Channel Tunnel and Network SouthEast

HL Deb 15 January 1992 vol 534 cc305-35

6 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis

rose to call attention to the problems relating to British Rail in connection with the Channel tunnel and the difficulties being experienced in Network SouthEast; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, today's debate takes place at a time when the problems of British Rail in relation to the Channel tunnel and Network SouthEast are reaching crescendo proportions. The Government, in this regard at least, are in a state of utter disarray. They are a Government distracted from the real issues by the irrelevant dogma of privatisation and deeply divided about the route that they themselves wish to pursue over that phantasmagoria. They are a Government incapable of determining a set of realistic priorities crucial to the achievement of a coherent, co-ordinated transport policy. That is an indictment that only this day has been made out by the Institution of Civil Engineers.

They are a Government proffering a litany of statistics in substitution for policy, which bear little or no relation to the daily experiences of the travelling public; a Government engaged in a sterile and I believe a legally flawed argument with the European Commission over the critically important issue of the implementation of the environmental impact assessment directive, which is very important to the issue we are discussing, and which has been on the Government's side accompanied by a plethora of contradictory statements: that they were caught by surprise —that they were not caught by surprise; that there were no negotiations by the Commission—and of course, yes, negotiations had taken place; statements from the Prime Minister in Harare and the Secretary of State here which, I have to say, are far from the truth. These are not faults which can be cured by a Minister like Mr. Freeman offering boxes of chocolates to his secretaries.

The Government have, in relation to their preferred choice for the Channel tunnel route, dithered and misled British Rail. That has led to vast waste and damage: damage to Britain's ability to compete effectively in the European Community, post-1992; damage to the reasonable aspirations of all regions in the United Kingdom that they, and not the South East alone, would enjoy the benefits of the Channel tunnel; damage to the prospect that the best public value for money invested would result, and damage to all those in Kent and South-East London who have suffered blight and those, in particular, whose homes were purchased by British Rail—something like 1,000 were involved—at lower costs than might have been expected as a result of the Department of Transport giving a nod and a wink to British Rail that their preferred choice coincided with government policy. What is all that going to cost to put right?

The announcement made by the Secretary of State at the Conservative Party conference—not, mark you, to Parliament which was sitting just a few days later —was greeted with unconfined joy by the delegates to that conference; joy which had rather less to do with the newly-discovered environmental arguments which were put into the Secretary of State's mouth by his colleague, Mr. Heseltine, than the belief that help at last was to be at hand for vulnerable Conservative seats. It would be to stretch the imagination to breaking point to think that the same generosity of spirit would have been extended if those seats had been held by the Labour or Liberal Democratic parties.

It is worth putting on record that, with a somewhat greater appreciation of the facts, about a year ago the Labour Party had convincingly argued the case for the route which was eventually chosen. Meanwhile, valuable time has been lost. It is only about 18 months before the Channel tunnel is due to open, and Britain is ill-prepared for that critically important event. The Government cannot escape from culpability by placing the responsibility for the chaos which has ensued wholly on the shoulders of British Rail. British Rail was instructed by the Government to increase environmental protection and to engage in house purchases, and then to bring in a private sector partner in relation to the route that they were exploring. That took a year. There was no evidence of the availability of a private sector partner. In consequence, it was determined that it would be preferable for British Rail to develop the route alone. But of course this Prime Minister was for turning; and the announcement was made in October that the route to King's Cross would go via Stratford instead of British Rail's preferred choice.

Having expended so much time and effort, major questions arise, some of which were posed to the Minister in this House—and which have not been answered—when he repeated the Statement here. I ask him again. To what extent will NSE traffic be able to use the line? Will the route, at least to Stratford, be I able to accommodate international freight trains? In this respect, I want to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied with the measure of co-operation promised from British Rail vis-à-vis his department and Ove Arup? What is being done to ensure that all interested organisations are being enabled effectively to involve themselves in the discussions about freight and Network SouthEast traffic? Here I refer to freight operators, Eurotunnel, user's groups, employee organisations, and so on. Is it satisfactory that this should be done simply through a merchant bank?

I turn from that to the timing. The Secretary of State in another place asserted that British Rail had told him that the rail link was not required until the year 2005. That is categorically denied by British Rail. So who gave the Minister that information? Who is right? Our view is that delay of this order is wholly unacceptable. This route is required not just to save 30 minutes on the journey from Paris to London. It is vital in terms of relieving serious congestion in the South East; to enable international and domestic trains to operate efficiently and punctually. The rolling stock which is required is, we gather, a year late. There is no guarantee that it will be ready for service in June 1993.

What a contrast between the approach to high speed trains in this country and that exhibited by SNCF, with government support, in France. Their trains will be travelling at 300 kilometres per hour on the Calais-Lille-Paris route. In the United Kingdom, the maximum speed likely is to be 90 miles per hour —indeed, reduced to 60 miles per hour on the gradient through the North Downs, so that even outdated Network SouthEast rolling stock will be able to move faster.

So far as concerns international freight services, I should like to ask the Minister this question. Is he satisfied with the planning of timetables, which are crucial to the needs of future customers? How many of the special locomotives required will be ready for June 1993? Will it be only eight or 10 of the 39 ordered? I think the House will want to know what is the position from the Minister. How many special freight wagons suitable for running through the tunnel and on continental railways have been ordered? Is it right that the average speed for freight trains will be 27 miles per hour—and between Wakefield and Cologne 19 miles per hour? Just compare that with an average speed for road freight on the Continent of 42 miles per hour.

What will be done about the substantial environmental problems for residents arising from the fact that, because of capacity problems during the day, the majority of freight trains will have to travel by night? What plans have the Government made for introducing insulation schemes or for compensation to be offered? For example, do the Government have any plans for freight destined for the Midlands, South Wales and the North to by-pass London entirely? What has the Minister to say about the whole question of environmental impact assessment and compliance with the directive in that respect? The French are building a new link in order to provide for faster travel by international trains, to make for extra capacity for international and domestic trains and to remove freight from environmentally sensitive areas. These are vital matters which the Minister cannot ignore. The House is entitled to answers. So far there has been silence.

I want to say something about Ashford international station. There is a compelling need to construct this station along the lines of the positive scheme put forward by Ashford Borough Council. Its scheme would be integral with the existing station in order to make for easy interchange. The scheme could be built by June 1993, with the minimum of disruption to existing services. The scheme could accept 14 international trains per day. It could be built in stages and within the finance authorised. Ashford Borough Council is entitled to a proper answer to those points.

To add insult to injury, we now hear that the new commuter 465 trains designed for Network SouthEast for London are too big to go through the tunnel. What will be the cost to put that right? Is it a case of the wrong kind of trains, or the wrong kind of tunnel?

Is East Sussex County Council right when it asserts, first, that insufficient priority has been given to ensure that Network SouthEast can meet the needs of passengers to and from the south coast who wish to use the Channel tunnel; and, secondly, that electrification of the Hastings to Ashford line is vitally important? East Sussex County Council is entitled to answers to those two significant matters.

The Government have colluded quite disgracefully with British Rail in one of the grandest transport botches ever committed. I recommend that the Minister studies carefully the plans revealed by Labour and the ideas for the future presented only yesterday. The Minister laughs at that. He is never prepared to listen to the point of view of other people. The Government always think they are right and the country is paying a heavy price for that.

What Mr. Prescott put forward yesterday is constructive and it is intended to be so. He has set out the Opposition's case in a letter to the chairman of British Rail. But that is not our view alone. It was the view of the House of Commons Select Committee Report, which urged the Government to apply an integrated transport strategy—the Minister will say that he does not understand what that means, although everyone else does—and to provide a strategic approach at national level supported by adequate public investment and stimulated by private investment. As a result of the sheer incompetence of the Government, events are leaving Britain behind in being able to play its full role in the European highspeed network envisaged by the European Commission, supported in principle at least by the member states, and also in matching the major investment programmes of France, Germany, Holland and Belgium. Why are this Government yet again out of step?

My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Geddes

My Lords, for the second time in 12 months we are indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for raising the subject of British Rail and in particular Network SouthEast. His Motion is really in two parts. I shall try as briefly as possible to address each separately. Although the Channel tunnel will certainly affect part of Network SouthEast, it will not affect all of it; on the other hand, it will affect other regions.

