The Railways

HL Deb 27 March 1985 vol 461 cc1052-81

4.25 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Lord Davies of Leek

My Lords, I should be grateful if noble Lords would exercise their minds and return to base after all these interruptions. Ostensibly we were to have a short debate on the need—and I use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier—to revitalise the railways. If noble Lords are confused because of the mishmash that we have had for the past couple of hours, that is what we shall talk about.

I sincerely believe that we should realise that throughout the world governments and city planners recognise that the railways are an ideal method of transport for people in urban areas. I do not think that one can argue against that. In most countries in the world railway systems are now being expanded and modernised. The expansion, modernisation and planning of railway systems in many countries mean the granting of great subsidies.

For a long time governments have been subjected at one time or another to great pressure by the road haulage industry—and rightly so. However, I think that we have now lost the correct balance. I shall not bore the House; I shall not speak for more than six minutes because I think that will be long enough. Others can embroider and develop my speech on the railways. The figure for death and carnage on the roads is devastating, not only in Britain, but also in America and the world in general. I also believe that railways are part of a nation's defence system. They are a means of moving millions of people quickly from great conurbations and cities like London. In war-time complete chaos would be caused through people rushing onto the roads, whereas it would be much safer and more pleasant to transport people by rail away from the great urban areas.

It was good news when the Government gave approval for British Rail's plan to electrify the East Coast main line—and I shall ask a question about that later—from London to Edinburgh via Newcastle-upon-Tyne, including the branch line from Doncaster to Leeds. In 1983 it was announced that that would cost £306 million. Perhaps in his reply the Minister can say whether that esteemed scheme is going ahead and what has happened to the £306 million. The cost must now be higher. I believe that the Minister will be able to answer that question.

This was the biggest electrification project since the electrification of the main line from London to Glasgow—a distance of some 395 miles. The Kings Cross to Hitchin section is electrified. At that time it was hoped to complete the section to Huntingdon by 1987, to Peterborough by 1988, to Leeds by 1989 and through Newcastle-upon-Tyne to Edinburgh by 1991. How is that timetable working out? Are the Government ensuring that no money is taken from the project? In fact, more money will be needed because of inflation. I hope that I shall receive a reply to this matter at the end of the debate.

British Rail has done much to improve its efficiency and service in many areas. I shall not deal with the criticisms; but it is quite clear that in fogs, winds, blizzards and inclement weather there is no other safer means of transporting people around the country than the railways. To my mind—and this is where I wanted to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, who introduced this short debate and to congratulate him on his efforts—it is sheer stupidity in a nation to run down one of the most strategically important factors in our defence; namely, the railways. I take it that they should be part of our defence costs, and in the Ministry of Defence itself railway discussions should be held with other Ministries because of the importance of railways to the security of this country.

Every country in the world realises this. The railways everywhere are subsidised. I see that this Government have recently—and please correct me if I am wrong—cut the subsidies to the railways by something like a quarter. I think that that is a pity. I think that they should have the courage, even in difficult times, to see that the railways go ahead. The matter should be discussed with the Ministry of Defence before anything like cuts in British Rail take place. I promised to be brief, so I will not go into the question of cost accounts. I know that somebody may point to the things that I omitted in this short address, but the House, having listened to so many other different things, I am sure would rather now complete this little debate.

Having said that, I think it is worthwhile realising the tragic cost to the public of all these accidents on the roads. I will conclude by saying that Britain is unique. We seem to be the apotheosis of organisations like the Adam Smith Institute, which is as out of date as Karl Marx. The Adam Smith Institute came out with the idea—and this is an erudite organisation—of selling the assets of British Rail in favour of a free-for-all bus industry. I do not know where their brains are in this Adam Smith crowd. Adam Smith's ideas were those of a long time ago. Adam Smith's approach to problems were like those of Karl Marx. The Adam Smith Institute should try to live with the future and not with the past.

The pontifical statements and the economic documents turned out in mangled English are sometimes put forward as great thinking. I will guarantee that I can find in Old Moore's Almanac a better analysis of the future than I have had many times from the so-called erudite papers produced by organisations that sometimes talk in high-falutin' language, not about realities but about ideas that are somewhere at the back of their skulls. Finally, my Lords, whatever we do on this, it is important to remember that the railways are a part of British defence and any Government that cut down our railways would be damaging the safety of this Realm.

4.33 p.m.

Baroness Lane-Fox

My Lords, I am one of the Members of your Lordships' House who appreciate the chance provided by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, to discuss the British Rail service. Whether or not it is to be by letting off steam in the well-remembered fashion of a railway engine, our basic aim must surely be to see the existing system improved. Often in saying this kind of thing and in saying what should be done, there is a tendency to overlook the constructive progress that has been made. I therefore hope that your Lordships will allow me to list some of the remarkable advances achieved in railway travel for disabled passengers since 1981.

Having suffered considerably as a consumer in past years, not least in the knowledge of being a damaging burden to the many helpers who carried me on and off the trains, it is perhaps understandable that the present situation comes to me as extremely encouraging news. As a result of the International Year for Disabled People in 1981, British Rail appointed a special adviser on disability. They made a very wise choice—a Canadian named Mr. Bill Buchanan. Some years earlier, as a vice-president of the Canadian National Railways, able-bodied at the time, he was posted to London. He had always been a great admirer of the United Kingdom railway system. He said that he always recognised, from abroad, that nowhere else in the world was there such a complicated, interlinking, high speed train service with all the signalling and organisation that this involved.

A year or two after Mr. Buchanan came to London he had an accident which broke his back. It was when he received treatment at Stoke Mandeville that he recovered enough to become British Rail's adviser on disability. He proceeded to build on the foundations of previous research and, in the knowledge of British Rail's pronounced wish to help disabled travellers, he went ahead. He and his helpers have achieved a great deal.

Today, whenever new stock is designed or existing stock is refurbished, the travelling needs of handicapped people are taken into account. The target is to give them the chance to travel as independently as possible and to enable those wheelchair users who wish to do so to travel in their wheelchairs in the public saloon. Currently 60 per cent. of Inter-City trains provide this amenity and this figure is expected to rise to 90 per cent. by 1987. This happy state of affairs has come about by the provision of wide-access doors, automatic interior doors, grab rails, a removable seat for wheelchair access, and by the removal of the table in the second class to allow more leg room.

The newest innovation is the ingenious mock-up of a "loo", accessible to most disabled people, for use on Mark III and other special stock. This may not sound important to those who do not know that the lack of accessible "loo" accommodation has to date restricted many people's chances of travelling. Trials of this new mock-up have been arranged to be held in April and about 50 disabled passengers are generously invited by British Rail to participate in tests being made for this novel purpose on runs between Euston, Liverpool and Manchester during the week beginning 15th April.

I am told that virtually all of the DMU fleet on the provincial service is to be replaced by stock with sliding doors within five years. Wide door openings and low floor levels make for very easy access for wheelchair passengers and they can travel in some cases in the seating area, or in others in the vestibule. On those trains where it is impossible to adapt existing stock design, guards' vans, thank goodness, will be upgraded for wheelchair travel with the provision of heat, light and tip-up seats for a companion, and so forth.

What really pleases me particularly is that special attention is being given to stations. My memories of being wheeled down long distances of track to avoid steps are very poignant. For instance, on stations now those with either poor sight or poor hearing are to be helped by better public-address systems than of yore, good illumination and bright contrasting colours. Ambulant disabled, including the temporarily incapacitated and the elderly, are also helped by the very valuable joint funding of outside bodies such as local authorities, businesses and voluntary organisations who help in many ways—for instance, the Rotary Club.

There is a major scheme jointly financed by the Greater London Council which will provide improved facilities for disabled people at 97 stations in the London area by the end of 1985. In some cases there is direct funding of projects by other organisations. British Rail so far as equipped 57 principal stations with top-class access and facilities for the four main categories of disabled rail users; namely, the ambulant disabled, the wheelchair users and those with impaired sight or impaired hearing. And there is help for deaf people at booking office windows, for instance, by inductive loops to assist hearing aids. White lines—and I know that this sounds obvious, but it is necessary—on platform edges and on stairs to give guidance to those with poor sight are being thought about. Obviously the conversion of goods lifts to passenger operation is a very big advantage to many travellers with prams, luggage, and so on, but to disabled people the lifts are a boon. A computerised message transfer system is being introduced during this year to alert staff to give the right help at stations where this is needed.

