§ 3.5 p.m.
§ Baroness LockwoodMy Lords, as we have heard that Lord Davies of Leek is ill, in his absence, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the importance of the railway system to the defence of the United Kingdom and of the need to relieve overcrowded roads, they will encourage greater use of the system by investing more capital to keep track and rolling stock in good order.
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, the Government recognise the importance of the railways in the national system, including the contribution they can make to national defence, and will therefore give the board their full support for investment that is directly related to the objectives announced by the Secretary of State for Transport on 24th October. It is the board's responsibility to draw up the investment programme.
§ Baroness LockwoodMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. However, I wonder whether in his busy schedule as a Minister he has the opportunity to hear the daily story on radio of long delays on motorways caused by road repairs? Does he not think that it would be much better to try to share the workload between road and rail by encouraging British Rail by giving financial backing to extend services? Would he not further agree that, with a new chairman recently appointed—a chairman presumably in the managerial mould which the present Administration favours—this would be a good time to announce the Government's priorities as regards an improvement in our investment in British Rail?
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, before answering the noble Baroness's supplementary questions, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Gowrie 432 and others in the House would wish me to express sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. Perhaps the noble Baroness will convey that to him. We hope that he will be back with us quite shortly.
The noble Baroness made a point about the new chairman and his priorities. The new chairman, Mr. Bob Reid, has responded to my right honourable friend's letter to him, under cover of which the objectives for British Rail were sent in the Statement which I repeated on 24th of last month. I understand he said that he recognised the Secretary of State's responsibility to set an ambitious target for British Rail and that a positive and realistic response could be expected from the board. I do not think there is any problem there.
On extensions to services, I might draw the attention of the noble Baroness and the House to the fact that in 1982 94 per cent. of all passenger kilometres travelled were by road, whereas only 6 per cent. were by rail. At that time, over 80 per cent. of freight was carried by road—some 1,300 million tonnes for the year, compared with only 150 million tonnes by rail. If there were an extension in line with the Armitage Report, which suggested that British Rail could get more business, the total would reduce road freight by only about 2½ per cent. It is entirely for British Rail and its management to devise the strategies by which services can be extended, improved and increased.
§ Lord Harvey of PrestburyMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that British Rail are threatening to increase fares by some 6 per cent. in the new year? Is this not the worst way to increase passenger traffic in relation to other forms of transport? Surely they should make the fares more attractive to compete with buses and so on.
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, I assume that my noble friend is referring to the press reports that appeared last night, to which I cannot add credence. Certainly it is for British Rail to fix fares. While there may he an intention to increase fares next year, British Rail have not given any information about what those increases may be. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that fare increases are but one element in the entire service that the railways perform.
§ Lord UnderhillMy Lords, does the Minister recall that, when he repeated the Statement on British Rail last week, I and other noble Lords complained that there was nothing in the Statement about investment and nothing about electrification? Will he also agree that by and large his reply on those points was not reassuring? Does the noble Lord also recall that, when the Statement was made in the other place, the Secretary of State, in reply to supplementaries, implied criticism of the board in that only 75 per cent. of the investment was taken up in 1982? In that connection, is the Minister aware that the board has been complaining for the last few years that it has not been able to reach its investment ceiling because of the pressures of the external financing limits, so that in 1982 this meant that the investment could not reach the ceiling by £161 million and in 1981 by £91 million? What will be the Secretary of State's response to investment proposals in the corporate plan for the next five years?
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, I am always grateful for the long series of supplementary questions the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asks me because I can usually shelter by saying that this is perhaps not the opportunity to have a full-scale debate. The best way I can describe the Government's attitude towards investment is to remind the House that on 28th October my right honourable friend announced agreement to the investment of £23.9 million in the Tonbridge-Hastings line electrification scheme. That hardly demonstrates a reluctance on the part of the Government to invest in worthwhile projects.
So far as the other point on major electrification is concerned, it is for the British Railways Board to complete their Inter-City strategy and then to produce detailed plans which can be evaluated by my right honourable friend. The noble Lord is not quite correct when he is talking about EFL because, in fact, the investment element of the amounts which were set both in 1982–83 and for this year were undershot largely because moneys were diverted from those purposes, notably in 1982, to finance the disastrous and unhappy long strike.
§ Lord Balfour of InchryeMy Lords, may I ask the Minister whether greater use of the system would be significantly encouraged if British Rail would take steps to give to the travelling public cleaner trains, tidier stations and more punctual operations than at the present time?
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords would agree with my noble friend that this certainly is an element in encouraging greater use of the railways. I am quite sure that British Railways Board, in whom the Government have much confidence, will take careful note of what my noble friend has said.