I begin, as I did on 6th March last year, by declaring an interest in that I am an independent director on the British Rail (Southern) Board, which itself is a purely advisory body acting as a link between BR, on the one hand, and its customers and the local authorities in that region on the other. First, I shall refer to the Channel tunnel itself. For the start of services through the Channel tunnel next year, BR is committed to spending £1.7 billion on infrastructure (track, signalling, electrical power supply and maintenance depots) on terminals (specifically on Waterloo international station and nine intermodal freight depots throughout Great Britain) and on rolling stock (including passenger trains, electric locomotives and freight wagons). That £1.7 billion was protected in the Autumn 1991 Statement.

As for rolling stock, the Trans Manche super trains for the direct London-Paris/Brussels were ordered at the end of 1989. At this stage, the manufacturing consortium, headed by GEC-Alsthom, cannot guarantee delivery of the trains with sufficient time for testing before the scheduled opening of the tunnel in June 1993. Such testing being essential, the service will be operated at the earliest possible date consistent with ensuring that it will operate safely and reliably.

All rolling stock running through the tunnel will have to conform to the safety requirements and standards of Eurotunnel and the Inter-Governmental Safety Commission, and existing passenger rolling stock—British or French—will not be able to use the tunnel. This requirement and the technical complexity which I have already mentioned means that the delivery of other specialised rolling stock will probably be delayed until 1995.

On the more positive side, total route modernisation for Network SouthEast is effective—Thameslink, the Great Northern and West Anglia services are consistently performing well. South of the river, the Wessex electric trains and class 158 and sprinter trains from Brighton and Portsmouth to Bristol and Cardiff have become popular and indeed have increased business on the routes they serve. The same, it is to be hoped, will be true of the class 159 units being built for the Waterloo-Exeter service. All is not gloom on Network SouthEast. Over the past five years income has risen by 47 per cent., three new railways have opened, 11 lines have been electrified, 14 new stations have opened and 1,068 new coaches have been introduced, reducing the average age of the fleet from 24 to 19 years. There is still a long way to go, but at least that is progress in the right direction.

Regarding investment in Network SouthEast, which itself is up 70 per cent. over the past five years, BR envisages £900 million being available from the public service obligation grant over the three years commencing April 1992. Of this, £600 million is already accounted for by committed schemes and the remaining £300 million will principally have to cover essential infrastructure and safety renewals. No money will be available for the Kent coast networkers or for new trains on the Southend line. Nor can the next tranche —188 cosches—of the 465s proceed, despite authorisation by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The money required—some £150 million—is, and I quote, "not available". Previous tenders have expired and, therefore, the whole process of inviting new tenders has had, again, to get underway. In that respect, although he did not specifically mention it, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis: what a waste of public money!

Over the four-year period of 1985–88, government support for British Rail averaged only 0.2 per cent. of GDP as opposed to a Western European average of 0.7 per cent. Indeed, in the following year that 0.2 per cent. figure dropped to 0.12 per cent., while the average remained at 0.7 per cent. At the other end of the scale, we have Luxembourg—which your Lordships may say is not a huge railway network—with a figure of 2.9 per cent. of GDP being invested in rail. There are many other statistics which prove the same point. The Western European average is somewhere around two-and-a-half to three-and-a-half times greater than that of the UK and, again, Luxembourg is at the top of the league with a figure of somewhere around 10 times to 15 times greater than that of the United Kingdom.

The problem for BR—and this applies particularly to Network SouthEast—is that effectively since 1948 it has been and continues to be, again in relative terms, starved of funds. As the Sunday Times put it three days ago, BR's trains travel 50 per cent. more kilometres per employee than the West European average but with only 17 per cent. of the average subsidy.

The Government are concerned with the control of inflation through sound money and tightly constrained public expenditure. But under current conventions, the external finance of nationalised industries scores against the public sector borrowing requirement. The control of their external finance limit (EFL), as presently designed, does not discriminate between the discipline of current expenditure and the needs of strategic investment. That lack of discrimination sacrifices investment in future growth and therefore destroys the seed corn for future public sector revenue for the sake of the near term current cash account.

The recently announced leasing of 700 container-carrying freight wagons is welcomed as a move in the right direction, but it will still fall within the EFL. If the application of a private sector approach to leasing is allowed, leasing charges will continue to be a cost to the industry as now, but no imputed capitalisation would score against the EFL. In cash terms, that change would be completely neutral: an industry's cash outgoings are what they are. Increased costs of leasing can be offset by the normal use of tax breaks. Capital payments are avoided, earnings generated by investment are maximised and cash flows improved. Public sector value for money discipline could be maintained under the administrative machinery which already exists by separating cash and investment controls: nationalised industries have both an EFL and an investment ceiling. It would require a change of policy to end the use of EFLs as both cash and macro-economic controls. That could in principle be implemented at once.

Longer term, a broader commercial approach would open up the possibility of using the normal instruments available for using cash and spreading risk; such as joint ventures, trusts and delayed payment, as well as open market borrowing without Treasury guarantee. It really is remarkable—I almost used the word "ludicrous"—that SNCF should be permitted to borrow in the London market whereas British Rail cannot do so. It is normally argued that Treasury guarantees enable an industry to borrow more cheaply, so reducing the cost to the Exchequer of financing its investment.

However, to be consistent—and I am conscious of the time —such a test must also include all the other costs to the Exchequer; for example, the commercial and economic "disbenefits" of deferring or cancelling a scheme (the Heathrow Express railway is a case in point) because of a lack of Exchequer finance. More experience demonstrates that improving the service delivered to the level required by the Citizen's Charter leads directly to improved revenue with consequential benefits to the PSO.

I urgently ask my noble friend to draw the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport to the matter and to ask him to look again at the whole financing of British Rail.

6.25 p.m.

Viscount Sidmouth

My Lords, I, too, feel that this debate is very timely. It is appropriate that it should take place at this time when the opening of the Channel tunnel is still about 18 months away. I should also like to make it clear that I am not concerned with the politics of this project which I certainly feel has bedevilled it from the start. On that aspect I would only say that, so far as concerns the direct rail link, I believe that I was the first Member of this House to point out that the scheme would never get off the ground satisfactorily without that link being in place.

I speak entirely as a one-time practising railwayman. I am most concerned about what will happen from 1993 onwards, given the situation that is inevitable as of now. The point is that the tunnel is a railway tunnel. That means that the availability and readiness of the railway infrastructure is of vital concern both to Eurotunnel and to British Rail. There is very widespread concern about what appears to be the rather laid-back attitude of BR. Indeed, there was some doubt about how long it thought it could keep going without the direct link. BR has certainly been saying from the start that it would be able to go to 1998—I believe that that was the date generally accepted. In my view, that is optimistic.

Unless British Rail makes better use of the remaining 18 months before the tunnel opens, there may be a humiliating debacle on the British side which would recall on a greater scale that of the advanced passenger train of unhappy memory. That fear is probably greatest among those who have been able to observe, as the job progresses, the great disparity between the railway facilities which will be available from day one at Calais as opposed to Folkestone.

From the start, British Rail's estimates of potential rail traffic, both passenger and freight, have been much lower than those of SNCF and Eurotunnel. I believe that in reality the project will probably prove to be one which should be measured not only by the share that it can be expected to attract of existing cross-Channel traffic, but also by the new traffic which will be generated by the facility itself—in fact, like the TGV has done in France. We know of course now that the direct rail link to London will not even have been started by the time the tunnel opens. It is much to be hoped that the problems of privatisation will not be permitted to distract the management from putting on a creditable show at the British end when the opening takes place.

By 1993 the substantial sums being spent on improving the two existing routes between London and Folkestone should have increased their comfort and capacity and—it is to be hoped—improved their reliability. But, from an operating point of view, it must be said that this part of Network SouthEast is already one of the most intensively used railway systems in the world. On to the existing suburban and commuter traffic will have to be superimposed a whole new timetable of relatively fast passenger trains—these are difficult to fit into a slower-moving network —and freight trains. But, if the problems are resolved, it is to be hoped that these will mostly run at night. No doubt those responsible for producing the working timetable will find sufficient paths on paper to accommodate all that traffic. But when mishaps occur, as they inevitably do even in the best regulated system, I have grave doubts that there will be sufficient reserve capacity to make a quick recovery.