Obviously, to make the most of these services disabled passengers are encouraged to give advance notice of travel plans and although this is a great bore, it really does seem inevitable. I believe that it is intended to build up catchment areas around these 57 fully accessible stations and to tie in with other transport facilities suitable for disabled passengers, such as convenient buses, dial-a-rides, taxis and car parking. Later, the plan is to add to the number of accessible stations and to work towards door-to-door long-distance travel.

Handicapped rail travellers can claim a considerable fare concession. By holding a disabled travel card (priced, I believe, at £12) they may travel first-class for half the price of a second-class fare, and a companion can do the same. The high standard of achievement sought by British Rail is exemplified, I am told, by the Gatwick express. Handicapped people arriving at Gatwick Airport are immediately taken by lift to accessible trains, which run to Victoria Station every 15 minutes. They are absolved from going through Customs until they reach Victoria.

There are in operation 2,700 railway stations and 19,000 individual pieces of rolling stock; and the plan is that every station and every piece of individual rolling stock, whether new or refurbished, shall be considered in relation to the needs of handicapped travellers. Perhaps most important of all is the insight given by British Rail's management and staff into the problems with which disabled people contend. A detailed training module and film will follow during 1985 to show staff the differing needs of those passengers, whom I believe will find this a very helpful factor. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will be encouraged by this, too.

Of course, it is on human good will that so much of this will depend. Huge strides are being made in this, our very special case, and I believe that all of us who are interested should acknowledge this. If we are realistic, we must see that these achievements have cost much in effort and ingenuity and have involved no little expense. The fact that they have been reached in such difficult times is extra proof of British Rail's commitment here as an investment, really, in good practice for the future. I think we should say "Thank you very much" for what is being done and ask that our requirements in regard to British Rail should never again be ignored. We can truly say that we have arrived and we do not intend to fall back from that advance.

4.43 p.m.

Lord Greenhill of Harrow

My Lords, the basis for my intervention in the discussion this afternoon is that many years ago I served an apprenticeship on the London and North-Eastern Railway. By a curious coincidence, one of my contemporaries, the noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth, is sitting next to me on the Cross-Benches this afternoon. Most people who have once been involved in the railway industry remain interested in it for the rest of their lives. It exercises a strange attraction.

Of course, 50 years ago the United Kingdom was virtually the railway workshop of the world. We exported equipment to every continent, and not only equipment: our engineers and our operators could be found running the systems in Latin America, India, Africa and even in China. We had pioneered the industry and we remained a dominant influence in it. That position has inevitably changed, but we could still exercise more influence than we do.

Although I am no longer connected with the railway industry, I must declare the fact that I have been involved with makers of railway equipment. In this short debate I want to confine myself to three points only: first, the future locomotive requirements of the British Railways Board; secondly, our existing commuter services; and, thirdly, industrial relations in the industry.

The British Railways Board has a formidable programme of investment ahead—over £1 billion, I believe—in new locomotives, electric locomotives for the overdue electrification of the East Coast route, to which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred, with a huge order of up to 1,500 diesel-electric locomotives for freight and passenger services and a large number of traction units for suburban services.

The part of this ambitious programme most vulnerable to foreign competition involves the diesel-electric units, and the point I want to make with great emphasis this afternoon is that it is unthinkable that any significant part of the contracts involved should go overseas. There is, indeed, a real risk of it, but I feel sure the House would agree that it is essential that the Government, the Railways Board, who have their own workshops, and British suppliers should work out between themselves a programme which would largely satisfy the board's and the consumers' needs, and at the same time allow British industry to prosper at home and seize the greatly expanding export opportunities abroad. The loss of these contracts to overseas suppliers would not only affect the employment situation in our industry and damage its reputation, but would also prevent it regaining its rightful place in the world market.

Today, the Financial Times announced the granting of large locomotive contracts to European suppliers in China for the Chinese railway. Members have criticised the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget for its inadequacy in meeting our need for jobs. The situation to which I have drawn attention gives the Government an opportunity to oversee the fulfilment of this programme in a way which will ensure the maximum assistance to our manufacturing base and will help the job situation and leave us competitive for overseas business.

The second point I want to make concerns the commuter services and, in particular, those in and around this capital city. The standard of our commuter services contributes significantly to the quality of life of many thousands of people. They often set the tone for a person's working day, and there is considerable room for improvement in our existing services. For example, the rolling stock falls below a reasonable standard in many cases. The board are no doubt fully aware of this, and I hope that they will give it continued special attention. These workaday trains do not have the glamour of the long-distance expresses, but they mean more to more people, and the new status of London Transport will give an opportunity for better co-ordination with British Railway Board services. I know this is being worked upon; and we must also welcome the decision to reopen the Snow Hill Tunnel, which will affect many commuters in this capital.

Anybody using London's streets is very conscious of the recent increase in commuter buses. They have many advantages, not least cheaper fares and assured seats. But they also have a marked effect on the overall movement of London's traffic, and better rail services would keep these developments within bounds.

The last point that I want to make is closely bound up with the commuter services: that is, industrial relations on the railways. The unions have accepted startling changes in the industry. There have been huge changes in the numbers employed, and the unions have co-operated with them. Railway employees have also, in many people's eyes, lost some status. But the attitudes of the members are still, in my view, sometimes very old-fashioned and selfish. Surely, we should have got past the point where, too frequently, some trivial change in drivers' or guards' duty rosters brings a measure of spiteful disruption. This is an area where I hope that we can look for improvement from both the management and staff.

A good railway system is a mark of a civilised industrial society. It is a fundamental necessity not only for industry, but for recreation and tourism. It is a part of this country's infrastructure which must be maintained. The Government have put substantial sums at the disposal of the British Railways Board and there is every sign that the board is managing its own financial resources with prudence and imagination. It should be a matter of public policy to support and encourage it.

4.52 p.m.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, like other noble Lords I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for introducing this afternoon this interesting debate on the railways. When one speaks about railways, one does not run out of areas to talk about. One cannot possibly say that everything has been said, because if there were 20 or 30 speakers there would still be an original point to make. I prepared a speech, albeit brief, but I have ditched my notes and would rather start again and think of what to say.

I should like to take up one or two points about the late Lord Beeching, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Somers, referred, and about what happened to the railways at the time of the cuts. I can remember, in my youth, when all those lines were cut. They were absolutely splendid links. If we had that situation now there might be faster trains and unmanned stations, and perhaps they could be economical. But those lines had to go, because those lovely railways which were built up in the nineteenth century, with not very much sense—it was referred to as railway mania—stopped at places which were some distance from towns and villages which never grew up. There were also statutory trains. They were all rather fun on a day's excursion, but most were entirely uncommercial.

The unions were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, and by my noble friend Lord Ferrier, and I should like to say a word about them. One must agree that the union management has an extremely difficult job. It cannot be a very comfortable situation for them in this tough, modern age, with the railways having to be highly competitive and businesslike—which, indeed, they are. They have to lose quite a lot of old friends and functions. Their position calls for a great deal of guts and understanding, and one can appreciate their feelings. We have to be patient. I am under the impression that the trade union movement is aware of the situation. It is responsible and is becoming businesslike, but it will take time.

There are two questions which I wish to ask my noble friend, of which I have given him prior notice. One, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, has to do with co-ordination between London Regional Transport and British Rail. This is going very well. The Capital Card has certainly been a very good idea. Another point which should be publicised rather more is that when people buy their British Rail ticket they can also buy their Underground ticket at most stations. That must be useful for LRT and useful for the traveller, and it saves queueing up at the termini when one has suitcases. I am sure that my noble friends can tell me of other improvements in this co-operation. Snowhill Tunnel, between Holborn Viaduct and Farringdon, was mentioned, and I am sure that there are quite a lot of other interesting things which we could be told.

Before I get on to the parish pump stuff—because, being a regular traveller, there are certain observations which one feels one must make—I should like to mention agreements under Section 20 of the 1968 Act, between British Rail and the Passenger Transport Executives. I certainly do not wish to discuss the Bill with regard to buses; but Passenger Transport Executives are the ruling bodies for the metropolitan authorities, and some have indicated that they may no longer be able to support rail services in their areas under Section 20. This is very disturbing for British Rail, for the passengers and for the officers of the Passenger Transport Executives. May I ask the Government whether, if the PTEs find themselves no longer able to do this under the Bill and withdraw financial support, the Government will continue to support these rail services?

I have now "done my stuff' and have asked my questions, so I shall speak very briefly as a traveller in Southern Region on the Brighton line. This is probably the most well-supported line in this country. We are fairly well looked after, and there are lots of trains, but this last winter has not been a very good example. In fact, old friends travelling on that line have said that it has taken the biscuit; it has been the worst ever. There is new signalling at Victoria Station, and we are told that in the next few months everything will be put right, but we want to have more assurance on this. I do not expect my noble friend to answer now, because it would be totally unfair of me to do so.

