The Railways

HL Deb 27 March 1985 vol 461 cc1034-40

3.12 p.m.

Lord Somers rose to call attention to the need to rejuvenate and make more efficient the railway system; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. One of the first needs of any commercial developed company is an efficient system of transport. When I say "efficient", I mean that each particular form of transport should be used to its full capacity. We have four main forms of transport in our country—rail, road, air and sea—and a possible fifth, the canals. The two chief competitors, of course, are rail and road. The roads are hopelessly overcrowded, as I think everyone will agree, while the railways are not being used to their full capacity at all. Therefore, I cannot feel that that is truly efficient.

To consider the railways, one should naturally divide them into two main areas, freight and passenger. To take freight first, I think that firms should be made to realise that delivery by rail is faster, safer and more economical. I have stressed before in your Lordships' House the fact that rail travel is more economical than road because of the natural fact that steel wheels on steel rails give a minimum of friction; and also, of course, there is the fact that railway gradients are absolutely minimal and a constant speed can be maintained, which is impossible on a road, of course. Therefore, it is a much more efficient system.

Now, some objections have been raised in that one of the disadvantages of railways is the constant loading and unloading. Every firm which is beside or within reasonable distance of a railway line could and should have its own sidings. Perhaps not all firms realise that the Government will pay up to 60 per cent. of the cost of laying down sidings, and also for providing the rolling stock. If they did realise that, more firms would take advantage of it. I am told that many grants have already been made in that direction, and more firms should take advantage.

Of course, railways are ideal for bulk haulage, such as coal and other loose material. They are also extremely efficient for all sorts of things, and would be more so, perhaps, if more use were made of the container system. Although I have not actually inspected them personally, I am told that the goods termini in London are very efficient and quite capable of coping with the loads they would get.

To turn now to the other side—passenger transport—I think it has not been realised that the public has to be weaned from the roads to the railways. That can be done simply by making them realise that not only is it much more comfortable and much less strain, but also that on the railways they are being looked after, and they can have all the information they need. High speeds are desirable, but I do not think they are anything like as important as the question of comfort and being looked after. I may say that applies not only on the train, but also at the termini.

It is my fate to use Waterloo Station every time I come to attend your Lordships' House. I think Waterloo is the most awful station I have ever come across. It has not even a waiting room. There is nowhere to sit down if one is waiting for a train; one just has to stand around, at my age getting a little more wobbly on one's feet as time goes on. If one wants to buy a packet of cigarettes, thee are two tiny kiosks, just wide enough to contain the person behind the counter—and they never have the type of cigarettes one wants, of course, so altogether it is not a very pleasant place.

Another unfortunate feature is the fact that there is nobody of whom you can ask anything. Naturally, there are no porters. You have those trolleys, which are always miles away: a five-minute walk to fetch them and a five-minute walk back while one leaves one's luggage unattended—and you know what that means in these days at a station like that!

Another thing is that when you go through the ticket barrier, as a rule the occupant of it does not even look at you. If you ask him a question, as to whether it is the right train, the only answer I have ever had is, "Why don't you look at the board?". That is not quite good enough. If you ask from which side of the platform your train is leaving, all you get is a jerk of the thumb. I think that that kind of thing, while I know it does not affect the essential efficiency of railway running, puts people off and makes them feel they would rather go by car. That is just what we want to avoid. A good deal might be done in training the railway staff to be a little more pleasant. I can only hope it is not the fate of too many of your Lordships to meet your Waterloo every night, as I have to.

I come, then, to another question. I do not want to be disrespectful to any noble Lord who sat on that committee and who did all the hard work that that entailed, but I think the report of the Beeching Committee was an absolute disaster. As a result, many people have been left without any means of transport whatsoever except their own car, and there are many areas in the country where there is no railway at all. It seems a little hard, if we want to increase rail travel, that people should have to travel about 30 miles before they can find a railway station, and then there is probably nowhere they can leave their car. That sort of thing does not make for efficiency.

Some of the branch lines—not all of them—and other lines which have been removed could possibly be restored. I know this will cost money—probably a great deal of money—but, on the other hand, one has to remember that the Government own the railways. If one owns something, it is one's duty to look after it. If I own a house (and I do), and if that house has dry rot (which mine has), it is my job to see to it that that fault is put right, whatever it costs. I feel that the Government should be prepared to spend money on reinstating some—I will not say all—of the branch lines.

One has to remember that those lines were removed on a totally false assumption. A branch line may not be very profitable in itself, but it feeds the main line. One might say, for instance, that the various tributaries which run into the River Thames are not of great importance in themselves, but they do help to make the Thames what it is, when one views it from the windows of your Lordships' Library. If it were not for those tributaries, the River Thames would not be of the size it is. I therefore feel that at least some branch lines are of importance. One should consider the railways as a whole and not separate them into one section or another when considering whether or not they are profitable.

