Rail Strategic Plan

HC Deb 14 January 2002 vol 378 cc30-53

4 pm

The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Stephen Byers)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the strategic plan for our railways, which was published this morning by the Strategic Rail Authority.

The plan's publication comes at a time when industrial action is being taken against a number of train operating companies. It is not for the Government to intervene directly in disputes between private companies and their employees. However, we do believe that in this day and age disputes of this nature should be settled by negotiation and not by strike action, which harms the travelling public and in the longer term has the potential to damage the railway industry itself. In those circumstances, the interests of the rail passenger must come first and, as the Prime Minister said last Wednesday, arbitration and the end to strike action should be, and would be, the best way forward.

Despite the efforts and commitment of many dedicated and motivated individuals who work in the industry, we do not have a railway system fit for the 21st century. That is due to two principal reasons. First, our railways have been subject to consistent underinvestment for almost three decades. In the 1970s and 1980s, there was an environment of political disinterest as far as the railways were concerned. That led to limited funding and investment, a situation that continued throughout privatisation during the 1990s.

The second reason for underperformance is the failed privatisation that was Railtrack. Five years after privatisation, Railtrack still does not have a register of its basic assets—track and signals. Costs of the west coast main line have escalated from £2 billion to perhaps some £7 billion, and it is only now, with a new management at the top, that the total mismanagement and failure to deliver on that project are becoming clear. The lack of investment in track maintenance was cruelly exposed at Hatfield, while at the same time £700 million was paid in dividends to Railtrack shareholders.

Both those problems—the lack of investment and the failed privatisation—have now been addressed by the Government. As the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, Digby Jones, said this morning, nettles are at last being grasped". Total investment each year over the next 10 years will average £4.3 billion in today's money. That contrasts with £1.4 billion in the final five years of the last Tory Government. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Hon. Members should let the Secretary of State make his statement. He is allowed to do so.

Mr. Byers

The reality, of course, is that the Conservative party does not like to hear the truth. As a result of chronic underinvestment under the Conservatives, the total subsidy from the Government to the industry will increase to an average of £2.94 billion a year at current prices, directly and indirectly supporting the increased investment that it needs.

We have said that we will provide £33.5 billion of public money to invest in our railways. The original provision in the 10-year plan for transport was £29 billion. The placing of Railtrack into administration on 7 October by the High Court means that we now have the opportunity of seeing a new licence operator for the network who will have one overriding priority—to put the interests of rail passengers first.

Against this background, the strategic plan is being published. It is just a start, but it is important because it is the first long-term plan for the expansion of the railway for nearly 50 years. It sets basic objectives, allocates funds, identifies priorities and sets a clear timetable for delivery. The plan forms part of the Government's agenda for modernisation of those essential services on which the public depend. Our approach is clear across all key public services. Whether in health, education, the fight against crime or transport, we invest in reform and insist on results. The results are clear from the strategic plan.

For the period between now and 2005, the priorities outlined in the plan reflect the need to tackle the current problems of poor performance and lack of reliability, to develop a new structure for the industry and to implement much-needed improvements across the country. Let us examine the detail of the improvements to take place between now and 2005. Specifically, 1,700 new carriages will be delivered by the end of 2004 to replace the 30-year-old slam-door rolling stock on the South Central, Connex South Eastern and South West Trains routes. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I ask again that there be no shouting. The Minister is making a statement—a statement which the House asked for.

Mr. Byers

The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the facts of what will be delivered are uncomfortable for the Conservatives. Let us go through the detail. As I said, 1,700 new rolling stock will be introduced by the end of 2004. By the end of 2003, the train protection warning system will be completed, preventing trains going through danger signals. Four hundred million pounds will be provided for a rail performance fund to help secure short-term improvements, and £430 million will be available for local schemes under the rail passenger partnership programme.

There will be major infrastructure and rolling stock investments in the west coast main line and cross-country routes. That will lead to significant journey time reductions on the west coast, and frequencies on cross-country services will be doubled, which will be of real benefit to major regional centres such as Birmingham, Liverpool, Derby, Bristol and Plymouth. There will be improvements at 1,000 stations. A new approach to franchising will be adopted which reflects the priorities of passengers and achieves a balance between getting the basics right in the short term and the need to invest for the long term.

The strategic plan contains a delivery commitment for each of the franchise areas, showing in detail the improvements to be made and the time scale for their implementation. In the medium term, the plan shows how to achieve the three core targets for the industry: increasing passenger growth by 50 per cent; increasing freight by 80 per cent; and reducing overcrowding in the London area. It also sets out a broader range of objectives, including improvements in safety, performance and quality.

Although the plan rightly focuses on the short and medium term, it is vital to plan for the long term. Major projects require detailed planning and analysis, robust contracting, and strong and competent project management and delivery. The plan makes provision for development work now towards longer-term potential projects. Those include major infrastructure improvements to the Great Western main line, new airport links, London crossrail and a new north-south high speed line.

Major investment must be directed to where it is most needed. Passenger demand is highly concentrated by market and route. About 70 per cent. of all passenger journeys made nationally use the network in the south-east. That means that we must focus investment on the main routes, both inter-city and commuter, which serve London. With the scale of investment provided in the 10-year plan, we can meet the needs of London and the south-east without diverting funds from the regional network. In addition, the refranchising of the regional franchises, almost all of which come to an end shortly, will provide the opportunity to improve services. The regional networks will also benefit significantly from the doubling of frequencies on cross-country services.

A particularly key role in the forward planning of the railways is being played by the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and London. My colleagues in Scotland welcome the document and the vision that it contains of a safer, better and bigger railway system for Scotland in the future. The SRA's plan is designed to meet the needs of Scottish passengers and freight customers and contributes to the delivery of the Scottish Executive's document "Strategic Priorities for Scotland's Railways". Many of Scotland's priorities are addressed in partnership with the Scottish Executive and with the Strathclyde passenger transport executive. In particular, the plan refers to the development of Waverley station in Edinburgh to provide more capacity and better passenger facilities, and to work on rail capacity in the central belt and on rail access to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports.

The Welsh Assembly is making a significant contribution alongside that which is planned by the Strategic Rail Authority over the next five years, with enhanced rail infrastructure especially on valley lines and the Cambrian line. The Wales and borders franchise is being taken forward as a priority in the strategic plan. This provides a real opportunity to increase the quality and frequency of service, and I expect the new franchise to be operational early next year. A good start is being made with the opening of the Vale of Glamorgan line from Barry to Bridgend for passengers. Wales will also benefit from the commitments made on strategic services into London, including new rolling stock and track improvements. That is vital in improving communications for people in Wales as well as attracting business and leisure travellers to Wales. The Mayor of London is about to issue directions and guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority that will place a priority on better integration of railways with tube and bus services and on increased frequencies.