But compared with other countries, which can deal with a little snow and ice, we are rather poor when bad weather occurs. I travelled on one train at about 6.30 in the evening. It arrived after a period of no trains, and the guard would have taken it out of service. There was no water in the buffet car, which did not matter greatly, but there was also no loo. My noble friend Lady Lane- Fox talked about loos, so I can do so. There was no working loo, and the guard was going to withdraw the train, but he had to put it back into service. It is ridiculous that in 1985 British Rail cannot provide ordinary plumbing in slightly bad weather.

That brings me to a plus point for British Rail. Most of their working staff were a little older than me and probably joined just after the 1945 war, but they now have comparatively young men who are doing extremely well. They are very keen on their jobs. They are extremely civil and very responsible, and I think that this is a very encouraging trend for the railway structure in the future.

I could go on, but I have talked for eight minutes, which I think is plenty. But strictly on the parish pump line, my noble friend Lord Somers—I still call him my noble friend because I can remember him when he was on these Benches—talked about Waterloo Station. My noble friend complains about Waterloo Station, but I think Waterloo Station is a mecca; I think it is beautiful. There is that beautiful clock and all that lovely brickwork and tiling. My noble friend should see Victoria Station. One goes from Trafalgar Square to the Gorbals. I mean no disrespect. There is a great change. I should like to make a point about the arrival board at Victoria Station. You can receive information about trains coming in from Moscow, Venice or wherever, but there is nothing on the arrival board to tell you about trains that have come in from Brighton, or about ordinary trains from Dover, from Chatham or wherever. I think that British Rail might look at that point.

I have talked long enough, and I hope that the debate will continue as successfully as it has so far.

5.1 p.m.

Lord Mountevans

My Lords, I, too, should like to start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Somers, on his choice of Motion and on his success in the ballot, and thanking him for giving us this opportunity to consider the present wellbeing of British Railways. Efficient, I believe British Railways are, and self-rejuvenating, if I might vary the noble Lord's Motion a little. I feel that the patient, as one might call it, that we are discussing today, having been through a number of traumas since the Stedeford Report in the early 1960s, which was the first signpost along the path which gave us the railways we now have, is fully alive and kicking. Hence I cannot entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Somers, in his choice of the word "rejuvenation".

It may have escaped the notice of some of your Lordships, and it certainly had mine, that, by happy coincidence, today is the 22nd anniversary of the publication of the Beeching Report. Before Dr. Beeching, as he then was, undertook his surgical exercise, British Railways were employing some 450,000 railwaymen, and in 1963 moved 938 million passengers who travelled some 19 billion passenger miles. Not so long ago in 1983 the passenger figure had fallen to just under 695 million, a fall of some 38 per cent., but the miles travelled were still very close to 19 billion.

The network had, in the meantime, been slimmed by nearly 30 per cent. and the staff employed, the most important figure of all, had fallen by not far short of 300,000 people or nearly 60 per cent. The fact that passenger miles travelled has held up so well, while staff and routes have both been reduced so drastically, hardly suggests to me that our railways are in need of rejuvenation—far from it.

I feel that in the face of a better than 100 per cent. increase in car registrations, the figures that I have quoted suggest that, thanks to the surgery which the good doctor introduced and some excellent postoperative care by a succession of able chairmen and managers, British Rail has become a viable network which can be retained, and retained at a price which we can find acceptable in terms both of fares and of subsidy, a point on which I think the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, was touching in his introductory remarks.

I do not feel that it is totally fair to accuse the late Lord Beeching of reckless surgery. Let us instead remember his own words spoken at the time that, all I cut off were twigs where there was no sap". In doing so he gave us the network on which I depend as a non-motorist and which, warts and all, I, and many others, generally admire. In remembering his work, in remembering the branch lines which he found necessary to take away, we should also remember that he created the opportunity seized by many preservation societies and their thousands of volunteers to preserve a piece of our heritage and in fact to restore it, at little charge to the public purse, to the state which, I suspect, the noble Lord, Lord Somers, treasures.

In this context, let us also remember the generous support given by the Railways Inspectorate, a small body of men almost invariably and wrongly overlooked except in times of railway disaster. I should also like to suggest that, rather than re-fighting the battle for the pre-Beeching rural railway, we should bear in mind that in the east, and not so very far over the horizon as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, reminded us, there lurks this year's Transport Bill. When we come to consider it, that I feel is the time when we shall have to fight the battle for rural transport as we now understand it, not only as it is but as I hope it will be preserved.

Though I admire British Rail's present management, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, about its ability to deal with some of the problems that it will surely face, some arising out of Government policy and some out of the Government's legislative programme. I find myself worried about the effect of the restriction of transport supplementary grant to capital road programmes, because I can see the threat of rate-capped conurbation councils, and indeed the abolition of the metropolitan counties, leading to a situation where local subsidies which British Rail receive and in fact the very routes which are subsidised will be in a vulnerable and possibly even in an unviable position.

It is the Government's policy that there shall be no significant reductions in the current route mileage, but British Rail may find themselves forced to seek the Minister's consent to close suburban routes in the provinces, suburban routes which capitalise to cope with peaks which last for perhaps 24 hours out of a 168-hour week and which become unviable purely on revenue. What will Her Majesty's Government view be when faced with the need ultimately to give consent to such closures, as it is the Minister's final decision.

I am also concerned—I touched upon this in an earlier debate on South-Eastern airports—that although British Rail are enjoying generous revenue support from Government and have an investment programme running at record levels with no small element of internally generated funds, there may be opportunities which they simply will not be able to grasp. Along with several other speakers I favour a complementary public transport system, and having seen, in particular, the success of the Gatwick Express service, I hope that an eventually developed Stansted will have an inbuilt high-speed rail link.

But the Gatwick Express is an inspired mix of management improvisation. It was over capacity on the present East-Coast main line high-speed train fleet that enabled the high-speed train service to be diverted to operate out of St. Pancras, which in turn released the staff who form the Gatwick Express train service. The availability of these coaches happily coincided with a substantial reinvestment programme, the fruits of which I trust the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will live to see in the fullness of time, on track and on signalling between Victoria and Gatwick.

I can remember being out in the States some three years ago. I was in Dallas and was talking to both American Airlines and British Caledonian staff. They both had planes on the route to Gatwick. In those days weekend travel on the Brighton line was basically as close to hell as you could get. One saw parts of London that one had never seen before. One had no idea where one was going. It was murder! I asked them whether they received an awful lot of criticism for the poor quality of the service provided between Gatwick and Victoria at that time, and for the reasons which I have just outlined, and they said, "Well, to be honest, most of our customers have never actually seen a train so they do not know whether the service is good or bad".

I said that Gatwick Express seems to me, anyhow, to be an inspired piece of improvisation, a job done economically—not perhaps on the cheap but economically—and done very, very practically. But will British Rail be able to fund the £150 million which might be necessary for the rail link which the inspector himself recommended in his report on the South-East airports? Should the airport proceed then one would hope that an immediate decision would be taken to build the rail link, not least because of the 15 million passengers we might be talking about. A large number—practically all—will be dependent on one form of surface access because there will not be much air interlining.

I would ask the noble Lord the Minister, who is no doubt aware that an EEC loan has financed British Rail's new sleeping car fleet, whether one can look to the EEC for a similar sort of funding in this particular context, not least because I understand from the British Airports Authority that perhaps 60 per cent. of passengers using a developed Stansted would in fact be EEC nationals.

The noble Lords, Lord Ferrier, Lord Greenhill of Harrow and Lord Teviot, mentioned the role of the unions—as I did indirectly when I touched on the shrinkage of British Rail's payroll. All too often we have seen union leaders defend, as they should, their members' interest to such an extent that they eventually destroy the very industries they seek to serve. Let us not only pay tribute to the unions for accepting the very great upheaval that has taken place in British Rail over the last 20 years, but also hope that they will not render that disservice to British Rail itself.

I believe that British Rail is alive and living. It is an industry in which we, its proprietors, its users, and the staff can all be proud. It is a railway which I think is the railway for Britain in the mid-80s, and one which I think will become a better railway in the 1990s. The position of the railways today reflects credit not only on those who have directed its affairs over the last 25 years, but also on the degree of understanding in the department itself. We all know that it enjoys a bad, and not necessarily deserved, press. So let us encourage it, and not criticise it. Rejuvenated I believe it is; more efficient I hope it will become.