The working of an intensive system such as that of Network SouthEast is complicated and delicately poised, even when everything runs strictly to schedule. To keep trains running to time, numerous interlocking rosters have to be adhered to—those for running staff, trains sets and locomotives. Even a minor mishap can lead quickly to delays and train cancellations. The experience of existing Network SouthEast commuters confirms that point. Cancellations are not always due to operating conditions (something on the track), but to staff shortages—the rosters to which I referred—and so forth. Most importantly, recovery, when things go off course, depends upon the availability, skill, initiative and motivation of staff of all grades. I shall not dilate on that point but I do not believe that British Rail can lay claim to achieving that.

The reports of delays, about which we have again heard, in the manufacture of passenger rolling stock, and other technical problems with the signalling and so on, are disturbing. Such snags are inevitable with any radical new design, and it is greatly to be deplored that the orders were not put into operation earlier and with greater urgency. As it is, I fear that when the stock is eventually delivered it will be brought hastily into service, untested, against a deadline, and without the problems having been identified and eliminated. That is what happened with the APT.

I turn to the prospects of freight traffic which many hope will help to rehabilitate BR as a freight carrier. Much needs to be done before 1993. Although the Channel tunnel traffic represents a great opportunity for BR, it will not come to it without effort. On the contrary, it will have to be fought for and won back from road, to which it has been lost over many years.

The transit times envisaged—overnight to Paris and Brussels; Stuttgart by the afternoon of day two; Birmingham to Vienna in 35 hours—will be competitive with road. Combined with a realistic rating policy, BR should win a worthwhile amount of that long-haul traffic. Again, numerous modifications to the infrastructure must be in place in time—the ability to convey nine foot containers is a vital point, and one about which I hope the Minister will reassure us—including freight depots for assembling train-load traffic. They are an essential feature of BR's plan for the assembling of trains, an aspect which seems to be moving slowly, as I understand it.

I hope that when he replies the Minister will have better news on those and other points which will be raised by other speakers.

6.33 p.m.

Lord Shackleton

My Lords, I shall make only a brief intervention as the arguments were fully deployed by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. There was a slight suggestion from the noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth, that politics should not come into this. If ever there were an issue that involved politics, in the widest way, it is this one. I hope that the project will not be damaged by it. I do not believe that I have heard anything to suggest that it will be.

It would be proper for me to declare an interest because nearly 20 years ago I was chairman of RTZ Development Enterprises which acted as the project manager for the Channel tunnel. At that time it was our view that the Channel tunnel should be built, but that it should be funded entirely on the public side. We did not believe that the money could be raised by private enterprise. It has been shown that it can, but I am not sure whether the Government's decision to start privatising BR is a helpful move at this time. I hope that the Government will think clearly and almost conduct an exercise about what would happen if we injected more public money into the project and relied less upon raising it on the market.

It is right that we should congratulate those who have worked so long on this project. Eurotunnel and its chairmen (Alastair Morton and André Bénard) are to be congratulated on the work that they have done, as should one or two of the chairmen who have been members of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Pennock, played his part at one time. A great deal of work is being done by Eurotunnel and BR, although there is some reason to doubt that BR's morale is tuned up at the moment to facing the challenge.

Some of the nonsenses with which BR has to put up, and some of the nonsenses it has created itself, have been damaging. One of the most extraordinary proposals is that of the frontier control people that no non-international train should stop at an international platform; such a platform must be for international trains only. I do not understand the reason for that. There is a suggestion that it is an anti-smuggling safeguard. I may have the wrong information, but I have been told that is the case and I should be interested to know the answer.

The Government need to improve communication with outside bodies. It is unsatisfactory at the moment and great concern has been expressed about it vis à vis BR. The debate is a useful one to have at this time. I hope that some of the difficult questions which have been asked will be answered. Clearer information is necessary. I hope that the Government will react to the questions asked by my noble friend and other noble Lords.

6.37 p.m.

Lord Cochrane of Cults

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for introducing the subject. I am especially grateful to my noble friend Lord Geddes for giving us his insider's view of Southern Region, armed as he was with a wealth of statistics, facts and valuable experiences.

At the moment, BR has an identity problem. It is constantly portrayed in the media as blundering about and messing things up by its own incompetence—virtually a dinosaur capable of eating its own tail without noticing. Every time something goes wrong on BR—from time to time things go wrong in any business—the worse construction is put on it. We hear about the wrong kind of snow. I have to admit that when I read that in the newspapers I thought that if I were sitting in the hot seat I would be telephoning the Swiss railways about that problem. It turns out that the Swiss railways had a nasty attack of it themselves.

Similarly, there is the problem of leaves on the rails. The leaves clearly drop from the trees. The BR chairman has received a considerable amount of flak in his postbag from conservationists who protest when the habitat along the track is destroyed to reduce the number of leaves falling from the trees. A similar problem arises in Holland. They have a more drastic remedy: they spray the trees with a weed killer which I believe is a derivative of the dreaded Agent Orange. It kills the trees completely and presumably the people then forage for firewood.

Again, we have trains lost on track circuits. That is portrayed as a uniquely British problem. It is not. It happens on various railways in Europe and further afield, including the one which is often held up to us as the epitome of efficiency—SNCF. It, too, loses trains.

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, spoke about the 465 trains not fitting. I am happy to say that this is not a surprise to British Rail and I do not suppose it was improved by the evening newspaper, the Standard, stating that an embarrassed British Rail spokesman said this and that. Was he really embarrassed? Did he have a red face? Was he stuttering or sweating or did the reporter make it up? I believe the latter. It was known from the original investment project that track realignment was required in these terms. It is a common experience —and those of us who use the Drain will have noticed that we are getting new trains—that a certain amount of tunnel reshaping has had to be carried out to accommodate new vehicles. It is an inevitable consequence, when a longer vehicle is used within an existing tunnel on curved track.

There again, there was a story in the papers deliberately placed to discredit British Rail, and the inference which is drawn from the fundamentals is wholly untrue. I hope that notice will be taken in appropriate quarters of how these stories get about.

Another point about the media is their total insularity. All these problems "only happen in Britain"—only a railway as incompetent as British Rail could possibly allow these things to happen. However, terrible things happen abroad. On French railways, for example, one reads of bandits prowling along the night trains or gassing, robbing and tying people up. We have none of that in Britain.

Let me point out in passing that people say that everything is wrong with British Rail. I hope that I am not unique in being positive when I say that whatever else happens on British Rail, the roof of the carriage never leaks in wet weather.

I shall not speak about the tunnel because it has been dealt with in considerable detail and with much more knowledge than I possess. However, I am concerned that the project put forward is too little and too late. It could be billed as "By the department that brought to you the M.25", which is now notorious for the under-provision of capacity and having to be altered at fearful expense.

I suspect that the experts, with the Treasury mandarins breathing down their necks, forgot the bridge and by-pass effect. I well remember that when the Forth Road Bridge was opened it was said that it would never pay its debts, even if it were filled with traffic from end to end, night and day. On the contrary, it is near to paying off its debts, although they are much larger than when it was originally envisaged. That concerns me.

There is a major short cut in the transport system of Europe and it looks very much as though the connections into the rail network on this side of the Channel will be entirely inadequate. That will soon be proved.

A great deal has been said by my noble friend Lord Geddes about the malign effects of the Treasury and Treasury rules. I noticed that on 1st July my noble friend the Minister remarked that: Many people in the Department of Transport spend all their working time consulting British Rail".—[Official Report, 1/7/91; col. 769.] I believe that they could spend less time on these problems and let those who know about them and are responsible get on with them. In civil service terms, there is no decision easier to defend than the one we have not made.

I see that the Ryrie rules and effects have been mentioned, I thought that they had been shot dead. They do not make sense on any analysis of public sector finance and are merely a device to ensure that the Treasury maintains its traditional superiority over everything it can see. The rules have had a dire result on the operations of British Rail.

Yesterday I went on the London, Tilbury and Southend railway. A friend remarked, "I do hope you manage to come back". The trip was uneventful and cheap. The ride was bumpy, the equipment outdated and it was clear that the railway had been starved of cash. One can only say that it is manifestly wrong when signalling which was installed in 1935 at Fenchurch Street, with a 30-year design life, is only now being replaced, after howls of well-merited rage from the country and the passengers using that line. Work has not yet started, but at least it will. In 1935 I was nine years old.