We also need to do more to encourage freight on to our railways and off the roads. I recognise that a key element will be intra-European Union freight passing through the channel tunnel. The House will be aware of attempts to enter our country illegally through the tunnel. We must ensure that that does not happen and we will continue to press the French authorities strongly to provide the necessary security, both physically and through police presence at the freight yards on the French side. We have made good progress on Eurostar and that needs to be matched on freight as well. Under the plan, the freight facilities grant will be relaunched and there will also be a £300 million fund aimed at small-scale freight schemes.

Britain's railway is essential to the country's economic success and social development, and to environmental sustainability. Every day, the network carries 2.5 million passengers and 400,000 tonnes of freight. Each day, Liverpool Street station alone handles as many passengers as all the airlines carry through Heathrow. The railway industry is a key industrial sector employing 130,000 people. An efficient rail system would relieve road congestion and improve the competitive position of British industry.

It is six times safer to travel by rail than by car for each mile travelled. Rail is Britain's most extensive and co-ordinated national public transport system. We therefore need a railway that can deliver for our people and our country, and no more vague aspirations or grand visions that are strong on rhetoric but weak on delivery. The plan is an agenda for action. It shows what will be achieved for the large-scale investment that we intend to make in the next 10 years.

The strategic plan for railways draws a line in the sand and represents the point at which we say enough is enough. Let us take the necessary action and get on with providing a railway that is fit for the 21st century and the country with the fourth largest economy in the world. The plan will make an important contribution towards achieving that objective and I commend it to hon. Members.

Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead)

Before I respond to the statement, I should like to inform hon. Members that my husband is employed by a bank that has been appointed to advise the Railtrack administrators.

I thank the Secretary of State for just about prior sight of his statement; it was tight going. I also thank him for coming to the Chamber to respond to the Strategic Rail Authority plan. However, I appreciate that we may have to await the words of Lord Birt in another place before we hear the Government's genuine response to it.

Since the Secretary of State pulled the plug on Railtrack and put the company into administration, train delays have increased overall by 45 per cent. and by more than 70 per cent. on some lines. Strikes are crippling some lines and every day brings more news of commuters' misery. As the Secretary of State admitted this morning, responsibility rests firmly with the Labour Government.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley)

What about privatisation? You privatised the railway.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not shout across the Chamber.

Mrs. May

I am sure that the Secretary of State was thinking about the railways on his walking tour of south India. I assure him that rail passengers were thinking about him as they shivered on platforms, waiting for trains that never came. He has promised us new direction and focus for the railways, yet the plan delivers only more repeated announcements and pretty waiting rooms. People want trains that run on time, not Government gimmicks. They do not get to work any faster because a station has been painted.

As the Evening Standard tells us, there is no new money. That is significant. The Secretary of State would have told us that if he had not left out the paragraph in his statement that said "Most of the additional £4.5 billion has been the subject of previous Government announcements." In fact, it is difficult to find what is new in the statement, which is a triumph of cut and paste from Railtrack's network management statement.

The Government have provided some value added: a 25 per cent. increase in delay for most of the projects. Perhaps the Secretary of State could name one project for which the timetable has not slipped. Again, the Government have raised expectations that the plan will be the answer to passengers' needs.

Much is made of new carriages, and the Secretary of State referred to them. Will he confirm that they are not additional, as the statement suggests, but merely replacements? By how much will capacity increase as a result? Furthermore, what confidence can the beleaguered travellers on Connex South Eastern have that the power supply will be sufficient to run the new trains?

The SRA has set out three milestones that need to be reached to achieve the strategic plan. The first is resolution of the Railtrack administration. While the company stays in administration, the rail system is in limbo, with staff, contractors and train operating companies uncertain about the future, and the private sector unwilling to invest. Some say that Railtrack will remain in administration until next year. Will the Secretary of State tell the House his working estimate, for budgetary purposes, of the date on which Railtrack will come out of administration?

The second obstacle to achieving the SRA's plan is instability and lack of confidence in the railway—the plan says that placing Railtrack into administration has damaged confidence in the railways. The Government are expecting the private sector to invest more than £30 billion in the railways over the next 10 years. Exactly what steps is the Secretary of State taking to restore the confidence of private sector investors?

What about passengers' confidence in safety? In December, at the Paddington survivors group summit, the Secretary of State signed up to implementing improved safety measures. The network management statement made a commitment to the installation of automatic train protection systems. In this plan, that has disappeared. Are the Government still committed to it?

The third obstacle mentioned by the SRA is skill shortages. Passengers' misery is being increased by the cancellation of trains due to strikes caused by the irresponsible behaviour of the RMT and ASLEF. We hear that last year the Minister for Transport was ordered to hold monthly meetings with the unions. Well, we can see how much help that has been. Will the Secretary of State join me in condemning the trade unions for calling these strikes, and will he clearly state to the House that the Government back the management of the train operating companies in dealing with the strikes?

There is a fourth milestone: capacity. Without increased capacity the Government will not deliver the improvements that they promise. The plan holds out little hope that that can be achieved and therefore fails in relation to the most important milestone of all.

The Minister for Europe tells us that we have the worst railways in Europe. The chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority says that customer satisfaction is at an all-time low". Meanwhile, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), is being groomed to take over as Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The Secretary of State has been humiliated by his colleagues, undermined by the Prime Minister, and stripped of his powers; the only thing that he has not got around to doing is handing in his ministerial limo. This plan offers no new money, no new schemes and no hope for passengers in the future. Passengers want trains that run on time, not cosmetic gimmicks from a failed Secretary of State.

Mr. Byers

Since I became Transport Secretary, I have made it very clear that the level of service provided on our railways is unacceptably low. That decline has not happened since the general election last year, or since the one in 1997. The problem has been caused by a number of reasons, and, as the travelling public know, the two main ones are underinvestment going back decades and the failed privatisation involving Railtrack. The Conservatives cannot come to terms with the fact that one of their creations, Railtrack, has been taken into administration by the High Court. They oppose that.

The shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer said on "Question Time" last week that privatisation of Railtrack was not given a chance. I see him nodding in agreement now. That is the Tories' solution: give Railtrack one more chance. That is the shadow Chancellor's policy, but the travelling public know better.

The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) spoke of the problems with drivers. There is a terrible shortage of drivers, which is why the trade union has been able to push up the rate of pay, for two reasons. First, the industry is run according to the short term at the moment; we do not have real investment in skills. The SRA plan proposes a National Rail Academy to address that problem. What are the facts behind the crux of the problem? On privatisation, what did the train operating companies do? They got rid of 1,000 drivers. That is the heart of the problem faced by the industry.

