Rail Performance

Lord Sterling of Plaistow Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My previous statement about Euston could be added to only by saying that it would be very good if Avanti would like to run all the train services.

As far as the local rail services in Manchester go, I was with the Mayor of Greater Manchester last Thursday—six days ago—and there have been a lot of discussions between Transport for Greater Manchester and the department about a package of measures so that the mayor can replicate the success of his Bee Network for buses and the Metrolink with the railway service. Indeed, some of the discussion with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and her colleagues about the Bill that had its Third Reading earlier was about greater devolution. The mayor has an aspiration to have much more control over the local railway service, and I think we have a plan coming together to achieve that. The substantive railway Bill will give combined authority mayors a statutory role in that. In advance of that, we are making significant progress on fares, ticketing and service levels.

My final point is that the service, particularly with Northern, has been ravaged by driver shortages and industrial disputes. I referred earlier to an industrial dispute on Northern that has been going on for nine years and has not improved either the morale of the staff, customer service, or the reliability of the train service. We have resolved a dispute with Northern drivers and we are on the cusp of resolving a dispute with its conductors. That would be much to the benefit of all local rail travellers in Manchester and north-west England.

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

My Lords, I brought this up a few weeks ago. Apart from passengers—and the noble Lord knows more than anybody else on this subject—the main thing about the railway system is trade. I talked then about when I wanted to buy a trade line. At the time, P&O—or the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, if noble Lords really want its full name—controlled well over 25% of all transport in this country, and I wanted to buy a freight line. At that time, a huge number of trucks—thousands of them—were going up and down the main roads. We wanted to take all that freight on to the railway system. We controlled only about 3% of trade in continental Europe, but we wanted to take freight right the way through to Istanbul—2,500 miles and further. We are where we are today. The Minister knows much more about this than almost anybody else in this House, but there are thousands of vehicles going up and down the trunk lines. In practice, they could be taken off the roads, as is done in China and other great nations, particularly America, where the railway systems move all freight and heavy freight. At a time when we really want to make this much cleaner in this country, I suggest that that is something of great importance that should be considered.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The Government are committed to growing railway freight. I made a commitment during the passage of the Bill, the Third Reading of which we had today, that the Government would institute a growth target to increase freight traffic by rail in this country. The companies that do it are, for the most part, privately owned; they are commercial businesses and the terms on which they deal with the freight that they run are largely for them. However, the Government have some schemes to assist new freight flows and we will continue to look to do so in the future.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Lord Sterling of Plaistow Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 21st October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I am always fascinated when Members of the party opposite attack proposals from this side of the House on the grounds that they are ideological. What could be more ideological than the privatisation of the railway system back in 1994? In my view, Amendment A1, to which the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, spoke earlier, would create another bureaucracy—something the Conservative Party are normally against. No one would say, and I certainly would not, that a nationalised railway will be the answer to all our problems. Having worked in it, I know only too well it will not be. On the other hand, I think if you asked the average rail passenger for his or her view of the current system, they would say that anything would be better than what we have at the present time.

When it comes to ideology, I followed with interest the words of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, who talked about failings in the increased cost of electrification leading to the delay, and in some cases the cancellation, of various electrification projects. My noble friend the Minister, who will respond, has great experience of Network Rail, and he might comment on some of the costings—many of us would take an interest in those matters. I was surprised, to say the least, at some of the expensive projects that Network Rail has embarked upon and the failure of that organisation to work within the original estimates, as far as costs are concerned. I hope it will not upset the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, too much, but his sojourn as Secretary of State for Transport is not looked upon by the railway community with any great favour. His view that in some cases electrification was unnecessary and that what was needed was bi-mode trains did not particularly please passengers. I recently moved home, from the Birmingham area to Gloucestershire, where I now have the pleasure—doubtful pleasure that it is—of travelling on Great Western’s bi-mode trains. They are often subject to cancellation and, again, the usual view from my fellow passengers is that the sooner the railway is renationalised, the better.

My noble friend Lord Berkeley is regarded as an expert on railway costings—he shakes his head, but he should not be so modest; he certainly played a major role with his views on HS2 and its finances. He mentioned the Office of Rail and Road. In the context of this amendment, can my noble friend the Minister tell me what role is envisaged for the ORR in future? I hope he will not be too offended if I say it is a misnomer: it is certainly an office for railways, given that it intervenes on various grounds—in my view, improperly, because there are proper roles for those responsible for railway safety in the industry—but appears to play no role at all as far as the road network is concerned. The fact that something approaching 2,000 people are killed on our roads on an annual basis is not something that detains the ORR. I hope my noble friend can tell me what role he envisages for the ORR in the newly nationalised railway system.

Finally, just to hark back to 1994 and the privatisation Act, fundamentally it adversely affected the railway industry. In 1994—again, I apologise for the history lesson—the railway system in Britain was regarded as the most efficient and effective in western Europe; certainly the subsidies paid to the rail industry in those days were less than those paid in countries such as France and Germany. The sectionalisation of the railway industry in the 1990s, largely at the behest of a Conservative Government—I do not make any complaints about that, as Governments have opinions—led to a much more readily identifiable system of costings for the industry overall. For the first time, we saw exactly which parts of the railway were profitable, which were not and which needed perhaps more money spent on them in the future than had previously been envisaged.

The relationship between Sir Bob Reid mark 1, the then chairman of the railways board, and Mr Nicholas Ridely, the Secretary of State at the time, was an extremely fruitful one. I am not here to announce any great fondness for Lord Ridley but I think that he appreciated what the railway industry was doing, largely at his behest at that time. I understand—although I do not wish to attribute words to him long after his death—that he was more than a little concerned about the mode of privatisation envisaged by the Government at the time, largely because of the success that he felt he had had in improving and defining the railway industry’s relationship with the Government of the day.

I hope that, when my noble friend the Minister responds to this amendment, he will appreciate at least that, whether the railways are privatised or public, all too often railway passengers—or customers, as they are somewhat laughably known these days—do not feel that their views on the provision of the service are listened to or that there is a proper voice for them. It is some years since the transport users’ consultative committees were abolished. Can my noble friend say what plans he has for better passenger consultation in the future?

In conclusion, I hope that my noble friend will not get too bogged down in the bureaucratic desires of the party opposite. Future amendments that we will come to, from the Conservative Party or its Front Bench, appear to believe that railway management has nothing better to do than put together various plans, which no doubt will be torn apart by those who feel that the railways are not delivering the service that they should. I await with interest my noble friend’s response to the amendment. I know that he will bear in mind that we ought to be concerned about the passengers of the future—the passengers of the past having been sadly neglected.

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

My Lords, trade moves by trains. Why do I bring that up? Some of your Lordships may remember that when Freightliner was put up for sale, P&O—the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, to give its full name—bid for it, and we were told by the competition authorities that, at that time, we already controlled 25% of transport movements for the whole of the UK and therefore we could not take it over.

I went to see the Secretary of State for Transport and everybody involved with this—our own people—to say that it was ridiculous. In practice, what we really wanted was to have a fast line for container trains, at night as well as in the day, from Glasgow right the way through to Istanbul, non-stop, for 2,500 miles, moving trade backwards and forwards in a major way. We had only about 3% of the trade in Europe, and I thought that, at that stage, it would have made a huge amount of sense. With those double trains going right the way through and the movement of trade, we would now be in a much finer position for doing trade in a much more major way, 2,500 miles away and further. I thank your Lordships for listening to me.