British Rail should be given commercial freedom and allowed to get on with matters. Commercial freedom gives a great sense of purpose to an organisation. There is nothing worse than having people breathing down one's neck in a commercial organisation and interfering. It means that so much management time is taken up that it cannot be used productively in furthering the purpose of the business. We have the National Freight Corporation and British Airways as shining examples of the effects of freedom from government control. I urge that any system of privatisation should start by making British Rail into a plc, even if it means that initially the Government hold 100 per cent. of the shares. British Rail is doing its best under extremely difficult circumstances, with many of the difficulties not of its own making. We should do our best to support it in its efforts for the future.

6.45 p.m.

Baroness Mallalieu

My Lords, I speak in this debate as a mere passenger. The hours of the House fortunately mean that most of your Lordships are spared the experience of regular journeys into London on Network SouthEast from areas such as Kent and Essex. But those of us who have the misfortune on occasions to make such journeys at the rush hour can tell the House that conditions for travellers on those routes are in reality a public scandal. Trains are cancelled without warning, for reasons which range from the non-appearance of the guard to leaves on the line—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane —breakdowns, or with no reason at all being given.

To get a seat on a train from some stations is an event which makes it a red letter day. From other stations it is simply unheard of. Trains come to a standstill, often for lengthy periods, on a journey for reasons which are never explained. During these unscheduled stops it is not possible to admire the scenery. In the event that the windows are clean enough to look through—which is unusual —the breath from the press of total strangers, against whom one is intimately wedged in a standing position, raises the temperature and humidity to a level which mists up the windows and lowers the oxygen to a point where one marvels that human life can be sustained. In any case, anyone who fainted could not fall to the ground. For that travellers pay more than commuters in any other European capital. Travel on Network SouthEast is expensive, sordid, depressing and dehumanising, and for most people there is no alternative. The graffiti artist who has decorated the wall which faces London-bound commuters coming from the south west says it all with his greeting, "Good morning—Lemmings"! That state of affairs should never have been allowed to develop.

Network South East passengers have been sadly let down by the Government. Passengers do not care about the ideology of running a railway or about who owns it. What they do care about is that they should receive a good service. I repeat that they have been let down.

It has been suggested by some that the Government's policy has been deliberately to starve the railways of investment and to run them down in order to make them ripe for future privatisation. However, I doubt that. If it were so, it would be unique among the policies of the present Government in being wholly successful.

The causes lie in the lack of adequate funding for narrow ideological reasons, the insistence upon profit rather than service to passengers, inadequate and inefficient deployment of the available resources, a lack of vision, foresight or proper co-ordinated forward planning and plain ineptitude on the part of those who conduct the Government's transport policy.

Passengers want, and are entitled to receive, trains which leave and arrive on time. That means proper maintenance, proper back-up for breakdowns, proper provision for bad weather and adequate staff to cover absence. They are entitled to trains which run when passengers need to use them and which are co-ordinated with other forms of transport. They are surely entitled to a place to sit; which means enough trains, especially at rush hour, and more carriages and longer platforms, if necessary, to accommodate them. Passengers are entitled to information, to be told the truth swiftly so that alternative arrangements can be made or messages sent. They are entitled to reasonable comfort, with heating in cold weather which is turned off at the height of summer, and some degree of cleanliness.

Passengers are entitled to safety for themselves and their belongings, on trains, in stations and in station car parks. That means adequate staff and surveillance, especially at night. Where I live there is now no station car park where a car can be left with confidence that it will not have been broken into by the morning. Yet last week railway car park charges rose by 28 per cent. —six times the rate of inflation. Passengers are entitled to ask for all that and to expect it, and at a fair price. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane, suggested that we should be grateful because the trains do not leak and there are no bandits.

Those are not unreasonable requirements. What is more, European passengers have them. In the past year I have had the good fortune to travel by rail in Switzerland and in Italy. I had forgotten how pleasant and efficient rail travel could be on clean, modern rolling stock which runs on time. The railway even went so far as to provide a play coach for children on a long journey.

This Government's solution to overcrowding seems to have been to try to drive people off the trains by making them uncomfortable and by overpricing the service. The result is that the roads in this capital are now so overcrowded that London traffic moves at the same speed as the horse and cart 100 years ago; this after 12 years of Conservative transport policies. It is not even economic sense.

By denying adequate funding to the railway system the cost to industry of road congestion may be as much as £15 billion a year. The mismanagement continues in ways which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, described to the House in his opening speech. The much vaunted Network 465 trains, the first of which has been delivered for testing, have been found to be not too long but too wide to go through the tunnels on the routes for which they were ordered.

Transport in the South East is crucial to the economic regeneration of Britain. The single market and the opening of the Channel tunnel in 1993 mean that the Channel tunnel could take a substantial proportion of the United Kingdom's European trade. To do so it desperately needs good rail connections in this country, not just with London. While the Continent enjoys an expanding network of efficient, high speed trains we are being left behind with a transport system which is rapidly becoming incapable of linking fully with that of Europe, to the detriment of our passengers, our industry and our future.

Unless we have a government in the next few months which is committed to a new railway revolution aimed at providing Britain with a high speed railway network co-ordinated with that of Europe—a government which takes a view of investment not over five years to the next election but over 25 to the next generation—the railways of this country (after all, we invented the railway) which in the past have been our pride will, like Network SouthEast, be our shame.

6.53 p.m.

Lord Crook

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, I am a customer of Network SouthEast. I live in Folkestone and travel by rail on the days when I come to the House. Fortunately the times of day at which the House sits makes it much easier to travel than it is for the commuter who does a normal day's work. Therefore I do not suffer from any of the problems of claustrophobic trains which the noble Baroness described so vividly.

Perhaps those of us who travel on the line from Folkestone are luckier than those in northern Kent who are affected more by those problems than those using other parts of the system. However, we also have our complaints. The railway is abominably shabby. A great many foreigners get on trains at Folkestone and I feel ashamed that we have to show them dirty trains. There was some excuse last year when there was no cleaning water available in the South East because of low rainfall. There is plenty of water now but the outsides of the trains are still as filthy as ever. The quality of the passengers also seems to leave much to be desired. Even when travelling in a first-class compartment one sees people throwing things on the floor. I am sure that they would not do that in their own homes; why do they have to do it on a train? I cannot understand that.

We have been promised that there will be improvements to the railways in order to carry traffic and freight from the Channel tunnel to London and beyond. Undoubtedly, work is going on. One can see evidence of it in new tracks, new power equipment, and so on. Like my noble friend Lord Sidmouth and the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane, I cannot see that we shall find a great improvement in the service.

It is one of the miracles of life that the complicated network in the south-east of London ever works at all. I find it baffling that anyone could have produced such a layout. It was the result of competitive free enterprise and the whole thing got completely out of hand and then had to be rationalised into what was then the Southern Railway. The result is that there is far too much traffic and far too many interconnections between competing services, and a delay on one affects many different routes using the same system. It must be a nightmare to operate.

When all is said and done, we shall have our improved railway which will carry trains from the Channel tunnel. They will not be the French TGVs. The illusion seems to have been created that the TGV will run through the tunnel and carry on to London. That will not happen. Immediately beyond the Cheriton end of the Channel tunnel terminus is the Saltwood tunnel. If one tried to run a TGV train through that, it would get stuck. British Rail's tunnels and bridges are far too small to accommodate continental railway trains.

What do we have instead, my Lords? Instead of having a system of the train à grande vitesse we shall have British Rail's answer, the petit train à moyenne vitesse—small, pseudo-TGVs which will run between various points in the UK and into Europe. What worries me about that is the question of how long the Europeans will tolerate our cluttering their railways with special mini-trains to suit the idiosyncrasies of our railways while we appear to make little effort to improve the situation.

When services begin to pass through the Channel tunnel the citizens of Kent, and in particular the eastern part of Kent, will not be impressed in the slightest. If I, living in Folkestone, want to go by train to Paris, I shall have to go to Waterloo first, which is a journey of l½ hours, in order to get on a train to go all the way back and carry on through the tunnel. It is to be hoped that, for the benefit of rail travellers in Kent, it will be possible to go to Folkestone Central Station and take a bus service which will take them through the tunnel in order to pick up the railway in Calais. That is the only way to do it.

The proposal for Ashford international station has vanished. Heaven knows whether it will ever be built. There is no suggestion of any railway station in the Channel tunnel terminal area. Everything has to run from London, as my noble friend Lord Sidmouth pointed out.