The hon. Lady raised issues about improved safety measures. Our commitments will be delivered, and that is a guarantee from the Government. On carriages, of course there will be replacements for the old slam-door stock, but if she reads the document and the detail on individual franchises she will see that capacity will increase as well. Each franchise is gone through in the strategic plan, and I ask her and the travelling public to read what improvements are planned and timetabled for their particular franchise area. That is there in detail and people can see, for the first time and with a timetable, the planned improvements in their area. The plan also takes into account the cost of Railtrack being in administration.

The hon. Lady makes a big point about no new cash being available to the industry, but we are very clear about investment: the figure was £29 billion when the 10-year plan was announced and it is now £33.5 billion, the sum which is being allocated today. We have made no secret of the fact that announcements have been made over the past 12 months or so about the additional money coming into the railway network. We have been very clear about that, but for the first time—this is the crucial point—we are seeing big investment in our railway network, as £33.5 billion of public money is coming in. That stands in stark contrast to the penny-pinching of the Conservatives in government.

It is rich for the hon. Lady to question our investment commitment when we know from the shadow Chancellor—I am pleased to see him here—

Michael Fabricant (Lichfield)

I am too.

Mr. Byers

The hon. Gentleman may say that, and I look forward to the next election campaign, when he stands on a commitment to reduce the percentage of gross domestic product spent on services to 35 per cent. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) knows that an allocation of 35 per cent. of GDP for public services means a £60 billion cut in public services. It means that the whole investment need for railways will be lost totally. The shadow Chancellor may not like it, but he is on record as saying that very clearly.

Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)

Five years ago.

Mr. Byers

It was not. The right hon. and learned Gentleman really should know better. He has said that the Conservatives' aim should be to reduce the proportion of national output taken for the state to 35 per cent. The leader of the Conservative party said in the Budget debate in autumn last year that their target should be a reduction towards 35 per cent. of GDP. [Interruption.] I can understand why the Conservatives do not like it, because they challenge our commitment to investment—£33.5 billion—even though they know that they are committed to cut spending on public services.

On private sector involvement, the chairman of the SRA made himself very clear this morning when he said that he had discovered since he took office that many of the institutional and lending investors had been ringing him to say they want to be involved. He believes that that is clear indication of the investment that those involved want to see made.

We have made our position on the disputes absolutely clear, as did the Prime Minister last Wednesday. We are not prepared to get to a situation in which things that might be said work against a solution being found. Discussions are going on between the private employers and the trade unions, and the hope is that they will resolve the dispute. The Government's position is clear: arbitration is a far better route than strike action, which will affect the travelling public.

I said at the beginning of my statement that the Government accept that the current level of service is not good enough. The travelling public know that the responsibility does not lie with this Secretary of State or with this Government; they know that years of underinvestment and the failed privatisation that was Railtrack are the real reasons for that. The strategic plan draws a line in the sand. It states that enough is enough, and provides an agenda for delivery in the future. That agenda will be implemented in full.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

The Secretary of State will know that the Strategic Rail Authority plan has been a long time coming, and will be warmly welcomed. One of the hazards of the rail industry is that, since the disastrous privatisation, it has suffered for too long from poor management, squabbling companies and the total inability of those responsible for the railways to invest in modern equipment or to deal with the day-to-day administration of a failing system.

Will my right hon. Friend give me one or two undertakings? Will he assure me that no long-term franchise will be given to a company that cannot show that it has fulfilled all the terms of its existing franchise? Failed companies should not merely be fined, but should be put at risk of losing their franchises if they do not deliver services at the standards that passengers demand. Will he also assure me that, in doing his very best to improve facilities for commuters in large urban areas, he will not forget that those who destroy the feeder branches of a railway system destroy its real strength? It would be stupid in fact, if not in theory, to forget that, because we have been round that track and got lost before.

Mr. Byers

As Chairman of the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend makes some important points. On the attitude within the industry, she is right that there has been a tendency for people to blame each other and never to take responsibility themselves for delivering the rail system that we need. The positive thing about the strategic plan published today is that it has been widely welcomed by all sections and all sectors of the rail industry. That is a good indication of the fact that the industry has recognised that it needs to move forward, and that companies will be in a stronger position to deliver if they work together instead of blaming each other, as they have all too often done in the past.

My hon. Friend raises the important issue of using the franchising system as a key lever to improve the quality of service. In the past, the franchise regime has not been used in a tough and disciplined way to ratchet up levels of performance. My hon. Friend hinted at the fact that, in the past, previous performance has not been used as one of the key tests in awarding franchises for the future, and I accept that. That must change, as is evident in the new franchising regime produced by the Strategic Rail Authority and reinforced in the strategic plan.

There is competition for these major franchises. In that competitive atmosphere, we must ensure that the passenger gets the benefit from the new franchising regime, which will take account of the quality of delivery by the previous franchise holder.

On the role of feeder branches, it is important that we acknowledge that 70 per cent. of all passenger travel is in London and the south-east. However, that is not a reason for underinvestment in other parts of the railway network. It is a railway network, and that includes London commuters, inner-city commuters, the regional network and the feeder lines.

I ask hon. Members to look at the detail of the proposals for each of the franchising areas, which show clearly the need to ensure that the feeder lines are retained and developed for the future. The announcement about the Vale of Glamorgan line between Barry and Bridgend is a good example of the improvements that we can expect over the coming years as a result of the new approach that is now being adopted and the funding that is now being made available.

Mr. Don Foster (Bath)

Today's plans will undoubtedly provide a dim light at the end of the tunnel for rail users. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge, however, that more could and should have been done sooner by his Government? Will he also acknowledge that, despite what the Prime Minister told the House last Wednesday, figures from the Library demonstrate clearly that his Government will have spent less on the railways in their first five years than the Conservative Government spent in their last five? Given that 40 per cent. of trains are overcrowded, is it not bizarre that a Labour Government have introduced legislation to prevent overcrowding of chickens, but have introduced no such legislation to prevent overcrowding of humans?

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that many of the proposals are simply reannouncements, for instance that about replacing slam-door carriages? Is it not the case that delivery is already behind schedule, and that when those carriages are delivered they will not actually work because of a failure to improve the power systems?

As for the repeat announcement about stations having to be safer, is it not the case that after four years of the Government's secure-station initiative, only 120 of 2,500 stations have yet received accreditation? How is that number to be boosted?

Given that we have the highest fares in Europe, and possibly in the world, is the very best that the Secretary of State can offer as a means to give us an affordable railway a "possible review"? Given that so much of the plan depends on investment from the private sector, will he acknowledge that continual uncertainty about the future of Railtrack, and about plans to reduce fragmentation in the railway, will make that private sector investment very much more difficult?