5.14 p.m.

Lord Stodart of Leaston

My Lords, I, too, must thank the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for giving me the opportunity not only of listening to but being able to take part in a discussion on a subject which has always been of interest to me. I cannot truthfully say that I recall—as I understand many of us can—as a child wishing to be an engine driver. But twenty-five years ago I was given the opportunity of travelling on the footplate of the "Flying Scotsman" from London to Edinburgh just as diesel was taking over from steam. I was told to put on my best dark suit to sit in the immaculate diesel cab from London, and then at Newcastle, when we got on to the steam platform, out came the boiler suit. I remember my greatest thrill was being allowed to use the lever which picked up the water, in those days, from between the tracks. Accordingly, it did not surprise those in another place that my maiden speech there was strongly in favour of a railway system.

I want to speak not of railway politics, but merely as a very regular user of railways, with an emphasis on the situation in Scotland. I daresay if no one else knows the places I may mention, at least the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, may recognise them.

As one knows, Scottish communities tend to be scattered and a bit remote, and management of the railways there has been just as difficult, in a different way, for British Rail management as trying to run profitably commuter services into London, where they have huge traffic in the morning and evening and yet during the quieter period stock is lying idle, with staff still having to be employed.

Up in Scotland I was immensely impressed at the way in which management did their best. They had many new ideas. They ran a battery car between Ballater and Aberdeen, the idea being that the car would run downhill all the way, with no power at all, and then it was plugged in, charged up its batteries, and ran up the hill again. A rail bus ran between Gleneagles and Crieff and you could get off that at any point. You merely said to the driver, "I want to get off at the hedge after the next", in order to walk up to the farm; or you came from the farm, stood on the line, held up your hand, and the train would stop.

But the enemy of all this was the private motorist. If you had a car—and there were not nearly so many then as there are today—and you could park it where you worked, then the attitude was that you might as well use it. The suburban line round the city of Edinburgh was closed because 20 years ago people preferred to drive to their office, even through the traffic jams; back for lunch and then back again to the office in the afternoon; added to which the private car gave one a considerable measure of independence. There could not have been a better example of this than myself who, as a member of another place, had a free rail voucher from my home to my constituency yet invariably I motored because I could then get home—and time at home at the weekends is quite precious—probably half an hour before the train would have delivered me.

I believe that the private motorist really did frustrate all the efforts of British Rail to service the towns and villages up there. But now, ironically enough, the private motorists seem to me to have strangled themselves, because parking in inner cities is now so expensive, if it is possible at all, that motorists tend to park at main line stations and take the train in. The four stations that lie between Berwick-on-Tweed and Edinburgh—Dunbar, Drem, Longniddry and Prestonpans—which were all on the closure list 10 years ago, have provided parking places, the trains are full, and I believe the number of services has gone up, the passenger-carrying has gone up, by several hundred per cent.

Outside Aberdeen the station of Dyce, close to the airport, has just been re-opened after having been closed for 29 years. British Rail and Grampian Region shared the cost of £30,000, and traffic at a level of 180,000 journeys a year has resulted. The same thing is going to happen at Portlethen to the South of Aberdeen in May. Also, I believe the line from Edinburgh to Bathgate in West Lothian will re-open soon and perhaps at least some of this makes one wish—and this is not with the benefit of hindsight—that the pleas made 20 years ago to leave the track intact had been heeded. It can surely only be where the actual lines have been left that reopening has been possible. I am thinking again about the closing and total stripping of what was known as the Waverley line between Edinburgh and Carlisle, leaving a vast area—probably the largest area on the island—totally devoid of any railway transport. I do not quarrel in any way with the call for rejuvenation and revitalisation and for greater efficiency—but I do so agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, because I have noticed enormous improvements in all the services, at any rate on the East Coast lines, during the past two years.

Not very long ago I travelled through Germany, Switzerland. Italy and France—all of whose railways receive enormous subsidies. I remember being told 20 years ago that the only railway system in the world that did not receive a subsidy was that of the Netherlands and only because the railway system owned the canals which were extremely profitable. I do not know whether that is so today. Throughout Europe I have experienced nothing better than the 125-type trains which run between Edinburgh and King's Cross. Indeed, so good are they that I am going to be controversial and question the need to electrify that line—largely because I can see nothing that would improve upon the service at the moment. I would have thought that a greater priority was to provide better rolling stock for other lines before getting down to electrification. But because I do not know the technical pros and cons and the economics involved, any comment from me would be quite worthless—except that now and again there has been a good deal of storm damage to the electrified lines on the West Coast routes. Those routes have suffered considerable delays while the East Coast lines have kept running.

All I wish to add is that although British Rail have done absolute marvels, and although I do not really know the situation at Waterloo Station or Victoria Station, it is a terribly demoralising sight to see the queues which form at King's Cross. They surround the whole complex and it is maddening to queue, particularly if one's train is waiting at the platform.

Secondly, I hope—because this is the one serious criticism that I would make—that trains can be made cleaner outside—with not so much emphasis on the inside. It looks awful when carriage windows are so dirty that one cannot see out of them. Finally, how I echo the plea made in respect of luggage trolleys. It seems to me that porters nobble all the trolleys and the passengers are left in a great deal of difficulty finding any trolleys themselves. Otherwise, I take my hat off to what British Rail have done.

5.24 p.m.

Viscount Buckmaster

My Lords, as a confirmed lover of railways and an ardent student of railways—and particularly of railway timetables—from the age of eight onwards, it gives me the greatest pleasure to welcome this debate which has been so ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Somers. I shall make speed the theme of my speech. However, before praising and castigating British Rail in that sphere, I shall look briefly at what is being done by two highly sophisticated continental railways: the French and the West German.

All of us who have studied railways technically would agree that, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, the French railways are ahead of any in the world. They took the lead over us soon after the war. Some of your Lordships may have travelled on the wonderful TGVs—trains á grande vitesse—introduced in September 1981. They run for most of the way on entirely new track between Paris and Lyon, and they have cut the journey time between those two large cities down to two hours. If one continues beyond Lyon on normal track one can reach Marseille, which is 483 miles from Paris, in the amazing time of 4 hours and 40 minutes.

That is not the end of the story. On 4th March this year, an 81 mile extension to Grenoble was opened. And on 15th February this year, work was inaugurated on two new TGV lines to Le Mans and Tours, which are due to open in 1989 and 1990 respectively.

So spectacular has been the success of those new lines, and so dramatic has been the growth of passenger traffic, that the entire cost of the first of these, the Paris to Lyon line, including the loans and interest will be repaid by 1989.

The German Federal Railways are certainly less spectacular than the French railways. Nevertheless, they are now celebrating their 150th anniversary and have great plans for the future. Two important new lines are under construction. I emphasise that they are new lines because they are entirely new lines and not simply renovated existing lines. They will run between Mannheim and Stuttgart and from Hanover to WÜrzburg. One hopes that they will both be in operation by 1991. Initially, trains will run on these lines at a speed of 156 miles per hour, and the eventual target is between 180 mph and 190 mph—bearing in mind that British Rail still has a limit of 125 mph. The German railway slogan is, Twice the speed of the car, half the speed of the plane". What a wonderful motto for British Rail!

Such sophisticated travel is of course very expensive and requires a colossal subsidy. The total grants paid to German Federal Railways in the current year run at 13,997,000,000 deutschemarks, which is something like three times the value of the grant paid by the Government to British Rail in the current year of £1,051,800,000. I quote those two examples to show that sophisticated speed pays. I would not for a moment suggest that we in this country build entirely new lines as the French and the Germans are doing; that would be out of the question. But we must surely realise the full speed potential of our existing lines.

I turn now to our own much maligned system. We have here, let us face it, very much a curate's egg situation. The good parts are good—indeed they are—but the bad parts are bad, and very bad they are, too. I would say they are so bad that even our worthy curate would hesitate to dip his spoon into such an egg. I shall deal with the good parts first. One must of course praise the HSTs running at 125 miles per hour which have been mentioned by other noble Lords. They have done wonderful work on the East Coast main line, on the main line to Bristol, and on other lines as well. I could quote a number of records but time allows me to cite only one. In December 1984, the run from Euston to Glasgow was accomplished in 3 hours 52 minutes and 40 seconds for the distance of 401.1 miles. That record was set by an advanced passenger train, about which I shall speak later.