For example, one line I have in mind was not even a branch line but was a branch main line, so to speak, which ran through East Anglia. I am not certain where it left the other main line but I rather think it was at Peterborough. In any case, it ran through Louth and on up to Grimsby. That was quite an important line. All the people living in that area are now without a railway. That seems a little hard and a little unnecessary.

A little reconsideration of what might be done to restore some lines would be a good thing. If British Rail cannot afford to run the lines themselves, they could perfectly well let them out or rent them out to some company. That would be perfectly practicable; I have been told so by a representative of British Rail to whom I have spoken about this subject. I think that would be a very good idea.

The important point is that we want to show the country and the public as a whole that rail travel is a great deal more desirable than road travel; and so it is. One can lean back in a railway carriage and read a book from the start of one's journey, instead of having to concentrate like mad and not be quite certain whether one is ever going to arrive at one's destination, as is the case if one drives a car. I hope that the Government really will consider trying to make the most of the magnificent railway system we already have. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

3.25 p.m.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the opportunity to say that we believe the railways have an important role to play in a well-ordered society. It is a coincidence that we are debating this important matter just as the death of Lord Beeching has been announced. Despite all the derogatory comments that have been made concerning his plans, I believe that Lord Beeching made a serious contribution to providing a railway system which was reasonable and efficient and which, above all, could be afforded.

I want to pay a compliment to the Government in connection with recent developments in the railway system. First, the Government, when last year they appointed a new chairman, for the first time—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, will confirm this—gave the chairman terms of reference and set out the objectives they expected him to fulfil as the chairman and chief executive of railways. Sir Peter Parker used to say that he never knew when he was winning or losing during his period of office because he had no specific terms of reference attached to his appointment. So that is, indeed, progress.

The second matter on which I wish to congratulate the Government is their announcement of a five-year programme of investment with three-year targets set out ahead. The target was to reduce the PSO—the public service obligation—by £200 million over three years without any closure of major routes. That is a very stiff test. At the same time the Government made possible investment of more than £2.2 billion over the next five years, guaranteed to British Rail in order to assist them in achieving their targets. These developments are encouraging for British Rail and I am delighted that they have accepted the challenge implicit in those terms of reference.

It should be noted that the £2.2 billion of investment is largely to be in electrification of lines; the East Coast main line, for example, features in the programme. This will have a substantial spin-off effect on some of our major industries. GEC is a major contributor in this area, as is BICC and Balfour Beatty, which is part of that enterprise. So there is here a guarantee of five years' work ahead in making more efficient one of our national industries. To that extent the Government deserve congratulations.

At the same time we should not overestimate the size of that investment. In Japan, for example, the support for railways under that country's public service obligation is four times the support received from the Government in the United Kingdom. In Germany the figure is two-and-a-half times, and in France it is half as much again as the British Rail figure of £820 million. So, in the international league table we are not spending excessively in support of this part of our national infrastructure.

Reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, to the fact that he has been inconvenienced from time to time. I hope that in the course of this debate we will talk about British Rail in terms of their place in the national economy and not be unduly concerned about the occasional inconvenience which we might suffer as individuals. Over the past year British Rail have instituted a customer-first programme and more than half the entire staff of British Rail have been to staff training centres, emphasising the importance of good customer relations. This is necessary because although sometimes people talk about British Rail being a monopoly, that is not so. There is competition from the National Bus Company. There is competition from the airlines on the Scotland-England routes. There is competition also from lorries for freight business. All this means that British Rail are in a highly competitive market, and British Rail have accepted that, in order to achieve the objectives that have been set down, they must cultivate good customer relations and win back customers. That has been taken on board.

I should emphasise that one important aspect that has been done in the past two or three years by British Rail is to decentralise management, with beneficial consequences in getting nearer to the customer. If there is one plague in the nationalised industries—although they are all beginning to realise it now—it is the fact that they tend to centralise power and management in large headquarters in the City of London. This has inhibited the energetic and imaginative management that is frequently available at local level.

While I have paid tribute to British Rail for responding to the challenge, and to the Government for encouraging British Rail as they have done despite the constraints that are on all Government bodies at present, I should like to deal a little with the problems facing British Rail. The first is in relation to freight and the competition from lorries. The unions did no good at all to British Rail, nor to themselves (albeit it was a tremendous gesture of class loyalty) when they turned away a large amount of business which was available to British Rail during the miners' strike. Their colleagues in the transport unions carried the coal which they refused to carry. To that extent the loss of freight business was £240 million last year. If British Rail are to make a success of freight business it must not get itself into the situation in which the miners found themselves of resisting changes and rationalisation, thereby destroying their own industry.

The workers in British Rail have made some contribution to progress in this direction. The total railway workforce declined from 173,000 to 145,000 between 1981 and 1984; a 16 per cent. reduction. Last year 6,000 employees in the clerical and administrative grades were declared redundant by agreement and negotiation. I am glad to note that negotiations are still proceeding aimed at productivity gains in the railway. There is still a degree of over-manning in some sections but statesmanship by the union leaders and an atmosphere of partnership on the part of management can achieve some rationalisation and improvements in efficiency.