Is it not perhaps symbolic that the photograph illustrating the conclusion of the strategic plan is not of a train, but of a bus?

On 2 April last year, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a fresh start for the railways. Is today's statement a new fresh start, or just a reannouncement?

Mr. Byers

As the hon. Gentleman will know, I always treat figures from the Library with a certain amount of scepticism. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] I do so for the simple reason that we need to know the question that was asked. It is as simple as that. I have been in opposition, and I know how to do it as well—do not worry. It depends on the question, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

What I know is what really counts to the industry. I do not think that those travelling on the railways are too worried about where the investment comes from—whether it comes from public sector borrowing or from the private sector. What they want is investment in the railways. Total investment is the key. The figures are clear. Over the period of the 10-year plan, the average per year is £4.3 billion.

Under the last five years of the Conservative Government, the average per year was £1.4 billion. That is the big change that has been made. It is total investment in the railways that concerns people, and the figure I have quoted is the amount that is being invested.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the private sector is not interested in being involved in the projects listed in the strategic plan. The chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, who daily speaks to investors, confirmed that in a radio interview this morning.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the replacement of the slam-door carriages. As the report makes clear, there is a problem with the power system, which was not addressed by Railtrack but will be addressed as a matter of urgency by the new regime in Railtrack and by the new Strategic Rail Authority. That will ensure that the commitment in the strategic plan will be met, and that mark 1 slam-door trains will not run after the end of 2004.

There can be talks about new beginnings and so on, but I was realistic in my statement. The strategic plan will make an important contribution, but it is not a start and an end; this is the beginning of a process. There will need to be further announcements in the period ahead so that people can see the improvements that are being made. Most important—I give this commitment to the House—it is not a one-off exercise. Next year, I want to see a statement from the Strategic Rail Authority about progress that is being made on delivery of the guarantees and commitments in the plan. The travelling public have been shown today the detail of what it intends to deliver. We need to see that there will be effective delivery and implementation. The travelling public expect nothing less. We expect the Strategic Rail Authority to deliver. We expect the Government to play their part as well, and we will.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he was absolutely right to take decisive action against Railtrack and that that is one of the reasons why the Tories squeal like busted pigs every day he comes to the House? [HON. MEMBERS: "Busted pigs?"] Yes. Will he bear in mind that in the next 10 years, there is half a chance that one of the railway operating companies may suffer the same fate as Railtrack? My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that a company may fail to meet its commitments, but it may fail all together. Will my right hon. Friend have the resolve to do the same with that company as he did with Railtrack? Is there enough money in the 10-year plan for him to carry that out?

Mr. Byers

It would be inappropriate to try to speculate about the position of individual train operating companies. They have had some difficulty because of the nature of the franchises that were awarded under the Conservatives when they were in office. I do not know if my hon. Friend had certain Opposition Members in mind when he talked about busted pigs; there are probably several to choose from. The important thing is that the decision to place Railtrack into administration was taken by the High Court because of that company's inability to pay its debts, or potentially to pay its debts when they became due.

Since then, it is interesting that there has been a political outcry because, for the first time under this Government, the Thatcher-Major legacy of privatisation has been rolled back. That is what the Conservatives find so offensive. They are offended by the fact that one of their creations, Railtrack, has been taken into administration by the High Court. That is the problem for the Conservatives.

In reply to my hon. Friend, the strategic plan shows a real way forward. It is a pragmatic approach, not based on political dogma, but on a way of achieving real improvements for the travelling public.

Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton)

The Secretary of State has again whinged on and on about Railtrack. If it was such a disaster, why did his Government include Railtrack in the windfall tax when they came to office? Why after nearly 18 months did they take yet more money out of the company in September 1998? If it was such a disaster, why did they not insist that the money that the Treasury robbed from it was invested in the company?

Mr. Byers

This is a new line from the Conservative party. We are now being told that in 1998 the Treasury robbed Railtrack. Remember that Railtrack paid £700 million in dividends to shareholders during its period of privatisation. During the summer, it came to the Government asking for more money; indeed, we paid money under legal procedures to bring forward £1.5 billion at the beginning of October. Three days later, it paid £88 million in dividends to shareholders yet again. That showed Railtrack's priorities.

The problem with Railtrack—it was the fundamental flaw—was that it tried to serve two masters: its shareholders and the travelling public. However, in the end, its legal duty—its legal priority—had to be to the shareholders; the directors in a quoted company had no option. They had to put the interests of shareholders first. As a result, the travelling public suffered.

Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle)

I will resist asking a question about the west coast main line, as my right hon. Friend has agreed to come to a meeting of the all-party group tomorrow. I wish to refer to the mention in the plan of the National Rail Academy, a proposal on which I have been working for two years with partners in north Cumbria. Is it not a fact that we have a skills shortage involving up to 60,000 people on the railways? If that academy is not set up quickly, all of the proposals in the document will fail because there will not be the skilled workers to do the job.

Mr. Byers

My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of investing in skills and training for the railway industry. There is a chronic shortage of drivers; that is at the heart of some of the industrial disputes that we are seeing in parts of the country. There is a lack of skilled signallers, engineers and general support staff. We need investment across the board in the railway network, and the lack of skills is a direct consequence of the industry's short-term approach in the past. When people have had an opportunity to look at the strategic plan, they will see that our proposals are for the short and medium term, but they are also about long-term planning for the future. Part of that is investing in people and developing the skills base of the industry. The establishment of a National Rail Academy will play an important role in ensuring that we have the people with the right skills—drivers, signallers and engineers—to deliver the high-quality railway system that we want for the future.

Mr. John Horam (Orpington)

Is the Secretary of State aware that overcrowding on some commuter lines into London—including Kent commuter lines, such as my local line from Orpington—is now so grotesque that Connex South Eastern is contemplating removing the toilets from trains to squash in more people? Is he aware that, in the plan, there is nothing about new coaches that we did not already know and next to no detail about specific measures to deal with overcrowding? On the contrary, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said, the plan contains delays to these schemes about which we did not know. For the commuter into London—who is, as the Secretary of State has said, the backbone of the economy—is this not hope postponed?

Mr. Byers

The plan states clearly the time at which delivery will take place and at which there will be implementation. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the frankly unacceptable overcrowding on many services on London commuter routes in particular, as well as in certain other parts of the country. There is a plan to extend platforms so we can run longer trains. Waterloo will be covered by that, as will other main line stations in London and more than 60 in the south-east. That will make a real difference, but those improvements should have taken place years ago.

Mr. Don Foster

Five years ago.

