Road and Rail: Investment Returns (Hansard, 15 July 1981)

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, the Department of Transport and the British Railways Board have jointly been considering the ways in which the returns on road and rail investment can be compared. This work has been delayed by the pressure of other work—for example, on the electrification review. The independent Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA) was consulted about the work, and asked to be kept informed. It is possible that the newly reconstituted SACTRA may wish to return to this issue.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, when the Minister says that SACTRA has been reconstituted, is that not rather an understatement for the sacking of every single member of this body except one? Why do the Government bother to rig the composition of advisory bodies in this way, rather than adopting the cheaper and more honest course of continuing to give preference to investment in roads as compared with rail, as all Governments have done in the past?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, to answer the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary with regard to SACTRA, he may have been referring to an article in the New Scientist magazine; I hope the noble Lord will not believe everything he reads. When the appointments expired, my right honourable friend the Minister reviewed the future of the committee and its members. Some members made it clear that after, in many cases, four years' work on highly technical issues, they did not wish to continue for a further term. Others had changed their jobs or moved, so that service on the committee was less relevant or convenient. After four years of hard work, to refer to these hard-working gentlemen as having been sacked is totally wrong. The new board has been set up by my right honourable friend and consists of a very well-balanced board under the chairmanship of Professor Williams, who was himself on the previous board of SACTRA. So far as investment is concerned, we have maintained the investment ceiling for the railways, as the noble Lord is well aware, at the same level in real terms as the previous Administration, and we are perfectly prepared to stand on our record.

Viscount St. Davids
My Lords, have the British Waterways Board and the navigation authorities also been asked to join in this study? Is the Minister aware that the investment criteria so far used for investment in major navigations have been even weirder than some of those used for rail; and if the British Waterways Board are not involved in this, may I ask the noble Earl to say why they are not?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, I cannot inform the noble Viscount off the cuff whether the British Waterways Board is involved in this, but of course the Department of Transport would consult them on anything relevant, and we had a very good Question Time on the British Waterways Board only last week.

§ Lord Moyne
My Lords, can my noble friend assure us that, when considering investment in the railways, the benefit to the steel industry is taken into account?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, I am sure that all relevant information, apart from that of financing, is taken into account.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, would the Minister accept that there are a number of noble Lords who take the view that it is not a question of competing for investment in the roads, waterways or railways, but a question of what is best for the nation, what will help in our recovery and what will be of assistance in dealing with unemployment?

§ The Earl of Avon
I am grateful to the noble Lord for those remarks, my Lords. The subject of comparability is, as he said, inherently difficult and in principle there is a case for the Government, in assessing proposals for public sector transport investment, having a mechanism for comparing investment levels and projects for one transport mode with those for another mode, and I fully take the point made by the noble Lord.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, in regard to SACTRA, may I ask whether, as he has obviously read the New Scientist, the noble Earl recalls that Professor Peter Hall, who was one of the members who was sacked, said he was surprised that they should have made such a clean sweep? Is the Minister aware that, while I do not believe everything I read in the newspapers, I take the word of Mick Hayman in preference to that of the Department of Transport? In regard to the substantive merits of road and rail investment, may I ask whether the noble Earl would agree that in the past it has always been the practice to insist that British Rail should adhere to the normal public sector investment criterion that it should meet the forecast rate of return specified in advance by the Treasury, but that no such restriction is applied to investment in roads?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, I really must object to the noble Lord using the word "sacked", which he has culled from the New Scientist magazine. They were not sacked; and so far as Professor Hall is concerned, since he is now working for the University of California, it would be quite hard for him to continue to work for the board in London. With regard to the noble Lord's other comments on investments, I think I agree with the first ones, but I am not sure about the latter.