There is one problem which creates a great deal of uncertainty in the railway system: the proposed reorganisation of local government. That affects what are known as the PTEs—the passenger transport executives—which are local areas where transport has been co-ordinated between the buses, railways and all other forms of transport. Where there are PTEs the local authorities have subsidised the railways in an integrated transport system. The reorganisation of local government and the abolition of the metropolitan councils could certainly affect this situation and might be disastrous. It might have very serious consequences on an integrated transport system which aims at the best use of our local resources. I hope the Minister will respond to that question and give us some assurances in that direction.

As I have said, from these Benches we support the maintenance of an efficient, rationalised railway system. We should like to encourage the management to secure the objectives that have been set by them and we certainly encourage the workforce to behave in a responsible manner aimed at achieving an efficient railway system.

3.34 p.m.

Lord Ferrier

My Lords, I am going to assume that later speakers will deal in detail with a number of the problems such as those produced by the noble Lord, Lord Somers; the individual problems relating to the use of the railways. What I shall concentrate on arises to some extent, from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe.

It happens that throughout my life I found myself in touch with railway affairs, and I leave it at that. I am old enough to recall the railways in this country before the First World War and the important part that they played in the lives of the people. Rupert Brooke mentioned some of my feelings when in his poem "These I have loved", he talked of the, Keen unpassioned beauty of a great machine", and referred to, the deep panting train". My closest association with the railways was during my work in India where my firm instituted, financed and established a number of feeder railways. I was in touch with their maintenance and operation. Some day, when the world has grown out of talking about exploitation, a history of the Indian railways will be compiled. Britain poured resources of money and expertise into the system. The records will show how the operating staffs, from the highest to the lowest, regarded their work with pride and eagerness; a tradition which stemmed from their British ancestry.

Now, I am concerned as a regular traveller who in the ordinary way prefers to travel by train, as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, recommended. As I judge it, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for having the nous to put down this Motion, which is welcomed, and the luck to draw it out of the hat, I propose, in my thinking, to substitute the word "revitalising" for his word "rejuvenating". We are never going back to the railways' infancy but we can, I hope, look forward—and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, indicated where we are going—to a future of infinite service; a second childhood, perhaps, rather than rejuvenation. It is therefore in sorrow that I find that whereas the management staff, as I came to know them, seem to be to be "bang on", to use a slang phrase, they are shackled by the restrictions imposed by the trade unions.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to the enormous losses which fell to the railway system as a result of trade union trouble. I know I run the risk of being accused of union bashing. That is a silly slogan and is a misconstruction of many a genuine attempt to improve the lot of workers. I think that the phrase "union bashing" is as silly as the definition of "working class" which originally applied only to the manual workers. We are all working class today, or all ought to be. Nevertheless, it is among the lowest paid that I missed the pride of being a member of so great a public service in being on the staff of a railway.

It would be easy to pick on the numerous ways in which one thinks that the railway service could be improved. There is the design of rolling stock, which has already been referred to, and its maintenance; the cleanliness or otherwise of railway stations; the fact that lavatory seats will not stay up when the train is in movement; the incomprehensibility of the public address systems; the absence of luggage trolleys and the fact that, even if there are trolleys, they are never in the place they are needed. I believe that that is one service which the menials could well undertake. There should also be the development of rail cars to develop the country lines which have been abolished. To that end I believe that there is missing a sense of mission and of service to the people, to which the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has referred.

What can be done to rekindle the old spirit, the old esprit de corps? The railways cost the state huge sums of money. Need they cost all that? Could it not be brought about that they turn to a profit? I for one would wish that the railways spent less money on extra high-speed trains—and that has already been mentioned—when the existing track needs so much attention as it is. Some of the Inter-City services are excellent, despite the track difficulites.

Admittedly, electric traction is going ahead—one has only to see the figures which the Railway Board is taking on in order to develop it; but would it not be wise to cut expenditure on channel tunnel plans before it is even decided to have a rail link across the channel? All that could have an impact on the whole of the rest of the system. What I mean is this. The question of a rail route across the channel will affect the whole railway system of the country and have a special effect on the position of Scotland and of Scottish trade. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, may agree with me over that.

As part of this massive expenditure, could we not have a rapid rail link with the airport at Prestwick? I do not see that in the list of plans in the Railway Board's outlook. The importance of Prestwick was brought into prominence by the recent weather, when Heathrow, Gatwick and even Manchester were closed by fog.

Talking of the channel makes me think of Mr. MacGregor, who advocates a road link—why not?—but I do not think that he would advocate a rail link. Would that somebody could find another Mr. MacGregor to do for the railway system what he has done for the steel industry and now for coal. His quiet, skilled and courteous behaviour could do a power of good.

My plea is for a spiritual revival to spread right through the personnel of the railways. I feel that it is only by that route that the efficiency of our railway service can be promoted. The massive plans that are in hand can be brought to real fruition only by the wholesale support of the entire staff.