The main problem confronting British Rail in its pursuit of further speed is that of line curvature and bad junction layouts. There have been great improvements in those spheres, particularly at Peterborough and Grantham, and the removal of the Offord curve, on main lines, and so on. But curvature remains the main problem. It was with that end in mind that the advanced passenger train, with its tilting mechanism, was developed; but, as most of your Lordships will know, it has suffered very serious teething troubles, Fortunately, however, the recent run I told your Lordships about has proved that the tilting mechanism can work, that one can travel in a tilting train without spilling one's coffee; and we look forward to great developments in the future.

I now come to the parts of the egg which so appalled our dear curate. Here I refer, as have other noble Lords, to the southern suburban services. When we had a debate on the Serpell report on 2nd March 1983 I referred, nostalgically, to the 1910 Bradshaw. I say only this. It remains for me the most superb soporific that I know when I find myself overwhelmed by the problems of the third world. I shall not weary your Lordships with a long dissertation on the timetables of 1910, except to say that the journey time from London to Stratford-on-Avon and from London to Aylesbury was better in 1910 than it is in 1985. I had hoped that some of the southern lines would have proved to be better in 1910, but that is not so. However, I can assure your Lordships that on the line to Sutton, Dorking and Horsham, which is the line I principally speak about, train services in 1950 were very much better than they are now. Yes, one had non-stop trains to Horsham and Dorking, but now nearly all the trains stop six or seven times. Indeed, in 1950, believe it or not, the Southern Railway, as it then was, led all the other railways. They were in the doldrums, but the Southern Railway was forging ahead. We had that wonderful train the 5.3 from London Bridge to Haywards Heath which was the fastest train in Europe during the war. Can your Lordships believe that?

The problem now, of course, is that British Rail, in its wisdom, has decided to introduce more and more stops. I would be interested in any views that the noble Lord the Minister may have on that. Surely a passenger living in a large town such as Horsham, or Dorking, is entitled to at least one fast train a day. I can remember that glorious train running in the 1950s and 1960s, the 6.18 non-stop from Victoria to Horsham. It arrived at 7.5. There is nothing comparable to it today; nor will there ever be. Of course, British Rail are carrying out widespread improvements to the line. There is a plan for entirely re-signalling the Brighton line and there is the elimination of the co-called Croydon tangle, north of East Croydon. Unfortunately, I and other travellers on that line find that it is more tedious to get through the tangle now than it was before work started.

My final point has not been made by other noble Lords, but it is very important. I refer to the appalling quality of the Sunday services on British Rail. The point here is not that ours are so bad, but that in France, Sweden, and Switzerland the railways carry more passengers on a Sunday than they do on a weekday. Can one believe it? Who in Britain would think of taking the wife and kids for a trip on British Rail on a Sunday? It is impossible. Even if one looks at the timetable for a revised schedule, one finds that it is probably unworkable. Therefore, I hope the Minister will give his views on that.

I hope, too, that the noble Lord will be able to assure the House that we can expect a real improvement in the quality of Southern Region services. We led the way in railway travel. Let us do all we can to regain and maintain our pre-eminence in that most important sphere.

5.34 p.m.

Lord Quinton

My Lords, it is late in the day and there is much more to be discussed in other debates, so I shall not go on at any great length. I also feel a considerable unfitness because other noble Lords have exhibited a great deal of technical expertise and knowledge. I have a little paper of statistics, but I may be too ashamed to refer to it very much.

Like every other decent British subject, I am devoted to the railways as an institution and, therefore, I am naturally grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for introducing this topic. However, I feel that we must not allow ourselves to become victims of a "wooden walls" attitude to the railways. They were a great institution before the internal combustion engine was introduced, but the total transformation of the way in which people and objects are moved about has to reflect itself in the railway system. It is for that reason I have to dissent from the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, of Lord Beeching, who seems to have done exactly the right thing; that is, a whole lot of railways which existed when there was no alternative method of moving people from very remote places had simply become redundant. But that is by no means true of the railway system as a whole.

Perhaps it is proper for me to declare something in the nature of a disinterest, one might say, at this point because I do not travel very much by rail, but I become very found of the railway system when travelling on the roads against the rush hour, as I try to do, and see huge numbers of people who would be very much better off if they were travelling by rail. It happens to be that my style of employment is one in which I can move about in totally the opposite direction to the great bulk of my fellow citizens and I am able to witness these suffering, but I do have travelling experience by rail and I will endeavour to eliminate the autobiographical element as much as possible.

Noble Lords have referred to the French railway system. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, claimed, I am sure rightly, that it is technically unsurpassed among railway systems of the world. Purely from a consumer point of view one must say that nothing is more calculated to bring one up against the limitations of our own glorious railway heritage, if I may so describe it, as a trip on the Société National de Chemins de Fer. I know that part of this should be attributed to that artistic side of life which is in some ways the least developed in this country—the visual. It has to be admitted that in large parts of the British railway stock of equipment great improvements have been introduced, but they are not usually of a visual character. The Inter-City train is clearly an inprovement on anything that even sentimental recollection of past railway travel can dredge up, simply because it is a much softer ride. That is a genuine improvement. It takes out one of the most objectionable features of traditional railway travel—the jolting. However, the orange colour is certainly not to my taste and I cannot imagine that it is to very many tastes. But that is a superficial matter. It is because of the general comfort and elegance of the French trains, and their reliability, that it seems to me that a constant comparison with the performance of our neighbouring country is one which should guide the activities of those who control the railway system.

To all intents and purposes France is, from the point of view of managing a railway system, very much of the shape and size of this country. That is, it is approximately of the same population, although we are a little narrower laterally. The general length of the two communities is much the same, and the major centre of economic activity in both nations is displaced quite a bit from the geographical centre—the geometrical centre, one might say—of the whole community. Therefore, they have similar problems: a radial system emerging from a comparatively non-central part of the land mass as a whole and then an irregular spacing out of areas that are important from the point of view of the movement of population or of heavy traffic. Therefore, it seems to me to be not unfair to make a comparison between the British and French railway systems and to wonder why ours is, compara- tively speaking, so much inferior, as I think one must say it frequently is. However, at least the Inter-City service, not just in its improved springing but in other respects, such as higher speeds, has been one aspect of the railway services in this country which is better than anything has been since the war.

There remains, however, the strategically more important part of the railway passenger system to which several noble Lords have referred—the commuter provision. I read somewhere once that at about the time when the internal combustion engine was beginning to make itself felt as a mode of transport for human beings the quantity of horse manure deposited on the streets of London was becoming a problem that looked as if it might require the total evacuation of the city or the prohibition of movement of persons and things by that means of traction. Perhaps that is fanciful, but people have sometimes suggested that the invention of the internal combustion engine was a piece of divine intrusion into the affairs of mankind to prevent a disaster from occurring, even if it brought some other disasters in its train.

One of those would come about if there were no commuter railway service into great cities. They would be completely unmanageable without these commuter services. But they are, as things stand, the least glamorous and the least well provided aspect of our railway system. The rolling stock is of the most melancholy and antiquated nature, perhaps more suitable for pensioning off to those private recreational railways of which the noble Lord, Lord Montevans, spoke, as a charming device for coping with residual sentiment about the railway system that has no serious economic justification.

It seems to me that the very first priority here is to improve the commuter services so as to diminish the increasing load of motor traffic that pours into cities. Here something can be learnt fom New York—in many ways a more problematic city than London from the transport point of view because of the way in which the centre of the city is situated on a long thin island, which has to be reached by tunnels or bridges, and round about is a complex and, as it were, crenellated coastline, through which the inhabitants of suburbia have to be brought to their work in the city.

Let it not be pretended that the citizens of New York are in a state of intense and euphoric delight with their commuter system. It nevertheless seems to me an enormously impressive undertaking on the scale with which it is operated and in view of the extraordinarily large percentage of the people not resident on Manhattan Island but who work there who are brought to their work and taken from it each day by that system, together with constant improvement of rolling stock, even if the whole thing is constantly in the shadow of various forms of bankruptcy that require commercial and financial restructuring of the organisations that provide the service. We have something that we ought to learn from there: to what extent the problems of the great modern city—of moving persons from their homes to their work and back—can be effectively dealt with.

There remains one residual feature of antiquity about the railway system. It is that it is an old- fashioned heavy industry. If it were a geographical entity one would say that it was a proper denizen of the rust belt. It is inevitably a heavy industry because, at least outside a purely commuter service—for all its heavy freight services, except the conveyance of coal to power stations—with any long-distance freight or long-distance passenger service it is going to be national in scale. That means nationally organised unions, and that means again that the whole service is highly vulnerable to strikes by one comparatively small proportion of the whole working populace on the railways. That may in the end have a dire effect. We keep hearing it said when there is yet another railway strike that that means a loss of customers which may prove permanent. If the pressure is constantly kept up by strikes of that nature, human ingenuity will just have to devise a system of moving people and things about that is less vulnerable.