It is said that that is what Customs and Excise require. I wonder whether that is realistic. Most railway services within Europe cross borders without any fuss and bother. I frequently drive my car around Europe. The rule for going through Customs is that you do not stop to annoy the Customs man. In this country, Customs are rightly praised for the amount of drugs that they intercept at the Channel ports. We all approve of that, but I should like to know how much of it is found in private cars or on foot passengers. I must admit that even in the United Kingdom the Channel ports' control of those cars and passengers appears to be a little perfunctory. If you go through the green channel, you are never challenged.

Presumably it is not only British Customs which has success in intercepting drugs. I presume that the other authorities in the Common Market also have their successes in intercepting those horrible commodities. How do they succeed without a Maginot line to defend? Perhaps we might learn from them and find that we do not need to have that rigid port of entry approach as regards getting on the railway which will do nothing more than hold up everyone and cause a great deal of frustration and expense in maintaining the system.

The high-speed rail link should be only the precursor to a connection for freight and passengers with the North of England. It does not belong to London. It is not about London at all. There are too many railway lines that end in London. You have to get out, cross London and pick up another train. We must see high-speed rail links going way up north, including to Scotland. Why should the high-speed link go into London? It would not be a bad idea to make it go round London for a change and then carry it on up to the North. There is always a call for private enterprise to invest in projects. Let British Rail provide the railway to the east of London through Stratford and carrying on up north. If London just happens to want to be involved in the high-speed link to the Continent, let London provide the finance for the little bit between the centre of London and Stratford. Perhaps that might bring a little more cash into the system and allow more of the high-speed link to go further north.

There must be some thought about the matter. It is said that in this country we do not have any long-term thoughts on railways. I believe that we do.

7.3 p.m.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, I was extremely impressed by the opening speech of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis on the Front Bench. He said nearly all that needs to be said in the debate and I agree with him almost entirely. I dissent from him on only one small matter; namely, that I believe that the chosen eastern route for the fast rail link is a mistake.

Noble Lords will recall that in his Statement on 14th October last the Secretary of State for Transport said at col. 24 of Commons Hansard that British Rail had been asked to study the various alternative routes with the aim of maximising the benefits to international passengers and commuters, concentrating on the options for the route from the North downs to Waterloo and King's Cross". We should note the phrase "maximising the benefits" to both international passengers and commuters. That was British Rail's remit and on the strength of that remit BR established its preferred route.

The route that was chosen—the modified Ove Arup route—precisely fails to meet the conditions that the Secretary of State originally laid down. First, it will be much more expensive and that will result in higher fares which will scarcely maximise the benefits. Secondly, it will be much less advantageous for commuters from Kent because it starts in the wrong part of Kent and ends in the wrong part of London. Indeed, it hardly improves the commuter situation at all, so it also fails in that respect. Thirdly—we must remember that the Minister mentioned both Waterloo and King's Cross—trains for Waterloo from the Continent will be obliged to leave the high-speed link somewhere in the vicinity of the Medway and come in at a much slower speed. As a consequence, it will take longer to travel from Paris to Waterloo than it will take to travel from Paris to King's Cross, assuming that the Stratford-King's Cross link is ever built. A question mark must hang over that.

I believe that there were two reasons for that choice. The first was to put off the line for as long as possible. In his October Statement the Secretary of State said that, in order to bring the Ove Arup line up to the standard of the BR preferred route, there would have to be another delay of nine months resulting from feasibility studies and further design studies. One could probably swallow nine months quite well, but at a meeting in this building just before Christmas—a meeting arranged by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn —Sir Robert Reid said that it would probably take 18 months, so the start date for the Channel link recedes further every time we think about it.

The other reason—it is not a new one—for choosing the eastern route was to give some credence to the new London-on-Thames which the Environment Secretary appears to want. I do not think that he should want it. I do not think that he should propose extensive developments on the east side of London. Developing the South East is a planning mistake. I see that my noble friend Lord Sefton of Garston agrees with me; at any rate, he shakes his head up and down. I am glad to see that he is here because I knew that he would agree with me. If this country needs any more extensive development of the kind that the Environment Secretary wants, it should not be in East London: it should be in the Midlands or even further north, possibly in Merseyside or even further north than that. East London is the wrong place. In so far as the international route is intended to help Mr. Heseltine's grandiose scheme, it is a grave error. The Government are mistaken here and should think again.

Before I turn to the last of my remarks, perhaps I may interpose a brief comment regarding the remarks of my noble friend Lady Mallalieu. We all have horror stories about railways, but I do not intend to go into them just now. She was a little unkind to the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, on the matter of the new rolling stock. She said that the train is too wide, but we are really talking about the width of an envelope which is a geometric matter relating to what happens to a point at the corner of a train as it goes round a curve. It is a matter about which engineers often worry and are often wrong. On the whole, the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane, is nearer the truth than my noble friend on this occasion, but that is a minor matter.

Turning to privatisation, I do not believe that there is a case to be made for privatisation, with the exception of one point, which is a serious one: that the Government cannot be trusted on transport matters. Nothing in their record suggests that the Government should continue to have any responsibility at all for transport matters and especially railway matters. I do not regard that as an argument in favour of privatisation, but it tempts me a little.

I want to mention one aspect of privatisation. It has been suggested that there should be a track authority which would lease its track to a body of private operators. That notion goes right back to the beginning of the railways. That was how it was done when the Stockton and Darlington railway was built in 1825. Going even further back, that is how it was done when the Kilmarnock and Troon railway was built in 1812. But in 1830, by the time the Manchester and Liverpool line was built, it was realised that the way to run the railways was as it is done now.

I have run out of time, but before I sit down I want to say that what is needed is some kind of strategy for transport. I endorse the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis last October when he asked for a transport commission. I disagreed with him then because I had misunderstood his proposal. He has since explained it to me and I believe that he is absolutely right. We need some kind of commission which will organise transport so that we think of the totality—rail, road, canals and air transport—and try to knock it into some kind of sense.

7.11 p.m.

Lord Mountevans

My Lords, I declare both an interest and my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. As I listened to the debate unfold, I sometimes wondered whether I patronised the same railway or indeed the same Network SouthEast as those discussed by noble Lords on both sides of the House.

I find the task that Network SouthEast faces and its way of coping with it not unimpressive. Eight thousand trains a day is the same number of trains as the CAA has aircraft flying throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. Just under 500,000 passengers are brought into the London termini in the morning peak. Ninety per cent. of trains reach the government-set punctuality target. I am lucky; I live on a route which has recently had investment. The trains are clean, and we should remind ourselves that more often than not when a train is filthy it is not British Rail's fault but the great British public's fault that it is filthy. British Rail cannot afford to employ people to scrub-up trains.

My trains are comfortable. As I said, investment has been made. On my route we have had two generations of investment in not much more than 25 years. Not only have we had the new trains, but there has been track upgrading and resignalling and thus higher speeds. There are shorter journey times. It is a more attractive railway and there is greater traffic. That is what we all love to see and should like to see it throughout the network.

But I realise that there are problems on the network. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, left the House in no doubt about that point, drawing on her own experience, as I have done on mine. But I wonder whether increased capital investment is the solution to peak hour travel in particular. We are told that trains are always packed, but in fact network's peak is about 20 hours in a seven-day week; it is 148 hours off-peak. The load factor, or the amount of the network product that is taken up, is only some 33 per cent. So 67 per cent. of its product—which, after all, is perishable since once a train seat has been run from London to Kent it has gone—is not taken up.

How can we address that problem? My own feeling is that the fares mechanism is not the answer. I have thought hard about that matter. In response to the monopolies commission's promptings, British Rail thought to bring back the old, pre-war, early morning workman's return, which was a deeply discounted season ticket. But that would not change the habits of the Medway travelling public. We know that happened elsewhere. For example, not so many years ago the Swedes went down the route of halving the fares. They assumed that revenue would more than double; but it did not work out like that. It was very fashionable to hope that it would do so in this country.

In terms of investment for the network to solve its problems, first of all staff training is needed. We must pay tribute to what is said in Future Rail on staff training, and the intention to achieve quality. We also need total route modernisation. That is the only way forward. The London-Tilbury and Southend route needs complete modernisation. It is not just the signalling and the track; rolling stock is also needed.