Mr. Byers

No, not just five years ago, but 20 or 30 years ago. They are now at last beginning to take place. The crucial thing about the strategic plan is that, in clear language and with a specific timetable, people will be able to see the dates at which they can expect the improvements to take place. There will be no more hiding. I said earlier—Opposition Members did not like it—that we can have grand visions and great aspirations but, in the end, we must have specific commitments. These are the specific commitments on which we will be judged. We are not running away from them; this is what will be delivered.

Dr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh)

My right hon. Friend is right to identify lack of investment and privatisation as the main underlying causes of our difficulties. Is he aware that everyone who has the future of the railways at heart will welcome his statement today, including the reference to planned investment in Edinburgh Waverley? Does he accept that part of the problem with the structure is the degree of fragmentation introduced by privatisation, and the large number of private operators? Is it his intention to use the franchise process to reduce that fragmentation?

Mr. Byers

My right hon. Friend, who studies the industry and transport closely, is right to say that the two problems faced by the industry have been the lack of investment and the failed structure as a result of privatisation.

Richard Bowker, the new chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, makes a clear commitment in his introduction to the report. He says that he wants to use the franchising programme to achieve simplification and move away from fragmentation. He says: in the interim, we will be looking to create much closer cooperation between train and track operations and will be focusing our efforts on achieving this as part of our Franchise Management activity. He is clear about the fact that fragmentation is working against the interests of the travelling public.

London's main line stations provide a good example of that. Where there are competing franchises, individual platforms are often allocated to a particular operator, so a train may have to wait five or 10 minutes to pull into a platform even though a platform allocated to a rival operator is free the whole time. That happens a lot in Liverpool Street, as the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) may know, and as I know from personal experience when I come back from visiting my mother.

That is one problem that could be solved by reducing fragmentation, and I know that the chairman of the SRA has such initiatives very much in mind.

Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York)

Will the Secretary of State finally put aside his criticisms of privatisation? If he is truly presenting the report, let me refer him to pages 48 and 52, where there is a ringing endorsement for both passenger and freight volume increases since privatisation in the 1990s. Will he take this opportunity to agree with that endorsement?

I declare again my interest in Railtrack and First Group and the fact that I am in possession of a Great North Eastern Railway car park pass.

I have a simple question for the Secretary of State. When is a train not a train? When it is a bus service offered by Arriva between Thirsk and Newcastle. Will he take this opportunity to deplore the six-month removal of train services on that route by Arriva Northern?

The Secretary of State says that the investment planning programme for British railways is at the top of his agenda. Does he accept that the single most damaging action that he took was to remove, through his power of direction, the Rail Regulator that the Government introduced when they first came to power? Will he assure us, in an effort to encourage private investment in the railways, that he will guarantee never to remove the Rail Regulator's powers in the future?

Several hon. Members

rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal)

Order. Let me make a plea. Clearly, many right hon. and hon. Members want to ask a question. If both questions and answers can be kept briefer, more may catch my eye.

Mr. Byers

I will do my best, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The role of the regulator can be changed only by this House and the House of Lords, not by any unilateral action taken by the Secretary of State.

I have made it clear that Railtrack was the failed privatisation. Some aspects of privatisation have brought improvements, and those are referred to in the strategic plan. We must be very robust in ensuring that we are as tough with the private sector if it fails as we would be with anyone in the public sector, where we rightly take action.

The Thirsk-Newcastle situation is a good example of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) about people not delivering on their franchise. It is a clear illustration of a company with a railway franchise not delivering on its obligations. I hope that when the Strategic Rail Authority considers that franchise replacement it will examine very carefully the extent to which Arriva has delivered on its obligations.

The problem with train drivers has come about because of the short-term approach to the industry, with more than 1,000 drivers lost at the time of privatisation and the failure to invest in drivers over the past few years. Arriva has left it very late in the day to realise that a train needs a driver. It is not rocket science. It is pretty simple and straightforward, and all the franchise operators need to recognise their obligation to deliver on their obligations.

Andrew Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

The Secretary of State will agree that the SRA started weakly. Is he satisfied that the new management will make it a success? Can he give a guarantee to all the people who live in the conurbations of Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Greater Leeds and Greater Newcastle that one of the next key objectives will be to get the new franchise issued for that area, so that services can be upgraded?

Mr. Byers

I believe that the SRA with Richard Bowker as the new chairman will be a different body from the previous one. At last, we will have an SRA that has a strategic plan, which we did not have before today. On the specifics of the trans-pennine franchise, I hope that speedy progress can be made. People not only in Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, York and Newcastle, but those in Sheffield, Bradford and what one might call the outlying areas, including Hull, Blackpool and the Lancashire towns, will benefit from that franchise. It will make a huge difference. It is important that we use the franchising process as an opportunity to raise the standards and improve the quality of rail provision in all parts of the country.

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde)

The private sector company Virgin is making a massive investment in new trains on the west coast main line. However, to deliver any extra capacity on that line, it must be able to run 11 trains an hour. The current capacity is nine trains an hour. When will we be able to have 11 trains an hour on the west coast main line?

Mr. Byers

As the right hon. Gentleman may be aware, discussions are taking place between Railtrack, the SRA and Virgin about the details of the west coast main line update. As I said in my statement, the new management of Railtrack is revealing a depth of mismanagement of the project that is breathtaking in its failure to deliver. Details of that will no doubt be made available in the near future. I spoke to Sir Richard Branson on Friday about the west coast main line and his commitment is clear. As the right hon. Gentleman said, Virgin has made a huge investment in new rolling stock.

Michael Fabricant

That's a private sector company.

Mr. Byers

Absolutely. That is the private sector doing well and investing. The private sector in the form of Railtrack failed to deliver, and that is why the distinction needs to be made. The privatisation that was Railtrack failed on the west coast main line upgrade. The private sector company Virgin, which is investing its own money, deserves a licence operator that delivers. That is why I make the distinction between some private sector companies that do well and some that do not. I share the right hon. Gentleman's view that we want a west coast main line that is working well, that can shorten journey times and increase capacity. I know from my experience of using that route that it is a well used one. More people want to use it and they will do so, when the new rolling stock goes in and after the upgrade that is so badly needed.

Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) was asked on this morning's "Today" programme what her party would have done, she said that in 1997 it would have begun to re-examine the structures of Railtrack. As Railtrack came into being only in 1996, is not it clear that the Opposition's commitment to and belief in Railtrack is as specious and shallow as their commitment to a properly integrated public transport system?

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his actions with regard to Railtrack and on highlighting the need for proper training structures in the railway industry. I welcome the establishment of the National Rail Academy, but will my right hon. Friend make part of every franchise the requirement that train operating companies make a proper commitment financially, and in their beliefs, to the funding of such an academy, so that we can begin to tackle the serious shortage of drivers and skilled platform staff?