On the whole, I have tried to avoid too many of what my noble friend Lord Teviot referred to as parish pump matters. This is not a parish pump matter but it involves the mention of a particular place—Dover. It seems to me very unfortuante that the British face that the railways turn to the world at Dover is of such a peculiarly derelict and awful kind. I believe that it is excused on the ground that expensive foreign nationals come in by air, and, on the whole, there is only a lot of noisy, anorak-wearing students arriving at Dover by the railway system, so it does not really matter much what they are put in. Well, they will be the expensive, or important, or busy travellers of the future. It seems to me curiously slovenly on the part of our national railway system to place at the entry to this country, to all but the best of foreign visitors who come to it, such a peculiarly bleak and unappetising welcome.

5.44 p.m.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I think that we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for having introduced this subject today. I think that every noble Lord who has so far spoken has congratulated him on the topic he has chosen. He said at the beginning that travel was a competitive business among road, rail, canals and coastal shipping. That is the main problem that the railways have. Some noble Lords will know better than I do, but I do not believe that the British railway system has made an overall profit since 1923. It goes back as far as that. I am talking about the entire system and not specific parts of the network.

Whenever we speak about the railways, we always have the parish pump aspect, as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, called it, so there is no shortage of topics. From mixing with a lot of railwaymen at almost every level, one of the things that I have discovered is that they have their stories about the public, too. They all have stories about the ridiculous demands that the public make on them.

I remember when I was a junior Minister that there was great discussion about whether the line from Fort William to Mallaig should be maintained. I remember getting a letter from a very senior barrister in Edinburgh. He hoped that we would keep the line open, and he wanted the observation trains put back on it. He and his wife had had their honeymoon up there, and every year his son drove them to Glenfinnan so that they could get the train on to Mallaig to remind them of their honeymoon. That is the sort of story. The railwaymen say, "We have to keep a railway going all the way from Glasgow to Fort William and then on to Mallaig to allow someone to go on a little run from Glenfinnan to Mallaig once a year!" That is the kind of story one tends to get.

We had the Transport Act 1968, when some effort was put in after the Beeching cuts to look at solutions to the railway problem. Decisions were then made. I should like to know whether the Government still think in those terms—that there are a number of things on which the railway should principally concentrate, and that these are the things that it can do best. Many noble Lords have already referred to the fact that the London and South-East commuter system could not possibly run without the railways. The railways are absolutely vital for a big city. The noble Lord, Lord Quinton, spoke eloquently of New York and the problems there.

The other vital service is the Inter-City service, which I think is very well patronised now. I must say that the Freightliner service and container trains have been a slight disappointment to me. I had much more hope of them than perhaps has been realised. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether they are still doing well.

The noble Lord, Lord Somers, referred to the special company trains. I think of special company trains in another way. I mean the trains that took the material from, for instance, for a period, Ford at Dagenham up to Liverpool and back. There were various other trains which were total company trains. We had that also with the cement people, and to some extent the timber companies in parts of Scotland.

Going back again to what the noble Lord said, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether the grants under Section 8 of the 1984 Act are going as well as they were, or whether they have begun to taper off. I suppose that the lack of economic activity must have affected that.

The other type of train which again has been badly affected in the past year is the merry-go-round train from pit to power station. I hope that that traffic can be brought back. For instance, although it is not quite because of the merry-go-round system, I understand that steelworks in Scotland have almost fully recovered with the assistance of the railways.

I believe there is no doubt that the railways have been changing, by and large, for the better over the past few years. But there are some areas which I think we are entitled to find out about. Mention was made by a number of people about the railway unions. Certainly it is very irritating when there is a sudden flare-up like that among people who are, by and large, very responsible. The railway workers are very responsible. They could not do the job unless they were. They have a real sense of responsibility. I would not exonerate them completely. But when they stop working there must be something seriously wrong with the management; there must be something final which makes the situation blow up.

One thinks of the problems that the railwaymen have had during the past few years. For instance, the West Coast line was electrified from Weaver Junction to Glasgow. The railways and the unions wanted it, and the unions fought for it, although they knew they would lose something like 200 to 300 jobs by this electrification in Scotland alone. The railways have fought steadily for the electrification of the East Coast line, although they know there will be a large number of job losses. For instance, there would be a big reduction even in signalmen's jobs because of the necessity for new, modern signalling equipment when the higher speed electric trains use the line. I am very pleased with the Glasgow electrification which is going ahead very well. However, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us, as has been asked on several Select Committees when railways were considered over the past 10 or 15 years, whether there can be a general policy of electrification and not merely a policy taken on a single line by line basis? I wonder whether it can he looked on as a network. Therefore, whether or not there is an immediate major project, when the new East Coast line is finished, perhaps a team can still be maintained in order to keep the design and construction people together on electrification, if for nothing else, for the sake of making it more economic when we come to a major job. It would also help the rail industry and our export industry.

The other question about which I should like to ask the Minister is about the progress of the advanced passenger train. It is sometimes difficult to get accurate reports on this. I was very pleased that the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, who obviously knows a great deal more about railways than most of us, was able to give us the times for the advanced passenger train. He again pointed out that the difference between APT and the French and the German high speed trains is the fact that the APT is able to use all kinds of track. I have travelled on a trial run in the APT at 137 mph on a very bad track, with timber sleepers and jointed rails. It was a very smooth run. The tragedy—almost a national one, and I am not blaming this Government as opposed to other governments—is this. I believe the French spent something like 30 times more on their rail system than we spent on the advanced passenger train, which, in terms of fundamental physics and engineering is far ahead of the French or even the Japanese train. Therefore I should be very pleased if the Minister can give us a little help on the question of progress of the APT, and whether enough money has been made available to iron out some of the problems of the swing that the train has.

The other matter about which I should like to ask the noble Lord is the question of the Snow Hill Tunnel. This is something that has been raised by a number of noble Lords. The railway board have wanted for a long time to try to have a connection which will go round London from the north to the south. It would provide a better service for those people travelling to the south coast from the north of London.

I am aware that a railway Bill, a private Bill, will be going through the other place very soon. London Regional Transport have objected to several of the details in this Bill. However, they make it quite clear that they are minor matters and they feel it would be a great help to themselves and to the London people generally, as well as to the network as a whole, if the Snow Hill Tunnel were opened up. It is important to realise that British Railways Board believe that this is a viable proposition in its own right and that the opening up of the Snow Hill Tunnel would be a great event. It is important to realise that British Railways Board believe that this is a viable proposition in its own right and that the opening up of the Snow Hill Tunnel and the connection would be a great event.

The other question that I raised is the question of locomotives, and the freight locomotives in particular. There is a belief that the best locomotives in the world, because of their experience and the work they have been doing in the last few years, are the American locomotives. In my part of the world particularly there is a belief, where an enormous number of the old steam locomotives were made, including some of the most famous ones, that the American diesel locomotives are of exceptional reliability. This is a poor reflection on our own industry. If it is decided that American locomotives will be purchased, will it be necessary for them all to be bought straight from America, or any other country? Would the Government not be willing and anxious to force or push the British railway engineering industry to look at the possibility of building them here on licence?

It is unfortunate that because it is a short debate we have less time to speak and perhaps everyone is jumping at little items that have arisen and trying to raise as many points as possible. I think it is probably also a bit unfortunate that we had a long, if necessary, break for the Statement in the middle of the debate. However, I hope that the Minister will have received some idea from the House of the great interest there is in railways. I hope that he will know that any ideas or suggestions he can forward will have a great deal of support. I think everyone feels that one of the things we require in the railways is a great deal more investment.

5.57 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, we have had a very stimulating and well-informed debate. Noble Lords have raised a number of very interesting points. I should particularly like to thank the noble Lord. Lord Somers, for initiating this debate. I should also like to associate myself with noble Lords who have paid tributes to the late Lord Beeching.

No one is more conscious than the Government that the railway can play an important social and economic role in this country. So we wholeheartedly agree that it is necessary to rejuvenate the system and make it more efficient. But the terms of the Motion suggest that this is somehow not being done. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I would contend that a very great deal indeed has been done, and is being done, to fulfil these aims; and I hope to prove this conclusively in the course of my speech.