If I were to be allowed a small piece of investment, which I believe would be relatively cost-effective and inexpensive, I would suggest that British Rail and particularly Network spend more on informing us of what is going wrong—communications equipment. There are many occasions when one's train is late because of circumstances which are within British Rail's control: signal failure, traction failure and staff sickness, which is partially within British Rail's control. However, in my recent experience of my own route I have become aware of a number of incidents which were totally outside British Rail's control: the real ale fan who overconsumed and fell out of a train, when the police closed the railway for three hours; the gas leak at a major level crossing at Southampton, and an electric train cannot run past a gas leak; three suicides; people who crash through barriers at level crossings. Those are matters which are outside British Rail's control. However, it seems to me essential that Network should tell us not only what has happened —because there is a degree of sympathy for British Rail when it is faced with such problems—but also what the effects will be on our planned journeys.

I also hope for two other things in terms of sorting out the problems of Network and indeed British Rail. I welcome the Government's three-year commitment to investment but the 10-year span looked for in Future Rail would be even more attractive. I fear that the 25 year span quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, is too great. I would settle for 10 years at the outset and perhaps she would join me in that.

Secondly, one must come back to less interference. There was a period last year of only two weeks when Sir Bob Reid found first that he had obtained increased subsidy and EFL which meant good news and increased investment, and then that his favourite route to the Channel tunnel was vetoed. Also vetoed were his fare increases, which he believed—having looked at the market pricing—the market would stand. That is not the way ahead toward a satisfactory railway. Management must be allowed to manage.

I turn briefly to the Channel tunnel. I share the general enthusiasm for it. I am aware that there are people who will never go near it. I have friends—even one in this House—who will not ride on the Underground. I hope that the investment that British Rail already has in train will enable it to cope until the capacity runs out in 1999, always assuming that the capacity does run out. None of us at this time can be totally certain whether Eurotunnel will simply redistribute existing traffic or genuinely create traffic. If it creates traffic, as has been said by many people on all sides of the House, time becomes of the essence. The route must be approved as quickly as possible. The planning inquiry powers must be lined up as quickly as possible. Last but not least, the funding must be lined up.

That is my real anxiety, because if the private sector was reluctant or unable to fund British Rail's original proposal, I wonder how keen it will be to fund a less-attractive proposal which will be very much more expensive.

7.19 p.m.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth

My Lords, like every noble Lord who has spoken, I join in expressing thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for having initiated this timely debate. Three months have passed since the Government, after leading British Rail, the Kent commuters and the country up the cul-de-sac of a South-East London route, finally plumped for the Ove Arup route through the East Thames corridor. While a decision, however delayed, was welcome, as has been made clear in this debate a large number of uncertainties remain. For my money, the best comment on the present situation remains that of the Conservative leader of the Kent County Council, Mr. Tony Hart. He said, "It's a complete shambles, and as to who is in charge of it nobody quite knows". It is to be hoped that this debate may clear up some of the confusion. A central question that has been raised is the Government's attitude towards a freight policy in relation to the Channel tunnel and the railway links. With the increase in road traffic already strangling Kent—and it will inexorably continue to increase as the years pass—it seems absurd to plan a major new railway without allowing for freight. However, the Government discarded the only plan—that of the Rail Europe Consortium—which included a clear freight commitment. Its advocates feel rather bitterly that its proposal was never fully and fairly investigated. It also feels, and I hope that it is right, that it still has a contribution to make to the final decisions on the new route.

The Ove Arup plan was a passenger-only proposal. I believe that the House would like to know whether it could now be adapted for freight. That would require shallower gradients, and more gentle curves and would include perhaps sections of four tracks or loops. All those factors would alter its impact on the environment and on the number of homes affected. It might even mean deviations on the Ove Arup route. Those whose homes might face blight have a right to know as clearly and as quickly as possible where they stand.

The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred briefly to the strange story of Ashford international station. It was originally seen as a central element of the opening of the tunnel in June 1993. Eighteen months away no start has been made. In December the Department of Transport finally authorised £18 million against a rather grandiose British Rail project costing over £180 million.

As has been said during the debate, both Eurotunnel and Ashford Borough Council have proposed practical interim schemes which could be ready for June 1993. They involve a temporary international platform linked to the local station at Ashford and within walking distance of the existing platforms. However, apparently British Rail and the Government want something completely separate—a bus journey away with an international platform at which not only will no local trains be allowed to stop and no local passengers get on, but no local train will be allowed to pass that international platform. Apparently, that is in case some great drug drama might be enacted by someone throwing a sack of drugs on to a passing local train. We all consider the importance of dealing adequately with the control of drugs, but is that not getting the matter out of perspective? On the Continent, as one noble Lord mentioned, they do not insulate their international rail platforms in that way. It seems that having eliminated the Channel by digging a tunnel underneath it, a new frontier will be created in the heart of the little Kent market town of Ashford—and that is in 1992 when all the internal frontiers of the European Community are supposed to be crumbling and coming down.

It is all rather sad and frustrating. The Channel tunnel and a new national railway infrastructure associated with it should be the best news for British regions since the railway revolution in the early part of the 19th century. It is one of those rare occasions when the interests of the congested South East coincide with those of Scotland, the North of England, the North West and the remainder of the United Kingdom. However, to achieve that requires the right mix of private and public funding. That is one of the arts of modern government—and the present administration is not very good at it. They order such matters better in France and in most other continental countries.

The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, gave some interesting statistics on the contrast between the underpinning from public funding that exists in continental countries compared with this country. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, seemed to appoint himself the president of a society for the prevention of cruelty to British Rail. In a lighthearted way he carried me with him.

Eurotunnel has proposed a Department of Transport team led by a Minister to bring together the various interests on which success depends. It seems an almost ideal role for the present Secretary of State for the Environment. It seems a sensible and constructive suggestion. It would answer the Kent County Council's question with which I began as to where the responsibility really lies and who takes the decisions. The Channel tunnel will be completed in 7½ years. That is a very considerable achievement of private enterprises in all the circumstances, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said. But it would be a tragedy—and an unnecessary tragedy—if we were now to continue to follow the Government's present timetable and to take from 1988 to 2005—no fewer than 17 years—to provide the high speed rail link which is an essential part of making the most of the historic development of the Channel tunnel.

7.27 p.m.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. The Opposition are always prepared to discuss transport matters, first, because —as Mr. John Prescott emphasised at a press conference yesterday—we have a first class policy on all aspects of transport; and, secondly, because transport is so vital to the nation. It is vital for the economic well being of the country, because of the congested state not only of the South East but also of other parts of the country and because of the great increase in car ownership that will take place by the end of the decade. Those problems require adequate consideration.

I was pleased that my noble friend Lady Mallalieu drew attention to the fact that Network SouthEast does not deal only with counties south of London. It covers parts of the railway lines north of London including my county of Essex. The noble Lord, Lord Cochrane, referred to the position of the London, Tilbury and Southend Line. Sir Bob Reid, British Rail chairman, was reported in yesterday's Guardian as saying, London, Tilbury, Southend has signalling installed in 1934 with a 30-year life"— it is now approaching its 60-year life— the rolling stock is close to 40 years old. It is not surprising it does not perform". From what noble Lords have said there is obviously strong criticism of aspects of the operations of Network SouthEast. We can sympathise with Network SouthEast because it has been underfunded for years. I shall return to that issue before I conclude.

Network SouthEast has certain problems but I know that it has plans for development. Eighteen months ago I attended a presentation by Network SouthEast of the developments that it intended to undertake. Many have not been carried through because of lack of adequate funding. The Crossrail Bill was deposited in Parliament at the end of November. I hope that it achieves a speedy and efficient passage through another place and in your Lordships' House. It will be of great benefit to have that crossrail link from Buckingham and Reading through to Brentwood.

The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, referred to the success of the Thameslink route. Can the Minister say why on 6th December, in reply to a Question asked by Mrs. Joan Ruddock in the other place, Mr. Roger Freeman said that the scheme had some attractive features but that the Government had concluded that the Bill was premature? Mrs. Ruddock had asked when the Bill would be deposited for further expansion of the Thameslink route.

The Government have made clear time and again that users will have to meet the cost of developments. However, the Government have set Network SouthEast a target to phase out the public service operation by March 1993. In view of the underfunding that exists at present that will be a complete tragedy for people living in the South East, in particular the vast number of commuters who rely on Network SouthEast in order to travel to work in central London.

