Railcard Schemes and Privatisation (Hansard, 24 February 1993)

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness)
My Lords, we are sure that private sector operators will also want to offer discounts on tickets in order to attract more passengers. These may either be based on the existing railcards or be new initiatives.

§ Lord Stallard
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. He must accept that it is a very disappointing reply to those people who have been reading recent reports about the Government's intentions under their privatisation proposals. It is quite obvious that if no pressure is to be put—and it is said that no such pressure will be put—on the new operators to continue rail and travelcards, then there will not be any. Is the Minister aware that this situation has already angered millions of people who have benefited from these two provisions, particularly in London? Is he further aware that SAGA has already said that to end these provisions will mean that thousands of elderly people, youngsters and schoolchildren, will be unable to afford any holidays at all?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, these are commercial arrangements. They are not required by law from British Rail. I have no doubt that the private operators will be just as keen as British Rail to attract passengers.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us have seen with pleasure that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has understood what is being done about the railways by using in his Question the term the "commercialisation of the railways"? Will my noble friend congratulate the noble Lord on his somewhat belated understanding of what is happening?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, is looking forward to receiving the Bill and to discussing both it and the benefits that it can bring to British Rail.

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, would that the Government understood what is happening. However, to return to the Question on the Order Paper, how will it be possible to ensure a form of railcard for universal use across the whole of the network if there is no network?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, there will be methods by which the private operators will wish to 218 ensure that there are railcards that can be used throughout the rail network because of the benefits of getting more passengers onto the railways.

§ Lord Rix
My Lords, in view of the welcome assurance that the disabled person's railcard will continue, can the Minister give further assurances that facilities, services, access and egress to both trains and railway stations right across the board in this mixed economy will be assured for the 6.5 million disabled people once the new arrangements come into being?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to highlight the question of railcards for the disabled. We have made it absolutely clear that we will impose that requirement on the franchise operators. Consequent upon that—as the debate in this House the other day showed—access for the disabled is also very important.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, is it not clear that, with the fragmentation of a national railway system, railcards, rail warrants, through ticketing and even a national timetable must all be in jeopardy? Does not the Minister recognise, therefore, that he is in no position at this stage to give a clear assurance unless a statutory undertaking to that effect is imposed upon the privatised companies? Do not the Government recognise that there is an important social service component in the running of our railway system which, apparently, they seek to avoid at every chance?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite wrong. The social services aspect is highlighted by the enormous grant that British Rail receives. There is substantial room for improvement in the running of the railways which, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, can be achieved through the involvement of the private sector. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that there will be a national timetable and there will be through ticketing.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, did I understand correctly from the Minister that there will be legislation and that he can give an absolute guarantee that there will be statutes that will require all the private undertakings to fulfil those social obligations? I did not fully understand the degree of commitment in his Answer.

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, to be absolutely precise, the degree of commitment goes as far as the disabled person's railcard. We intend to ensure that all franchise operators will be obliged to offer common discounts to disabled people.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, the noble Earl has referred to only one particular travelcard. Does he not recognise that his answers are the same as the hopes and expectations in the White Paper? Will there be a statutory obligation on the franchise operators to continue all the present types of discount cards? If so, how will that be enforced? If it cannot be enforced, what redress will there be for passengers?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, no. These are commercial arrangements. It will be up to the private operators—just as it is up to British Rail which 219 introduced the railcards in the first place—to encourage people to use the railways. Let me make it clear that what is different is the position of the disabled person's railcard, as I said to the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Ennals.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, why can the Minister give an assurance on behalf of disabled people but not on behalf of elderly people? If he can give one assurance, why can he not give the other?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, we thought it particularly important to highlight the question of the disabled person's railcard. I should have thought that that would be welcomed by the noble Lord.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, is it not clear from the Government's own document of January this year that what is happening in relation to the disabled person's railcard is that the Government are seeking a public relations exercise rather than anything else because those arrangements will not be very costly? I repeat the question that was asked by my noble friend Lord Ennals: why cannot the Government give assurances in other regards? If it is simply a question of the commercial judgement of these companies, no assurance can be given by the Minister.

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the noble Lord is using a weak argument when he says that the help that we are giving to disabled people is a PR exercise.

§ Lord Stallard
My Lords, perhaps I may return to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and to the Minister's answer. Does he accept that in the same document as that referred to by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis—the Department of Transport's document on privatisation—it states that train operators cannot be expected to sell tickets for services other than their own because this, runs contrary to commercial interests"? That is the reply that the Minister should have given to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, because that is the true situation. The document then states that private operators might choose to retain railcards for the disabled, for the public relations benefit". Those are the facts according to the department's document. If the Minister had repeated those, we should all understand what we were about.

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I know that the noble Lord will have followed with care what has taken place in another place both on Second Reading and in the Committee stage of the Railways Bill. The position is very clear. There is a commitment so far as the disabled person's railcard is concerned. I am sure that private operators will seek to increase the number of people travelling on the railways.