has also made changes to its fares for journeys between London and Cornwall. I am aware of concern about the fact that saver tickets are no longer available for use on the popular 5.30 pm departure from Paddington—a point raised by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell. However, I understand that Great Western Trains has made arrangements to accommodate day travellers from Cornwall to London by other means, including a flexible all-day services day return ticket and the super advance fare.

I would be surprised and disappointed if train operators did not consider different ways of meeting the needs of their passengers, and providing them with good value for money for the journeys they wish to make. As well as meeting the fares regulation requirements, train operators must show the franchising director that they are improving their customers' satisfaction with the service and value on offer.

Mr. Matthew Taylor

As the rail regulator and Great Western will undoubtedly refer to this debate, it is important to make it clear that a day return from Cornwall is no substitute for a saver fare, because few people will make the round trip to London in a single day. The time is very limited. The only real option is the advance fare, and not everyone is able to make use of it.

Ms Jackson

It is entirely probable that the rail regulator and Great Western Trains will attempt to obtain a copy of the Official Report to read this debate. If they do not, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall certainly bring it to their attention.

Recent research has shown that, on average and in real terms, fares overall have been falling since privatisation. From January 1999, key fares such as saver tickets, unrestricted standard returns where there are no savers, and all standard weekly season tickets, will be capped at 1 per cent. below the rate of inflation. They will remain capped for each of the next four years.

In the London, Edinburgh and Cardiff areas, where there is significant commuting and the railways exercise considerable monopoly power, all standard season tickets and a range of standard singles and unrestricted standard returns are also capped. For non-lnterCity London commuter fares, the fares cap can be adjusted further to reflect the quality of service provided by operators—a point made by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell.

With the exception of Silverlink trains, the average permitted increase in London commuter fares has been capped below the rate of inflation, to reflect falling performance levels over the last year. That means a reduction in real terms for passengers. However, as many passengers have told me, they want reliability more than anything else: they want the train to be there when they arrive at the station, and they want to be sure that it will arrive at its destination at the advertised time.

Passengers expecting the usual January fares increase will have been surprised by Connex Rail's announcement last week that it would be reducing the cost of many commuter rail fares in the south-east. Connex Rail's decision should help to make rail travel more attractive and encourage people to leave their cars at home—and every hon. Member who has spoken this evening has stressed the desirability of that outcome. I strongly welcome that move, and I hope that it will mark the beginning of a trend to attract more passengers with value-for-money fares across the rail network.

I also welcome moves by train operators to promote discount fares such as Apex—I know that the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell does not share my view of that method of selling tickets—and other advance-booked products to attract people to their services, particularly in off-peak hours, when space capacity currently exists. As a result, passengers are using the cheapest tickets more than ever before.

The take-up of journeys made by purchasing Apex and similar advance-booked tickets has increased by 40 per cent. in two years. Indeed, the increase in the average fare paid between April 1996 and April 1998 was only 3 per cent.—below the rate of inflation. Popular discount railcard schemes—the senior railcard, the young persons railcard and the disabled railcard—which allow reduced rail travel for holders have also been protected by the franchising director.

One of the obvious failures of rail privatisation has been the perceived lack of a clear, understandable, national fares structure. Although I welcome many of the new and innovative fares introduced by train operators, they have led to a multiplicity of different and frequently changing fares for similar services, with, in some cases, complex and varied conditions—for example, in relation to advance booking.

Mr. Colin Breed (South-East Cornwall)

I want to try to ensure that every hon. Member from Cornwall speaks tonight, so I shall relate to the Minister an experience that I had a few weeks ago when I was trying to book a ticket.

I waited in the queue for about 20 minutes with nothing else to do, so I decided to time the people standing at the full inquiry desks, where three clerks were trying to work out fares. That is difficult for the public to do. Even the clerks, poring over computer screens and huge books, were taking five to six minutes to deal with each inquiry. Surely there is a better method, whether it uses a paper or computer system. Inquiries about the best ticket for a particular journey must take less time. To stand in a queue for nearly half an hour, as I did, while clerks spend five to six minutes on each inquiry will clearly put people off travelling at all.

Ms Jackson

It may be of some comfort to the hon. Gentleman to know that the Association of Train Operating Companies is engaged in producing a high-tech system that will mean that the wait to which he was subject, and which many would-be rail travellers suffer, will be a thing of the past. I am in no position to say when that system will come on line, but it will do so. Of course, as I have said, that does not attack the problem of the multiplicity of fares and people's sheer inability to understand how they are arrived at, which we want to be addressed.

Mr. Baker

Before the Minister concludes—she seems to be coming to the end of her remarks—will she respond to my earlier point about the quality of response from national rail inquiries in dealing with the multiplicity of fares, which is diminishing so that they can meet their targets of answering a call on time?

Ms Jackson

The hon. Gentleman should have more faith—I intended to deal with that issue before I wound up. As he has pushed me, I say to him that we are disappointed that the rail regulator has had occasion, yet again, to impose stinging fines on the Association of Train Operating Companies over the failure of the national rail inquiries system. I have regular meetings with the association, and I assure all hon. Members who have spoken that I will raise with the association the issues that have been mentioned tonight.

I am concerned about the complexity that passengers often face when booking an apparently simple journey. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) related a direct personal experience of that. I am particularly concerned that there may be instances of passengers paying more than they should or receiving inaccurate advice about the service and routes they may use. As I said, we can do little to change the current fares arrangements in the short term, and I do not want to deprive passengers of many popular bargain fares that are now widely available. However, it is surely not too much to ask train operators to make sure that they correctly advise passengers on every occasion.

When I and my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport met train operators and Railtrack last month, we made it clear that we expect progressive year-on-year improvements from the industry starting over the next 12 months. Passengers want an efficient, reliable and reasonably priced rail service. I assure the House that we shall do everything in our power to ensure that train operators redouble their efforts to deliver a good service at a reasonable price.

I shall discuss with the train operating companies the issues that have been raised, including that of school parties, which the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell mentioned. That could be addressed. There are considerations of capacity but, as the hon. Member for Bath, who I regret is not in his place, has said. Railtrack has failed adequately to invest in certain parts of the network. We have discussed the failure of the rolling stock companies to provide new stock.

Although we argued against rail privatisation, as did Liberal Democrats, we have to acknowledge that we are where we are. We have to move forward. Vast amounts of public money are still going into our railways. I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Lewes has opted for our approach to this. Money put into roads was deemed by the previous Administration to be investment, but money put into railways was subsidy. We totally reject that argument.

For a variety of reasons, not least the environment and economic sustainability, we are committed to ensuring that our railways carry more passengers and more freight. We have made it abundantly clear to the train operating companies and to the entire railway industry that there is potential for a renaissance in our railways, but it will be achieved only by everybody working together. If we need to push and shove a little, the Government are determined to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Nine o'clock.