§ 14. Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes)What steps he is taking to encourage train operating companies to reduce fare levels. [99021]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin)Increases in key fares have been restricted to below inflation increases for the second year running, with tougher caps placed on London operators to reflect poor performance over the past year. We look to train operators to consider whether increasing unregulated off-peak fares is the best way to attract new rail passengers.
§ Mr. BakerI welcome that answer, but does the Minister agree that one reason why people do not often travel by train is the astronomical cost of many train journeys, which is far higher than the equivalent cost of petrol mileage for the same journey? Will he help to end the mindset that money spent on roads is investment while money spent on trains is subsidy? Does he agree that it might be a sensible use of his Department's money to help to achieve a cut in train fares? Will he investigate that before his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State resurrects the environmentally damaging roads programme?
§ Mr. MullinI certainly agree that price is very important if one is hoping to attract people on to the railways. On average, regulated rail fares across the network will rise by less than inflation for the second year running, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that. The key fares are capped at 1 per cent. below the rate of inflation until 2003. Connex SouthCentral, which serves Lewes, has again had its fares capped below the rate of inflation, and I hope that he will join me in celebrating that.
§ Mr. Andrew Reed (Loughborough)Is my hon. Friend aware that since privatisation, the cost of subsidising the rail services between Loughborough and Leicester, which are subsidised by Leicestershire county council, doubled overnight simply because of the operating costs and profits built into the privatised system? Will my hon. Friend tell me what was the outcome of the review of the rail companies' operating costs and profits, so that the subsidy can be cut and the real benefit will be felt by the passengers, not the companies?
§ Mr. MullinWe shall in due course renegotiate the franchises, which will give us an opportunity to consider all the issues that my hon. Friend has raised.
§ Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath)Will the Minister agree to meet a delegation from my constituency who are concerned about fare levels and standards of service on the railways and the tube, which many of them use on their way to work?
Given that in his answer to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) the Minister referred to London operators, will he comment on the analysis by BBC television's "The Money Programme" of the claims made by the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and the hon. 147 Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) that it is completely impossible to fund London underground's reconstruction by a bond issue because the New York bond issue had been a disaster? "The Money Programme" showed that those claims were completely inaccurate—the bond issue in New York was a huge success—and when the private sector was fully able to operate, we had a much better London underground system.
§ Mr. MullinThe hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he sees on the television; that can be very bad for you. I did not see the programme in question so I cannot comment on it. I, or one of my colleagues, would, of course, be glad to meet a delegation from his constituency to discuss the matters that he mentioned.