Rail Privatisation: Benefits (Hansard, 29 January 1997)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen)
My Lords, yes. In west London the franchising of passenger rail services is bringing about sustained improvements in services and will continue to do so. The flotation of Railtrack has provided an impetus to develop strategies for greater network capacity.

§ Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I should declare an interest as a resident living next-door to the west London line, but the comments I am about to make apply more widely throughout the country. First, will the Minister accept my sincere congratulations on allocating £1.3 million for the construction of three stations on that line? But does he share my concern that Railtrack has said that it cannot operate trains at the stations because there is no longer any capacity?

§ Viscount Goschen
My Lords, first, I can accept the noble Lord's congratulations with hardly any trouble. Secondly, he referred to Railtrack and capacity issues. I understand that Railtrack is considering how to improve the capacity of the west London line, and it would be very much in its interests so to do.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, in his Answer to my noble friend, the Minister brought in the subject of the privatisation of the buses. Is he aware that a report was published today on the privatisation of the bus companies which stated that, with the splitting up of bus services, the whole situation is in a mess and the change should never have been carried through in this way? No one has responsibility for co-ordination any longer.

§ Viscount Goschen
My Lords, the Question concerned rail privatisation in west London. However, as we have a little time, yes, the Government will study the report carefully.

§ Lord Cochrane of Cults
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the suggested location of the stations as preferred by developers, at this stage grouped closely together at the southern end of the route, seldom more than 200 yards apart, would cause a considerable operational obstruction and require much greater headway than is currently provided?

§ Viscount Goschen
My Lords, it is for the parties concerned—among them the franchisee and Railtrack—to decide such issues as where the stations should most appropriately be put—where they would be of most use and generate the most traffic.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the benefit of the provision of £1.3 million, which could have been used for the two or three stations on this line, is being frustrated by Railtrack? It has stated that there is no capacity on the lines to allow trains to stop at these stations, so their construction is unlikely to go ahead, even though the finance is available. When will the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of Transport get tough with Railtrack? 1136 Railtrack has already been condemned recently on two occasions by the regulator. Why does not the Minister support the regulator, whom he put in place?

§ Viscount Goschen
My Lords, of course we support the regulator. But, as I said, Railtrack is looking at how it might improve the capacity of this line. It is in its commercial interest to see more trains travelling on this line and on many other lines. It has announced extremely bold investment plans and spent considerable sums on upgrading the railway network in this country.

§ Lord Carr of Hadley
My Lords, can the Minister explain why over the past 20 or 30 years no attempt has been made to provide this much needed capacity?

§ Viscount Goschen
My Lords, that is an interesting question. It is only now, with access to private sources of capital, that this sort of work can be taken forward. Railtrack, with its new and innovative approach to the issue, has announced bold investment plans for the network. We are seeing real changes, not only in the quality and levels of service provided by the franchisees but also in the amount of money being invested in the network.

§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, is the Minister prepared to accept that the Government have a responsibility to put pressure on Railtrack so that a solution can be found within the timescale that has been allowed in the package; or is it the case that the Government have cynically put forward the offer of money and are not prepared to press for the money to be spent on the purpose intended?

§ Viscount Goschen
My Lords, the noble Baroness would not expect me to agree that the Government acted cynically. They never have and never will. The money was put forward as part of the TPP support, and that is a positive sign. It is for the parties involved to get together and come up with plans as to how the projects can be taken forward. I say again that it is in Railtrack's interest to see more trains travelling. It will generate more revenue for itself that way.

§ Lord Berkeley
My Lords, the Minister said that Railtrack has come up with bold and innovative investment plans. Can he explain why the regulator severely criticised Railtrack for spending only three-quarters of what it should have spent in its current budget?

§ Viscount Goschen
My Lords, I recall a Question on that specific issue only a few weeks ago, in which I believe the noble Lord intervened, though I cannot be sure. Over £100 million more has been spent in the first six months of this financial year on infrastructure investment than was spent in the same period last year. That is a considerable sum. Railtrack accepts that it needs to work harder on meeting its investment targets, and we look forward to seeing its network statement on how it intends to do that.

§ Lord Marlesford
My Lords, I fervently believe in the privatisation of many things, particularly British Rail. But is my noble friend able to agree with me that privatisation does not remove from government the responsibility of seeing that this country has a good transport system, particularly taking account of the interface with their concern for the environment?

§ Viscount Goschen
My Lords, the Government have considerable concern for the environment. That is why we put in place the structures and the framework with the privatised rail industry to allow that industry, for the first time since the war, to develop, to generate new traffic and to carry new quantities of freight.

§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, in the light of the Minister's reply, will he now answer the first part of my earlier question? Are the Government prepared to urge Railtrack to find a speedy solution so that the money can be spent?

§ Viscount Goschen
My Lords, I give the noble Baroness the same answer as I gave her the first time. It is for the parties involved to come up with relevant plans for these exciting new developments.

Lord Renton
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is unfortunate that Motorail has been abolished? It helped to keep some cars off the road for some of the time.

§ Viscount Goschen
My Lords, we have discussed Motorail, services to Scotland and so forth on many previous occasions. The Question concerns rail services in west London, where Motorail is little used at present.

§ Lord Haskel
My Lords, can the Minister say when the £1.3 million will be withdrawn if the stations are not built? Is there a deadline?

§ Viscount Goschen
My Lords, my understanding is that the £1.3 million is to be spent on feasibility studies. The noble Lord's question therefore is not valid.

§ Lord Cadman
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that rail privatisation presents an excellent opportunity for service improvement as envisaged by the positive plans of the emerging train operating companies?

§ Viscount Goschen
My Lords, not only are there encouraging plans but there have been encouraging developments as well. It is well recognised that the franchises that have been put in place will not only save the Government enormous sums of money but also result in more and better services and considerably reduced levels of complaint. Noble Lords may be interested to know that the latest figures on passenger complaints published by the Rail Users Consultative Committee show an overall 30 per cent. drop in the 1138 number of passengers complaining during July, August and September compared with the same period the previous year.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, is not the Minister being extraordinarily selective in his approach to this matter? He has said not a word of criticism, let alone indictment, of Railtrack and not a word in support of the regulator, put in place by this Government, when he makes substantial and cogent criticisms of Railtrack. The Minister just passes that off. Would it not be of value to the travelling public to see a Minister who is less partial and more capable of being independent and objective when it comes to these vital matters of concern?

§ Viscount Goschen
My Lords, I shall certainly not take lessons on selectivity from either the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, or the party opposite. It is only noble Lords opposite, particularly those on the Front Bench, who do not recognise the achievements of rail privatisation. It is about time they ran up the flag on this issue, when everybody else who uses the services agrees that they are better. Noble Lords opposite said that fares would rise; they have been capped. They said that services would be considerably cut; they have increased. They said that investment would fall; it has increased. Those are success stories, and I have already underlined our support for the regulator.