Mr. Byers

I missed hearing the hon. Member for Maidenhead on "Today" this morning.

Glenda Jackson

It was a treat.

Mr. Byers

That is why I am sorry I missed it. I hope that the BBC can provide me with a recording so that we can think about the pearls of wisdom that often come from the hon. Lady.

On training, I am pleased that my hon. Friend welcomes the idea of a National Rail Academy. She is right to point out that there is an opportunity to use the franchising process to ensure that the train operating companies make their contribution. The franchise for the midland main line does precisely that; it is the first time that a commitment to training has been a requirement in a franchise agreement. The SRA needs to consider making that a part of every franchise that it will let in the coming period.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

As the Secretary of State said, 70 per cent. of the investment in the plan is directed at London and the south-east of England. Out of 17 major identified projects, 11 are in London and the south-east. Indeed, London and the south-east get twice as much space in the document as the rest of the country put together. Is the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Transport for the whole country or Secretary of State for Transport for the south of England with regional appendages?

Just before that ringing bit in the statement about vague aspirations, long on rhetoric and short on delivery, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the lack of a rail link to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports; yet page 101 of the document does not give a specific commitment, but merely refers to an options appraisal study. So lest he be accused of vague aspirations, can the Secretary of State say whether there will be a rail link to Scotland's two major airports by 2010—yes or no?

Mr. Byers

I am responsible for all passengers. As 70 per cent. of passenger travel takes place in London and the south-east, it is no surprise that more than half the document addresses issues to do with those areas. However, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to page 99, which deals specifically with the ScotRail proposals and gives details of what will be achieved. As I said in my statement, many of these proposals are priorities that are being addressed by the Scottish Executive and the Strathclyde passenger transport executive. That is the crucial point—these bodies will be working together.

I believe that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive will address the issues to do with Edinburgh and Glasgow airports. They are working on developing capacity—[Interruption.] My colleagues in Scotland will answer the specifics. They are also working on developing opportunities for rail links with Edinburgh and Glasgow airports.

I know that the hon. Gentleman had some doubts about whether to go to the Scottish Parliament or stay here, or whether he was going to retire. As a great advocate of devolution, he should realise that the point of it is that the Scottish Executive have the opportunity of being involved. I was pleased today to have the opportunity in my statement to address the real issues affecting rail travellers in Scotland. I ask people to look at page 99 of the document by way of example to see the real improvements that will come to rail passengers in Scotland.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

As one who cannot claim to be a great advocate of devolution, may I ask my right hon. Friend what is the time scale regarding the urgent problems of training, not only in Scotland but throughout the rest of the United Kingdom? The academy to which he referred in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) is fine as far as it goes, but what hope for training can he hold out for the here and now?

Mr. Byers

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The National Rail Academy will, in the medium and long term, make a real difference. However, there is a pressing problem now, which is why the strategic plan makes it clear that the SRA will be closely involved in the training organisation for the railways which is already established. The authority may not have played as big enough part as was necessary but that will change. Through that training organisation, which has the involvement of all sectors of the railway industry, we will see great improvements in training and the development of skills.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire)

I draw the Secretary of State's attention to page 70 of the document, which says: East Midlands Parkway station to open by May 2003". That will not happen unless he and the SRA enter into a section 54 undertaking. Will he give that commitment today?

Mr. Byers

What I will do is look carefully at the matter, write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of the letter in the Library. I think that would be the best way forward.

Mr. John Smith (Vale of Glamorgan)

I am absolutely delighted with the statement in the plan that the vale of Glamorgan railway line will go ahead, and that it will do so on time. However, given the timetable and the fact that new franchises are to be drawn up for Wales and the borders, it is unlikely that the new franchisee will be in place before the line is up and running. Will my right hon. Friend ask the SRA to ensure that, in any new franchise bids, new rolling stock is specified by the successful company for the provision of that minimum service on the new vale of Glamorgan line?

Mr. Byers

I am pleased to receive the welcome for the vale of Glamorgan line—linking, as it does, Barry and Bridgend. That will make a real difference and open up passenger services.

My hon. Friend also points out the importance of the Wales and the borders franchise. He will be aware that the chairman of the SRA visited Cardiff—I think it was last week—to talk with the First Minister, the right hon. Rhodri Morgan, and Members of the Welsh Assembly about the franchising. The chairman reassured them about the timing of the letting of that franchise, which will be in the early part of next year in line with commitments that the Labour party has made in Wales. That is to be welcomed. I shall draw to the attention of the SRA the specific point raised by my hon. Friend as to the need for appropriate rolling stock to be in place.

Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell)

The Secretary of State will probably be aware that the summary document refers to the completion of the project to extend South West Trains suburban platforms by 2004. However, the company told me that it is extremely unlikely that that project can be completed before 2007. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain that discrepancy? What reassurance can he give commuters in my area that the project will be completed sooner than the company believes?

Mr. Byers

The point to remember is that, at present, there are heads of agreement between the SRA and South West Trains about the details of its franchise agreement. Negotiations between them are continuing, so we should take what is being said with a little pinch of salt. The point is well made, however, that if we are serious about reducing overcrowding on those London and south-east commuter routes—especially in areas such as the one covered by South West Trains—the extension of railway platforms needs to go ahead quickly and as soon as possible. That is how we can increase capacity—adding more cars to each service. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I shall raise the issue with the SRA and South West Trains to try to obtain a firmer commitment. That commitment will come about as part of the franchise negotiations between South West Trains and the SRA.

Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

There is much detail in the document that I welcome—as I welcome Richard Bowker's commitment to be a railways champion. However, will my right hon. Friend address my concern that the priorities in the programme do not do a great deal to tackle the north-south divide in the economy? One of the important ways to deal with that is by establishing a northern economy whereby people in Yorkshire, Lancashire, Northumbria, Cumbria and the whole of the north can travel quickly, cleanly, reliably and easily between all their cities, just as people can do in Greater London. Will my right hon. Friend address my concerns as we work through the strategic rail document?

Mr. Byers

My hon. Friend is right to point out that there would be a danger if the strategic plan was only about addressing our—real—concerns about commuter routes in London and the south-east. However, the plan does much more than that. When Members have been able to go through the details and to consider, franchise by franchise, the improvements that can be expected—how we expect to use the rail performance fund and the rail passenger partnership fund—they will see that there are a range of opportunities that will lead to improvements for the regional network. I personally believe that the trans-Pennine franchise, which affects my hon. Friend's constituents in Sheffield and links Lancashire with the north-east of England, will make a very real difference, not just to the benefit of the travelling public but to regenerating the economy in those areas.