In addition there is the threatened phasing out of the PSO. Fares have been increased and, as was said by my noble friend Lady Mallalieu, car parking charges have also gone up. I recognise that throwing money at a problem does not solve it. One must use money effectively. Sir Bob Reid said in a lecture that if one wants a modern, reliable railway one must be prepared to spend money on it. He said that he did not wish to be drawn on the question of privatisation. I shall make no comments about privatisation until we see the Government's plans. They cannot make up their mind and therefore we cannot be expected to do so in this debate. Sir Bob warned that inadequate investment posed a threat both to safety and to the quality of the services. He said that a reliable and modern rail network would require an investment programme of £1 billion per year during the current decade. That could easily be achieved if the Government realised what must be done.

Reference has been made to the confusion about the Channel tunnel. I recall that when two years ago Mr. John Prescott urged the Government to hold a thorough inquiry into the development of the Channel tunnel and the rail link he was scoffed at. The tragedy is that today we are in such a mess. We have moved from one thing to another. There is also the lack of public investment in the rail link. Such an inquiry would have been extremely valuable.

On 14th October last year the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said that, we continue to be prepared to consider subsidy for any non-user benefits such as the relief of road congestion arising from the use of the Channel Tunnel rail link by commuter services".—[Official Report, 14/10/91; col. 962.] I should be grateful if the Minister will elaborate on that statement and give examples of what the Government regard as being non-user benefits. Surely, the relief of congestion and dealing adequately with environmental problems will fall under non-user benefits.

Kent County Council has taken a bold line throughout on what the Channel tunnel should provide for the nation. It has said that there is a need to concentrate on managing the ever-widening gap between the time when the tunnel opens and when the rail link begins to operate. I do not believe that anyone can deny that statement. I live close to Stratford but I shall not argue about whether we need a Stratford route. The fact is that a decision has now been taken and we must have a firm plan and get on with the job. The points made by Kent County Council are most important.

In a previous debate on transport my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe emphasised that 73 per cent. of the passengers who will come into the UK after 1993 will go to destinations beyond London. It would be a tragedy if the privatisation of British Rail led to cutting out a number of routes, in particular those north of Glasgow. We must ensure that the benefits of the Channel tunnel reach all regions and we must maximise the environmental benefits. Unless that is done we shall add to economic congestion in the South East to such an extent that life will become completely unbearable. We must ensure that the benefits of the Channel tunnel affect not only the commuters but will be spread throughout the country.

Reference has been made to Ashford. I recall speaking in this House on the British Rail (No. 3) Bill. I recall the special report published by your Lordships' Select Committee on the Bill. It was emphasised that there would be an international station at Ashford. That influenced many noble Lords in the remarks that they made. On 4th July Mr. Roger Freeman emphasised that the Government would honour their commitments. On 24th July the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said that the Government remained committed to the provision of that station. On 14th October the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, observed that the Ashford station would not be affected by the Statement made by the Secretary of State on the Channel tunnel rail link.

On 3rd December, in a Written Answer, the Secretary of State made it clear that the external finance would be reduced and the expectation of an excellent international station at Ashford would not be realised. Some £18 million had been allocated for an international station. On 19th December, in a Written Answer, Mr. Roger Freeman made clear that British Rail had been asked to examine the feasibility of his idea for a cheaper option to the international station. It was asked to submit new proposals.

We now have those proposals for a cheaper station at Ashford. I suppose that one might agree with the Kent County Council, the East Sussex County Council and Eurotunnel that they accept the proposals as a stop-gap measure. However, the Government must decide quickly whether they will honour their commitment to have at least a stop-gap international station at Ashford. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, made clear, the statement that there will be a short distance between the stop-gap international station and the Network SouthEast station is pure nonsense. They must be close to each other. People must not be expected to take a bus ride from one to the other.

Reference has been made to freight. I know that most freight will still be carried by road. However, there will be a great benefit to this country if the amount of freight carried quickly through the tunnel from this country to Europe can be increased.

We have figures of the number of lorry loads saved as a result of the conveyance by rail of many of the construction items for the tunnel. I believe that a firm policy is required as regards freight. A firm policy is required also from the Government on the provision of additional finance bearing in mind—and I agree with noble Lords opposite—that British Rail should have more freedom to go into the open market to raise the required loans. That must be done if we want further investment. Unless we have further investments, the developments which we need for British Rail to take part in the Channel tunnel link will not be possible.

7.42 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I am on behalf of the Government happy to discuss the Government's transport policies. Therefore, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for having tabled this Motion for debate this afternoon. I should have preferred this to be the three hour debate and I wish that I had more time for my winding up speech because I fear that, while I shall try to answer all the points raised, because of the short time available I may have to write to several of your Lordships.

I should like to make three general points in response to the issues raised in the debate. First, as regards the Channel tunnel, the title of the debate refers to the problems for British Rail caused by the Channel tunnel. I believe that one should be more positive than that. The tunnel is a huge new opportunity for British Rail, for road hauliers and for businesses throughout the country. British Rail is taking up the challenge of providing capacity to exploit those opportunities while at the same time meeting the needs of its existing passengers. A massive investment programme is in hand to that end.

British Rail is planning to spend over £1.7 billion on rolling stock and infrastructure for Channel tunnel services. That is almost three times that put into the recently completed electrification of the East Coast line.

The £1.7 billion includes infrastructure such as the new international terminal at Waterloo which, with its spectacular roof, will form an impressive gateway to the United Kingdom. Construction is proceeding to time and on budget. BR's investments also include a major programme of route works between London and the Channel tunnel. That is well under way. Lines are being upgraded and resignalled and power supplies strengthened. That will improve running speeds, reliability and flexibility for both international and domestic services thereby ensuring that existing NSE services are not disadvantaged.

I should remind noble Lords that BR gave an assurance to Parliament during the passage of the Channel Tunnel Bill that existing services would not be curtailed. It stands by that assurance. In fact it believes that the works in hand will positively benefit Network SouthEast commuters. I am pleased to say that those infrastructure works are also proceeding to time and budget.

Many noble Lords, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to rolling stock. Thirty one intercapital trains are on order and the railways are pressing the manufacturers for the earliest possible delivery date. Noble Lords will be as disappointed as I am that there will be a delay of a few months before the start of the services. However, I stress that that is the result of technical difficulties encountered by the manufacturers and is not the result of delay by the railways or, indeed, by the Government.

British Rail and its partners—the French and Belgian railways—are pressing the manufacturers for the earliest possible delivery date. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has also impressed that upon GEC-Alsthom. The trains will be fully tested before going into service and there is no question of the testing time being compressed. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth, referred to that point.

I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Crook, that the intercapital trains being purchased by BR and its partners will cope with all the rail networks used. They will be slightly narrower than the TGVs in France with a contoured side to cope with the UK gauge. However, those trains are not unique simply because of the UK gauge but also because of the differing power supplies in the three countries and because of the stringent safety requirements of the Channel tunnel.

In addition, seven trains are on order to provide through services from beyond London. They should be able to start service in early 1995. In the meantime, some InterCity services will run to Waterloo to provide an easy connection with international services. Negotiations with the continental railways on an order for night trains are progressing and BR still plans to commence those services in 1994.

British Rail has also ordered 37 freight locomotives and we expect to receive submissions for investment approval for the necessary wagons shortly. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that BR plans to run freight services from the opening of the Channel tunnel. It expects to have sufficient class 92 freight locomotives to start running as soon as it opens. Conventional wagons which can already be used for tunnel services are available and the railways have been refining their proposals for freight to identify the number and type of new wagons needed. BR is expected to request approval shortly to invest in intermodal and automotive wagons.

I stress to noble Lords that all rolling stock is being purchased jointly by the three partner railways. As my noble friend Lord Geddes said, all nine freight terminals have been identified and work to prepare them for tunnel traffic is now under way.

A number of noble Lords—notably the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—suggested that domestic trains could not stop at international stations. That is not true. North of London through trains will stop at existing domestic platforms. However, there is a security issue to ensure that international passengers pass through the necessary controls and that uncleared passengers do not board the trains. Methods of clearance are still being considered with British Rail—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson.

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Crook, was being rather unfair about the operations of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. Negotiations are continuing to ensure that controls are efficient and not intrusive, as I outlined at Question Time today. They will be much easier than we are used to following the completion of the internal market.

