Northern Rail Franchise (Hansard, 27 October 2004)

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the northern franchise fleet is made up of a range of vehicle types and ages. None of the fleet will have reached the end of its design life prior to the end of the Northern Rail franchise term. Therefore, replacement was not required to be provided as part of the proposals. A considerable proportion of the fleet has received external and internal refurbishment in recent years.

§ Lord Greaves
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which I think passengers throughout the north of England will find unsatisfactory. There are not only problems of overcrowding; there are specific problems of 20 year-old rolling stock that will now have to last another 10 years. Does he agree that, whatever was said about design life, the four-wheeled Pacer trains such as the Class 142—which are really just tin-can trains—are in fact stretched-out local buses which are unsuitable for longer journeys of one, two or more hours? Can he explain why those entirely inadequate railway trains are found only in the north-east, Yorkshire and the north-west, other than some 1285 on south Wales branch lines? If they are so satisfactory, why does he not move some of them to the south-east?

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I am not sure that it would be a satisfactory solution to move aged train sets around the country as they are designed to be fit for purpose for the areas in which they operate. It is perhaps asking too much to be able to satisfy two Liberal Democrat questioners in one sitting, but I shall nevertheless attempt to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Some £16.5 million has been spent on refurbishing that rolling stock in recent years, but it is recognised that updating is required and a refurbishment programme is in place. Although none of the stock has reached the end of its life, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the fact that necessary improvements can be made, and they will be, as time allows.

Lord Berkeley
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a potential use for more than 150 of the Mark 3 InterCity rolling stock, which many of us have loved and used for many years, on the high-speed lines? They are all sitting in a siding doing nothing. Could not some of those be used to help to resolve the problem raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in the north-east and the north-west, rather than sitting in a siding? They are rather more comfortable than the Pacer units.

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, they are certainly more comfortable than the Pacer units, but they were designed for an entirely different role from that which the Pacer units fulfil. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is arguing the case for the improvement of those vehicles rather than the employment of InterCity vehicles that performed an entirely different service. However, I hear what my noble friend says. I am sure that he will recognise that rolling stock will not be left idle if it can be brought into service effectively.

§ Viscount Astor
My Lords, the Strategic Rail Authority has projected the level of public subsidy for the new Northern Rail franchise to be £2.4 billion over the eight and three-quarter years of the franchise. That works out to be about £300 million a year. Can the Minister tell us whether that is an increase or decrease of public subsidy on an annual basis?

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, we all recognise that the running of the railways will require, in crucial areas, adequate public support. That is why the Government have done two things. First, we have changed the nature of the relationships between government and Network Rail, so that we have in place an effective mechanism to deal with the overall strategy. Secondly, we have sought to ensure that the new franchises are conducted on a value-for-money basis. There have been charges that the only consideration is 1286 cheapness. However, that is not so. The considerations are to ensure value for money and that the service provided meets passenger needs.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, given that the Minister has not answered my noble friend Lord Astor's question, will he undertake to write to him about whether that is an increase or decrease in subsidy?

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, let us be absolutely clear that the franchise arrangements are changing and that a new franchise is coming into play. We are, therefore, not precisely comparing like with like. I am not furnished with figures that apply to one franchise when a new franchise involves a different arrangement. I shall be only too happy to write to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, if he thinks that my answer is unsatisfactory. However, as he will be the first to recognise, the new franchise is being awarded on different terms and negotiated on that basis.

§ Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lord, the Minister mentioned the phrase "fit for purpose". Is this new franchise fit for purpose? I see that it is costing £2.43 billion and will last eight years, nine months. What provision is there for enhancement in services across the north of England in the period to 12 September 2013? If we get a timetable in December, can we keep it until then, because there will not be any changes?

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, the concept of the franchise arrangements is not to etch in stone one particular timetable for a year, but to establish what is the best value for money in the first year and then in the subsequent years of the franchise. That may involve significant enhancements to the service. I point to the obvious example of the Question that I answered yesterday on the West Coast Main Line. The significant improvements in service this year have little to do with the direct operators and more to do with the fact that we have been able to guarantee that the track has been improved in many crucial areas. Such changes are effected over the course of time and all form part of the negotiations on the franchise.
I want to give the noble Lord this assurance. The Government are committed to ensuring that rail services improve in this country. That is the basis on which the rail franchises are being negotiated at present.

§ Lord Greaves
My Lords, the Minister said that the rolling stock on these branch lines is "fit for purpose", but it is inferior rolling stock. Why should people in the north of England be regarded as inferior passengers by giving them inferior rolling stock?

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I would be scandalised if that concept had ever entered the mind of anyone in authority. The people of the north deserve equal treatment with all others in the country. The point I wanted to make, partly in response to a question raised by my noble friend, was that the term "fit for purpose" relates to the distance over which 1287 these trains must travel. They relate to the nature of the northern franchise—which, on the whole, provides relatively short-range services, although there are one or two longer-distance services as well. The units that make up that provision are necessarily different from those which serve the national lines such as the West Coast Main Line and the East Coast Main Line. I sought merely to reflect the nature of "fit for purpose" in those terms.