The important message that underlies the strategic plan is that railways are not just about the convenience of the travelling public; they are also very important to economic regeneration and improving the competitive position of British business. That is not just an issue for London and the south-east, where the economy is doing well; we must ensure that the benefits of a growing economy are experienced by every region, as well as by Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I believe that the measures contained in the strategic plan will contribute to achieving those objectives.

Bob Russell (Colchester)

Does the Secretary of State agree that the proposals to abolish Anglia Railways will lead to fewer trains serving Ipswich, Colchester and London? Following his observation about strengthening the regions, will he support the proposal to re-instate the direct rail link between Colchester and Cambridge, via the existing Sudbury branch line?

Mr. Byers

Again, on the Colchester to Cambridge link, I shall consider the details and perhaps reply in writing to the hon. Gentleman. I am aware of the concern in the eastern region about the proposal to move to one franchise holder. The editor of the Eastern Daily Press last week raised with me the effect that that might have.

It is important that we use the franchising process to deliver specific commitments, so that, for example, Colchester, Ipswich, Stowmarket, Diss and Norwich will not be adversely affected by any change that might take place. That is particularly important given the discussion about improvements to commuter links. Of course, many people commute from those towns and cities. Although that service has improved in recent years, it can still be improved significantly beyond what has been achieved so far. We need to build on those improvements in the future, which will involve making specific commitments in the franchising process to ensure that those towns and cities benefit from any change that might take place.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, at the end of the day, the people whom we represent do not really care very much whether the rail system is controlled privately or publicly? They care whether it is efficiently controlled. I very much welcome the strategic plan, but does he agree that the real challenge and problem that we face is ensuring that the quality of the management that runs the private sector franchise companies and whatever replaces Railtrack is highly effective and includes the best calibre of manager that we can find? There has been a history of poor managers in the railway industry—whether public or private—and this country and the people who work in the rail industry deserve the very best managers to lead them.

Mr. Byers

The dedication and motivation of people working in the railway industry needs to be seen to be believed. What has struck me is that, in a difficult period for people in the railway industry, they have been motivated and committed to trying to improve and provide the best possible service to railway passengers. They have been let down by the structure in which they have had to work, and one of my commitments is to ensure that they have a structure in which they can work that reflects their own commitments as individuals, and we can produce that situation.

Management has not been good enough in the past. That point has been made today by the chairman of the SRA, Richard Bowker, and it is made very strongly in the strategic plan itself. An effective management must be in control of an industry that is key to the future of the United Kingdom's economy and to the comfort and convenience of travelling passengers and that employs 130,000 people. So changes will be necessary, and we must give the relevant people and organisations the support that they will need to carry out those changes, which will be difficult, but will provide the management that the industry needs for the future.

Jane Griffiths (Reading, East)

Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the plans for new capacity platform extensions to reduce overcrowding at stations in south-east England will include Reading station in my constituency? It is the second busiest station in the country outside London.

Can my right hon. Friend offer any hope at all about an upgrade for the Great Western line which, according to the document, is likely to occur at some time in the far mists of the future? Like me, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who speaks for the Opposition on transport matters, represents a Berkshire constituency and she knows that electrification in Berkshire has been denied on the ground that it is too windy in Cornwall. What hope can my right hon. Friend offer my constituents about an upgrade for the Great Western line?

Mr. Byers

My hon. Friend is right to point out the significant increase in capacity and use that has taken place at Reading station. As a local Member of Parliament, she has been a fierce advocate for improvements in the quality of service from Reading.

The upgrade of the Great Western main line is addressed in the strategic plan, but it is one of those long-term projects that will take time. However, the good news in the plan is that the work is beginning to ensure that we will be in a position—if the plan is deemed to be value for money and feasible—to give it the go-ahead and to be implemented towards the end of, if not slightly beyond, the 10-year plan.

A number of improvements for platform extensions have been proposed. About 60 stations will be covered by that provision, and I will write to my hon. Friend specifically about the position in Reading.

Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury)

The Secretary of State will know that the proposed Central Railway project will have a significant impact on the ability of the Chiltern line to deliver the improvements promised in the strategy. Can I take it that the absence of any mention of Central Railway in the document means that that project will not figure in his or the SRA' s future strategy?

Mr. Byers

Detailed consideration is still being given to the Central Railway proposal, so it was too early to be able to say anything specific about it in the strategic plan.

Negotiations are almost concluded on the renewal of the Chiltern franchise. I agree and hope that they will be concluded in the very near future. I know that it is one of the routes that has offered a good service to the travelling public, so we must ensure that we can build on that service. At the moment, it is one of the most reliable in terms of punctuality and lack of cancellations. We must ensure that it retains that position as one of the premier franchises in the country.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a great shame that the Prime Minister declared in 1997 that the railways were not a priority for this Government? Those of us who campaigned for a separate rail authority for Wales and Scotland feel very badly let down by the content of the statement. According to the Wales Transport Research Centre, the proposed investment is one fifteenth of what would be required to upgrade and improve services in Wales.

This is a bad day for Wales and Scotland. I do not know anything about busted pigs, or whatever the phrase was, but this statement is unlikely to save the Secretary of State's bacon.

Mr. Byers

The hon. Gentleman has had an hour and 18 minutes to think of that one, although I do not know whether it was worth the effort.

I understand from personal experience the need for good rail travel in Wales and I am the first to accept that it is not good enough at present. However, when people have had an opportunity to consider the details in the plan, they will see that, through the new franchise and through the vale of Glamorgan proposals, there are initiatives that will make a real difference. As I said in my statement, this is not both a start and an end; it is a beginning and we will need to build on it for the future. That is very important. If there are issues in Wales and more investment is needed, they can be addressed in the Welsh Assembly, as I am sure they will be.

As the Prime Minister said yesterday, in 1997—let us be clear about this—the priorities were to get our public finances on to a sound footing to ensure that we could subsequently have long-term investment. That is needed more in transport than in any other area. It is no good having a one-off splurge of investment in transport that lasts a year or two. It needs year-on-year investment and that will be delivered through the strategic plan.

The people's priorities in 1997 were education and health, which were delivered.

Bob Russell

And getting rid of the Tories.

Mr. Byers

As well as getting rid of the Tories. It was recognised that, to improve education and health, we had to get rid of the Tories. The people did that, but their priorities were education and health. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) is right to point out that the priorities now are not just education, health and fighting crime, but transport and the railways in particular.

Mrs. Betty Williams (Conwy)

I welcome the statement, but does my right hon. Friend accept that although virgin's new trains may come some day —it has been promising them for a long time —it is not reasonable for passengers to continue to travel in carriages that are dirty, badly maintained and falling apart and with decrepit buffet bar equipment? Does he agree that Virgin should not fail to maintain equipment while waiting for new rolling stock?