Looking to the longer term, both British Rail and the Government recognise that additional track and terminal capacity will ultimately be needed. Having weighed all the considerations the Government have selected King's Cross as the second terminal and have announced their preference for the easterly route via Stratford for the new link.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the Government are not divided on that issue. I do not know where he got that idea from. It is certainly not true. Indeed, that route is supported by most people and certainly, as the noble Lord pointed out, it is supported by the Labour Party; though I note not by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, who has on a previous occasion expressed his preference for the former southern route originally proposed by British Rail. Some months further work will be needed before public consultations can be held and the route safeguarded. It will then be for the private sector to take forward the project.

Some anxiety has been expressed by noble Lords today about the progress of that link. We must be clear that the new line is not essential for British Rail to offer fast, attractive and competitive international passenger services. It would be difficult to justify the billions of pounds which the new line will cost and the impact on Kent and London simply on the basis of a half hour time saving. The new line is needed only when the capacity of the existing network becomes fully utilised. That should not be until we are into the first decade of the next century. I believe that it is to the credit of the Government and British Rail that planning of the new line was started sufficiently early to allow proper time to develop the best possible route and still have the line ready when it is needed.

I am well aware that noble Lords would like to know quickly where the rail link will run. However, it is worth remembering that the new line will be used for perhaps 100 years or more and it is therefore worth spending a little time now, perhaps a few months, deciding precisely where it should go and what form it should take to ensure that the best possible solution is found. So far the preferred route corridor, based on Ove Arup's proposals, has been identified. British Rail, in close consultation with the Government, is undertaking detailed engineering design work to refine the route. The parameters for that work are currently being defined and will include such issues as whether the new line should take freight. That was a point raised by a number of noble Lords.

I can say briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that congestion relief is a non-user benefit. Quantification and identification developments for subsidy are not possible until further studies are completed. However, I would point out to the noble Lord that both Crossrail and the Jubilee Line extension are only going ahead because the Government are prepared to subsidise projects with road decongestion and regeneration benefits. I believe that proves our point on that.

However, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howie, that the new line will not benefit commuters. The Channel tunnel rail link will carry express commuter services which will not only produce substantial time savings of up to 30 minutes but will offer much more choice of destination in London. East Kent, the Medway towns and possibly Essex will benefit. The optimum provision of stations and connections with the existing network is an important part of the current studies to refine the route. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked specifically what benefits would arise to commuters.

A number of noble Lords mentioned Ashford international passenger station. The Government regret that the station design put forward by British Rail could not be afforded. It would have cost £140 million in 1989 prices. To put that in perspective, the cost is similar to that for Waterloo international passenger station but with only a fraction of the passenger demand. We still want to see a station provided but stripped of the more expensive and complex engineering. British Rail is looking at the possibilities. Apart from a cost advantage a simpler station should take less time to build and ought to be ready sooner.

With regard to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on the European Commission's complaint about the environmental assessment of King's Cross and the rail link, we have given the Commission what we believe to be sound responses to the points raised and therefore we await the response of the Commission to that matter.

I turn to Network SouthEast. I do not seek to deny that there are difficulties in some parts of Network SouthEast. That is self-evident. I have every sympathy for those commuters who have to suffer unreliable and unpunctual services. It is not acceptable that many should regularly arrive at work late and fatigued after an uncomfortable journey of the type so graphically described by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. There are problems on some lines. But the problems do not extend across the whole network. As my noble friends Lord Geddes and Lord Mountevans pointed out, many lines offer a good service and as a result we hear very little about them. They offer a good service because they have had the investment they need.

Network SouthEast is in the middle of a massive re-equipment as trains built in the early 1960s come to the end of their useful lives. It has been investing at a high level for some time. Over the last financial year NSE alone has spent about £1 million a day on modernising and re-equipping its services. The Government's approach throughout has been supportive and flexible. BR has recently been hit hard by falling demand and the slackness in the property market. In response we took the exceptional step in June last year of increasing BR's external finance limit by £400 million in-year. That has helped it to maintain services and continue with investment programmes despite falling revenues. Then, in last November's Autumn Statement, BR's external finance limit for the coming year was increased by nearly £1 billion to a total of £2 billion.

The record of achievement over the past five years is impressive. Over 1,000 new vehicles have been introduced. Three new lines have been opened: Thameslink, the Stansted Airport Link and the Oxford-Bicester Link. Fourteen new stations have been opened and over 100 reconstructed.

A key element in the investment strategy is "total route modernisation", as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mountevans. That involved renewing trains and infrastructure at the same time to gain the maximum benefit from both. Four lines—Chiltern, Thames, Kent Link and the Waterloo and City line —are currently undergoing total route modernisation. Until recently the Chiltern line had one of the worst services in Network SouthEast. It now has state of the art signalling and modernised stations, including the splendidly refurbished Marylebone station. Networker turbo diesel trains are being delivered to provide a more reliable, more comfortable and faster service. The total cost will be over £75 million. Although the full fleet of trains has not yet entered service, performance on the line has already shown a significant improvement.

The total route modernisation of the Kent Link lines is a much bigger project costing over £600 million. Nearly 500 new electric Networker vehicles are on order. The first have recently been delivered and will enter service in May. Those will replace old and unreliable slam-door trains which are nearing the end of their useful life. In addition, platforms are being lengthened to allow longer trains to be run to reduce overcrowding and cater for growth.

Many other projects could be mentioned. Most spectacular from a visual point of view is perhaps the extensive refurbishment of Liverpool Street station which was recently re-opened by Her Majesty the Queen. Besides the impressive renovation of the architecture, the station has been re-modelled into a unified structure. Platforms have been extended and the approaches to the station re-signalled. The net result is to improve reliability and increase flexibility. In particular, it should no longer be necessary for trains to wait outside the station.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the London, Tilbury and Southend line. My noble friend Lord Cochrane travelled on it, as he said, only yesterday. The Government are fully aware that the service has not been up to the standard passengers have a right to expect and at times has reached unacceptable levels. That is why we agreed in November that BR should go ahead with the £50 million project to re-signal the London, Tilbury and Southend line. British Rail regard the replacement of the signalling system as the key to improving reliability of services on this line. Work has already begun on the specification for the design of the scheme and contracts should be placed by the middle of this year, with the system in operation by late 1995.

The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made some trenchant comments about travel on Network SouthEast. I can assure the House that the Government are determined to make public services like British Rail more responsive to the needs of the public and more accountable for the performance that they deliver. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister set out a number of initiatives to achieve that in The Citizen's Charter White Paper. The Government are convinced that privatisation is the best way to achieve efficient and responsive rail services. Exposing the railways to the disciplines of the private sector will be by far the most effective way of making sure that passengers get a better deal. The Government intend to issue a White Paper setting out their proposals for the privatisation of BR and Ministers will be making a Statement about that shortly. I note in that context the suggestion from my noble friend Lord Cochrane of forming a plc as a first step in that direction.

My noble friend Lord Mountevans urged better staff training and better information. I acknowledge to my noble friend that those two matters are of great importance and greater emphasis should be given to them. My noble friends Lord Geddes and Lord Cochrane mentioned the possibility of leasing by British Rail. I am afraid that I do not have time to go into the detailed pros and cons of that argument. Perhaps I may write to my noble friends on that matter.

With regard to the question of Networker trains being too big for tunnels, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was unfair to British Rail, or perhaps he was attempting to be unfair to the Government, on that matter. My noble friend Lord Cochrane aptly described the fact that it was well known that the work would have to be done and it was planned from the beginning of the project that the work would be necessary for the introduction of the new trains.

I am running out of time. I know I must give the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, a few moments to wind up. I hope that I have demonstrated that a great deal has been and is being done. I should like to underline the Government's commitment to Britain's railways, to Network SouthEast and to the Channel tunnel services in particular. Both have a vital contribution to make to the nation's economic health. Both require massive investment and both are getting it. I hope that your Lordships will join with me in welcoming the excellent progress that British Rail are making on the infrastructural work for the Channel tunnel services, which will bring benefit not only to domestic passengers but to international ones as well.

8 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, time permits me only to thank all those noble Lords who have participated in this debate. They have spoken with great expertise whether as people who have been involved in the railways, or concerned about the railways as passengers. I believe that the House has benefited enormously from this debate. I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, who has made a valiant effort to reply to the debate within the limitations of time imposed on him although I suspect that he would have needed the whole of the two hours to satisfy the House.

I believe that the key—

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)

My Lords, the time allotted for this debate has now elapsed. Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw his Motion?

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I hope that I have time. In that event, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.