There are four key strands in the Government's approach to the railway: first, efficiency; second, attractiveness of services; third, a lower level of support from the taxpayer; and fourth, rejuvenation of the system. All four are intertwined; none is incompatible with the others; the achievement of each will promote the achievement of the others. The aim is not just to provide any kind of railway at any price, but to have a railway that serves its customers and the community. It is essential that the railway should have a forward-looking, business-like attitude if it is to put this aim into practice. The Railways Board's 1983 Plan summed up their strategy—to keep the railway largely at its present size, to reduce the call on the taxpayer, and to provide investment for the long-term future. This has been re-affirmed in their latest, 1984 Plan.

But the board are also conscious of how important it is to pursue self-sufficiency, which is fundamental to any dynamic organisation. Bob Reid, the chairman, said in his forward to the 1983 report and accounts that greater self-sufficiency for the railway would be his central theme— years of practical experience as a railway manager, rather than any particular view of transport policy, have convinced me that the less dependent an industry is on any source other than the paying customer, the more efficiently it will run. The way to prosper in any business is to satisfy the customer by giving value for money". Those are his words.

Now, let us look briefly at the history of the railway to see why rejuvenation should be necessary in any case. Britain was, of course, a pioneer in railway building. So the sytem we have today is still largely a legacy of the 19th century, when the vast majority of tracks were laid down. This system is a marvellous testament to the entrepreneurial vigour, and the engineering skills, of our Victorian forefathers. It has been a superb asset.

And yet, paradoxically, it has at the same time been a liability. Today's railway operators have to make the best of a network built for another age. Few of those Victorian railway engineers could have foreseen a time when the speeds of road vehicles, let alone aircraft, would force their best railway routes to struggle just to hold their own in competition with other means of transport. As time has gone on, mechanised road transport has dethroned the railway from its position of pre-eminence, just as the railway itself, in the course of a few decades, displaced the horse and the canals from their previous supremacy. The fact that railways can still compete at all says a lot for their inherent strengths and even more for the effort and dedication of railwaymen.

Let us be in no doubt that the railway can still do certain jobs extremely well. It can move people quickly between cities. It can shift huge quantities of freight efficiently and unobtrusively. A great many customers find that it remains the very best way of meeting their requirements. The Government believe that transport policy should be about transport users—not about transport suppliers. That is why policies on inter-urban transport and freight have evolved in a way which stimulates the railway to compete, and compete well, for the favour of customers in the transport market place.

The East Coast main line is an example of the railway at its competitive best. But there are, of course, other parts of the system that cannot, in today's conditions, hope to cover their costs from passenger fares. Many of these services undoubtedly meet an important social need, whether by carrying commuters into London or the other great cities, or by serving rural areas. The social importance of these parts of the passenger railway is recognised through a Government subsidy to cover the net cost of providing the railway passenger system.

Hundreds of thousands of commuters are carried into and out of London each working day in the peak hours. But for the rest of the day and at weekends, all the resources—trains, track and signals—which are needed to cope with peak loads are bound to be grossly under-used. A lot of support from the taxpayer is needed. Last year British Rail were paid over £200 million to compensate them for the cost of providing railway services in London and the South-East. On rural lines in the provinces, where the trains often provide a lifeline for scattered communities, costs are on average four or more times the amount taken in fares, and in some cases can be far more. This social role is a feature of railways throughout the world. The United Kingdom Government, like governments elsewhere, accept that the railway must be properly compensated for meeting the social obligation laid on it. But that does not mean issuing a blank cheque.

The Government's role in a heavily subsidised system must be to establish clear objectives for the managers who run it. In October 1983, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave the chairman a set of objectives covering a wide range of quantitative and qualitative goals. All of them were important, but the guiding objective was to run an efficient railway, providing good value for money, and a good service to customers. The primary financial objective, with all that it implied for efficiency, was to reduce the PSO grant requirement from £855 million in 1983 to £635 million by 1986.

So much, then, for the Government's role. But the first responsibility for running any railway must lie with the operator, who will naturally take a professional pride in providing the service required at the lowest possible net cost. I am pleased to say that this is a task that the British Railways Board willingly and enthusiastically embrace. They are pursuing vigorously objectives which, on the one hand, provide for them to compete, fairly and commercially, for freight, parcels, and inter-city passenger traffic and, on the other, call for them to provide non-commercial passenger services with a greatly reduced call on the taxpayer's pocket. In 1983, the PSO grant cost the taxpayer around £2½ million every day of the year. By 1986 British Rail intend to have reduced that figure by some 25 per cent. in real terms—the figure that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, mentioned—simply through improving their efficiency; and yet at the same time they are confident of being able both to maintain services and to make any necessary renewals to the railway's equipment.

The right way forward for the railway must lie in a more efficient use of assets, and better use of manpower to cut costs. Lower costs will make using the railways an economic proposition for a range of new customers, and will add to revenue. So both sides of the account book can be improved. This involves adopting a business-like approach, from top to bottom of the organisation. The system of sector management, which British Rail introduced in 1982, has revolutionised their approach to running the railway. Before then the organisation was run on a regional basis, more or less descended from the old railway companies. But sector management gave five sector directors—for Inter-City, freight, parcels, provincial passenger and London and South-East passenger services—full bottom-line responsibility for their enterprises. Now any development in the railway is dictated by business considerations, which means consideration for the needs of the customer.

The Inter-City sector is perhaps the best-known. This is run as a business, with a commercial remit, and it competes against aircraft, long-distance coaches and the private car. British Rail themselves define it as a system of fast, attractive, high-quality inter-urban services, which can be marketed with a specific brand image. Their Inter-City strategy, completed last year, charted the way forward to profitability. Its target is to achieve a 5 per cent. return on capital assets by 1988–89.

This target, which is stiff but nonetheless achievble for an efficient business, has already prompted British Rail to come forward with some exciting new developments for their customers, ranging from new livery to on-train telephones on the special executive services. New rolling stock will be built for the electric East Coast main line services, and the existing high-quality trains will be transferred elsewhere. Coaches on other Inter-City routes will be given major refurbishment, including, for example, more internal automatic doors. British Rail are thinking of building more "Parkway" stations, modelled on the successful Bristol Parkway station. Last Friday I opened the Inter-City Pullman lounge at Kings Cross, which is based on the concept of an airport VIP lounge. I understand that if this is a success, more will follow.

The other major commercial sector is the freight business. This, too, has a financial target of a 5 per cent. return on assets by 1988. Within this, we have asked British Rail to win as much freight business from road as possible. There have already been important developments with Speedlink, the overnight service for lorry-sized loads, in partnership with private enterprise. British Rail have introduced Speedlink Distribution, an integrated door-to-door operation. British Rail have also introduced an advanced computerised control and monitoring system, known as TOPS, which helps to plan and control the movement of every freight wagon and locomotive, and which provides an up-to-the-minute picture of the entire rail network.

Many noble Lords have mentioned the miners' strike. Unfortunately, the strike has delivered a serious blow to the freight business, causing it to lose £240 million-worth of revenue. Clearly, no business can stand losses on that scale easily, and British Rail's managers are devising ways of restoring customer confidence and getting back on course to achieve their financial target. They have made a good start and are moving coal traffic again, with business as usual. Over the coming months they will be making special efforts to get back to normal and restore their good relations with British Steel as well as with the CEGB. I hope that this gives some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, who raised the point.

Rail freight has a valuable part to play in moving goods, particularly bulk goods, around the country. But we should not expect too much of it. After all, nearly 90 per cent. of all freight carried in this country goes by road. Even a massive increase in the tonnage of rail freight would not make a significant difference to the amount of road traffic. The aim should be for British Rail to compete successfully for traffic for which they are most suited.

The Government recognise, of course, that heavy flows of lorries on unsuitable roads can be damaging to the communities they affect. For this reason, the Government have made and are making full use of the powers to award grants for freight facilities—the Section 8 scheme, mentioned by both the noble Lords, Lord Somers and Lord Carmichael—to encourage the use of rail where it makes good environmental sense. We estimate that since it was introduced in 1975 the Section 8 scheme has had the effect of removing more than 20 million tonnes of freight a year from unsuitable roads.

Earlier I mentioned the enormous net costs incurred each year in providing the provincial and London and South-East passenger services. Many noble Lords have mentioned this. British Rail are working hard here, too, on ways of putting the customer first and at the same time improving efficiency and reducing costs, it key part of their strategy for the provincial sector is devolution of responsibility for local lines and groups of services to local managers, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. The local manager will be responsible for a profit centre and will work to an agreed target. He will be responsible for marketing services in the area, and he will introduce measures to cut operating costs. Four schemes are spearheading this new approach: the Cotswold line, Scottish services, Cornish railways, and the East Suffolk line. I must make it quite clear that reductions in the costs of rural railways will not involve reductions in safety. The railway is rightly renowned for its safety record. This must and will be maintained by using modern cost-effective technology.