Mr. Byers

Obviously, operating companies need to deliver on their obligations under their franchise. I understand my hon. Friend's concerns as a representative of a north Wales constituency. However, there will be improvements as a result of the strategic plan and the new franchise proposals for Wales and the borders, which will cover north Wales. She is right to point out that old rolling stock is being used on too many routes, but there are plans to replace it. There is also an obligation under existing franchise agreements to keep it in a fit and suitable condition.

Alistair Burt (North-East Bedfordshire)

With the midland main line running down one side of my constituency and the east coast main line running down the other, the Secretary of State is more than welcome to bring his fighting talk to my constituents at the next general election, in whatever capacity he serves. Indeed, my constituents would count it as a double whammy if he were Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

On returning to work the other week, my constituents who commute from Bedford faced a rise of more than 25 per cent. in car parking charges. I do not think that they are alone in that. Such an increase is hardly encouraging for commuters, and it does not encourage people to leave their cars and get back on the train. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that car parking at stations, and the problems attendant on car parking around stations, which is a problem on the other side of my constituency, will be a serious priority for consideration in his strategic blue-sky vision for the railways of the future?

Mr. Byers

Blue-sky thinking is not something in which I indulge; I would much rather get on with the nitty-gritty of delivering. I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the state of car parks, which he voiced on behalf of his constituents. The hon. Member for Maidenhead dismissed the improvements that we will see in 1,000 stations. One of those improvements will be to car parks. We will not just improve toilets, which seem to obsess the hon. Lady, but provide better lighting and CCTV, and ensure that proper information is given to the travelling public, which is badly needed.

All those improvements, and car parking is among them, will be made to 1,000 railway stations. Although they are particular improvements, they form only a small part of the overall plan. I know that much has been made of it, but well over £60 billion is being spent on railway investment. The fact that a few hundred million is being spent on improvements to 1,000 stations gets the balance about right.

Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside)

Given the Secretary of State's acceptance that transport is essential to regional economic regeneration, what role does he see for the North West Development Agency and the north-west regional assembly in securing improvements for transport in the north-west? Is he aware that the Central Railway project will be very much welcomed in the north-west?

Mr. Byers

I am aware of support for the Central Railway project in the north-west and other parts of the country. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), a good deal of detailed work is going on in respect of the Central Railway proposal. I agree with my hon. Friend that a good, effective and efficient railway system is crucial for regional economic regeneration. It is significant that in relation to the consultation on the new franchising for the trans-Pennine franchise, the SRA said that it will speak to and consult not just the passenger transport authorities in the areas affected but the regional development agencies and regional assemblies as well.

It is important that we ensure that all those with a relevant interest feel that franchises are being developed in a way that reflects their own priorities. In the discussions that we had last year about changing the franchise process, I was struck by the fact that the franchises had not been used to drive up standards and deliver for passengers, and that that had taken place in a sort of secret garden world, where there had been no consultation about what might be achieved. I hope that we can move away from that and ensure that organisations such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend will be involved in the future.

Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch)

Does the Secretary of State accept that under the plan, overcrowding will get worse rather than better over the next 10 years? Can he explain why section 2 of the plan does not identify overcrowding as a key issue, and why, on page 61, there is a prediction that even with the specific commitments, some of which the right hon. Gentleman referred to in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), most franchises will, in 2010, fail to meet the SRA's overcrowding standard"?

Mr. Byers

I would ask the hon. Gentleman to read again the details of the strategic plan. Perhaps he will realise that that was not a totally accurate statement of what is contained in it. There is no doubt that overcrowding in London and the south-east has worsened over recent years. The strategic plan identifies ways in which it can be alleviated. Steps will need to be taken; there will be no quick fix. The strategic plan begins the process of reducing overcrowding on the important commuter links into London and elsewhere in the south-east.

Mr. David Kidney (Stafford)

Railtrack was dragging its feet on station improvements long before an administration order was made. At Stafford, for example, we are waiting for an improved car park and improved access to platforms for disabled and elderly passengers. How will the plan's promise of 1,000 station upgrades soon take place?

Mr. Byers

It will be necessary to identify areas of priority. I have just had my first bid in the case of Stafford. We will have to identify where the investment needs to take place. My hon. Friend touched on the important point concerning access to the railways for people with a disability. The strategic plan contains some positive proposals. At long last we have a timetable to end the practice whereby people in a wheelchair are carried in the goods van. That is totally unacceptable. There is a commitment to ensure that that no longer happens by the end of 2004, which is still two years away. I hope that that is one aspect of the strategic plan that will not just be delivered on time, but which might be brought forward. It must be unacceptable to treat people with a disability in that way.

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)

Did the Secretary of State see at the weekend the comments of Bob Crow, the assistant general secretary of the RMT, who said: I don't understand the fuss over one little strike on South West Trains … That's nothing compared to what will happen if the train companies continue to ignore our genuine grievances over pay. What is the Government response to such threats, particularly given the close relationship of many Ministers with the RMT—the Deputy Chief Whip, the Leader of the House of Commons, and, particularly, the Deputy Prime Minister who receives a substantial pecuniary interest from the RMT and who failed to deliver any policy in the past four years, as pointed out by the Minister for Europe?

Mr. Byers

It is clear that the industrial action being taken on South West Trains is creating huge inconvenience for the travelling public. The members of the RMT need to be very careful about the impact that they are having on rail passengers. Their future and their jobs depend on people travelling on the railways. If passengers find an alternative means of travel, that is bad news not just for railways, but for the jobs of RMT members. That is an important message for them to hear.

Martin Linton (Battersea)

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the strategic plan for its clear national vision of the future of the railway industry, and the high priority that it gives to many schemes in the London area, particularly the East London line extension and Thameslink? Despite the comments of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), many new priorities are spelled out in the document for the first time—in my constituency, for example, the redevelopment of Clapham Junction station, and the eventual implementation of Orbirail. I urge my right hon. Friend to accept that there must be a stronger commitment to the speedy development of a high frequency inner-suburban London orbital network, which would revolutionise rail travel in the inner-London area.

Mr. Byers

My hon. Friend is right to say that a national vision is contained in the document, but it is very important that we have the specifics to underpin it. As I said, it is important that we do not have merely vague aspirations as part of a grand vision. The specifics of the East London line extension, Thameslink, Orbirail, crossrail and improvements to Clapham Junction will all make a significant difference. Most important, they provide the opportunity for an orbital link in London, which will make a huge difference for people in London. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) will be called next. In London, areas of employment are no longer located only in the centre, but in outlying areas, and we need a public transport and rail system that reflects those changes.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I am afraid that I must now bring questions on the statement to a close.