I cannot leave any discussion of improvements in the efficiency of the provincial sector without mentioning the possibility of bus substitution. Here, we go to the heart of the 19th century legacy; and we are forced to admit that in some respects the railway simply cannot be given its youth again. The Government have made it absolutely clear that it is no part of their intention that BR should embark on a programme of major route closures. But within that context we share the Transport Select Committee's view that there is scope for bus substitution where buses could provide reasonable alternative travel at substantially lower operating costs. The Transport Bill, which is currently at its Committee stage in another place, enables BR to secure the provision of bus substitution services in place of rail services that have been withdrawn. I should emphasise that substitute bus services could be introduced only after full rail closure procedures had been completed; and unlike previous replacement bus services, any new ones will be eligible for subsidy and will be guaranteed by statutory closure procedures.

In some cases, of course, it may make sense for British Rail to reintroduce a rail service where one had previously been withdrawn. Legislation already exists, in the shape of the 1981 Speller Act, which makes it easier for BR to introduce or re-introduce experimental passenger services or open stations. Under this system, services can be withdrawn and stations closed at six weeks' notice without going through the full statutory closure procedures. So far, five stations and one passenger service have been reopened under the Speller Act. In most cases, the local authorities concerned have made a financial contribution.

Turning now to the services in London and the South-East, I am glad to say that over the last year a lot of effort has been concentrated on promoting closer co-operation between British Rail and London Regional Transport. When he wrote to both chairmen last year, setting out a common framework of objectives, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State told them that closer co-operation would be a key aim, so that both bodies could work together more effectively to improve transport services for London.

The goals for this co-operation are five-fold: first, a better match between demand for services and their supply; secondly, better interchanges between rail, bus and underground; thirdly, better co-ordinated services, routes, timetables and information, helped by through ticketing and Travelcard arrangements; fourthly, no wasteful duplication of services; and, fifthly, innovation in improving services. All this is set to provide a better service for travellers in the London area. I hope that gives some reassurance to my noble friend Lord Teviot.

In all their sectors, British Rail have been working hard recently on the concept of customer care—encouraging all their staff to think positively about improving their services to customers. I am sure that noble Lords will have noticed improvements, and I know that it is an area in which British Rail intend to put in even more effort. British Rail know full well that in a competitive market their customers must feel they are getting an attractive and reliable service. But I would acknowledge to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that there is clearly more work to be done.

Let me now turn to an aspect of the railway which is perhaps crucial to all rejuvenation and efficiency; that is, investment. Investment is not necessarily a good thing in itself. Simply throwing money at problems will not help. Investment needs to be properly appraised to make sure that it is worthwhile in terms of returns and the effects it has on the financial position of the railway. Those are strict criteria. But they are in no way inhibiting investment. Let me give noble Lords some figures. I hope these will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. Since this Government took office in 1979, British Rail have invested some £2 billion, plus £100 million a year on continuous welded rail. Over the past 18 months alone, Ministers have approved 11 specific major investment projects, worth nearly £570 million altogether. This includes the east coast main line electrification, which, at £306 million, is the largest single railway investment for a quarter of a century. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that work has started on that project, and we hope that it will be completed by 1991.

The approvals include also over 100 new locomotives and nearly 1,000 new passenger vehicles, all of which are more efficient than the stock they will replace. Two hundred and forty-five miles of track have already been electrified, and schemes involving the electrification of some 1,530 miles of track are currently under way, at a cost of nearly £500 million. Much other investment is going on which does not require the Government's specific authorisation. Altogether, British Rail currently have over £1 billion worth of investment under way or authorised to proceed.

Much of this investment is going into creating better services, and a better environment, for British Rail's customers. For example, British Rail have a major programme for the refurbishment of stations over the next five years. Towards the end of last year the Southern Region announced a three-year plan to repair and repaint half its stations, and to deal with the rest over the following three years. At Waterloo, improvements include electronic train indicators, terrazzo tiling on the concourse, a new ticket office and travel centre, general cleaning and refurbishment and a number of commercial developments, all designed to improve the facilities available for passengers. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has not appreciated the improvements. I have seen for myself the very impressive scheme for remodelling Crewe station, with its new travel centre, incorporating machines which log up the time taken to answer telephone calls so that delays can be kept to a minimum.

Prospects for worthwhile future investment look equally promising. British Rail's 1984 corporate plan looks forward to well over £2 billion worth of investment over the next five years. The plan forecasts that capital investment year by year will be at a higher level than in recent years, peaking at £480 million in 1985–86, and levelling off to some £430 million a year up to 1989–90. British Rail believe this level of investment will be consistent with achieving their business objectives, including the reduction in grant I have mentioned. For their part, the Government have shown themselves ready to support any worthwhile and soundly-based investment proposals.

I should like to say a final but most important word about the people who work on the railway. No business can succeed unless its employees are dedicated to its success. By and large, British Rail have such a dedicated and hard-working staff. While the board plans to make sensible economies in the size of the workforce, it also plans to recruit some 25,000 people over the next five years to replace those who are retiring or moving to other jobs. This evolutionary process will require co-operation and sensitivity on the part of management and workforce. One of the things the board tells its men will bear repetition here: that is, the world does not owe railwaymen a living. Their rewards must depend on their efforts in the marketplace and on their success in attracting customers to use the services they offer. British Rail can never afford to be complacent. Their competitors are keen and hungry, and railwaymen must remember that all their actions—negative as well as positive—profoundly affect the chances of success of the business they work for.

Noble Lords have aked me a number of specific questions. I shall try to answer them in the few minutes I have left. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, have all mentioned Section 20 payments. I should like to make it clear that the abolition of the metropolitan county councils will not mean the end of local authority subsidies for local rail passenger services in those areas. Under the Government's proposals for the abolition of these councils, the passenger transport authorities which are responsible for the present Section 20 payments will be differently constituted, but their powers to support rail services under the Transport Act 1968 will continue. My noble friend Lord Ferrier mentioned the Channel link. I would remind him that no Government finance is proposed for the Channel link, and therefore there is no question of money being re-routed from other Government projects. It is up to the promoters to decide whether or not to include a rail link.

My noble friend Lady Lane-Fox mentioned the disabled and the attention that British Rail are giving to them. I am sure that British Rail will be most pleased to hear what she had to say. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, mentioned some of the scare stories which have been going round about the death of the United Kingdom loco industry; and there have been some wild exaggerations in the press. British Rail have recently described to United Kingdom industry their estimated loco requirements over the period 1985 to 2009. Four or five different new designs will be needed for distinct purposes in just one order. British Rail will be looking for reliable products at the lowest cost, and there is absolutely no reason why United Kingdom firms should not be competitive.

My noble friend Lord Teviot mentioned the Brighton line. I think the best I can do there is to draw his remarks to the attention of British Rail. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, mentioned the railway inspectorate. I should like to join him in praising them. He mentioned also the airports policy at Stansted, and a hypothetical rail-air link there. I can tell him that no Government decision has yet been made, as he probably knows, and I should not wish to be drawn into that.

I hope that I have painted a full and informative picture. This Government's policies have provided a framework for the development of a dynamic railway system which can face the challenges of the 21st century with strength and confidence. I quote again from Bob Reid, the chairman: with clear objectives and after reducing support from central government by some 25 per cent., our aim is a railway in 1986 roughly the same size as today, employing some 141,000 people, offering an improved quality of service as a result of higher investment, and carrying more passengers and freight". British Rail's current slogan is, "We're getting there". I for one am sure that they will get there. Rejuvenated by investment in new equipment, rolling stock and techniques, an efficient railway with a businesslike and competent approach will deserve to win customers—not because they are forced to use the railway, but because they freely choose to do so.

Lord Somers

My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and particularly the noble Lord who has replied for the Government. I can tell him that the newly planned travel centre at Waterloo will not be of much use to me in finding my way back to Epsom, but I expect that it will be of great use to other people.

I am sorry that the noble Lord took what seemed to be a rather defeatist attitude on the question of road transport having taken the place of the railways. I was hoping that we could develop the transport of goods on the railways to such a point that we might eventually ban these enormous eight-wheelers which are the absolute bane of our roads today, but that appears to be a pipedream. However, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord for having said what he has and with that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.