Railways: Investment

Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for repeating this important Statement on investment in a crucial mode of transport in this country—the railway. I find a little tendentious the Government taking pride in investment decisions as if the groundwork had not been laid in the past. I hope the noble Earl is not suggesting, for instance, that there was a decision to be taken about continued investment in Crossrail or that Thameslink might have been abandoned, given the vital nature of both developments and the existing investment in these crucial services to the capital. When one is talking about long-term investment and the necessity for a Government to build upon the work of their predecessors—where often such investments are bound to span beyond the lifetime of any particular Administration—I hope the noble Earl will appreciate, as will the House, that tendentious criticism is ill placed. It is better that one should emphasise how the needs of the nation are being served.

I fear that an aspect of this approach may be reflected in the fact that the Statement contains some less attractive news as well as the confirmation of certain projects. Let me deal first with the projects which are being confirmed, both of which are subject to delay—Crossrail by one year and Thameslink by two. The adduced reason for this is that London Bridge station is subject to major reconversion, redevelopment and change. Whoever doubted that? The idea that the difficulties with London Bridge are a ready explanation for additional delay will not wash. What reflects the delay, of course, is the extent to which the Government are prepared to commit resources.

This is also true in areas where much greater disappointment will be felt. The limited commitment to the Great Western mainline development leaves adrift any commitment to electrification in Wales. In fact, the commitment to electrification does not go beyond Oxford in these proposals, and so south-west England will also be disappointed with this limited position.

It has been suggested that the Secretary of State for Wales is so concerned for her constituents with regard to the potential high-speed rail line that she is prepared to resign if it is not readjusted. She has her constituents’ interests properly at heart and, as Secretary of State for Wales, she has also the interests of a nation at heart. It would therefore behove her to think about the implications of the limited service and investment in rail in Wales in these proposals as well as her own constituency.

This gives me the opportunity to emphasise the fact—which is true with regard to the high-speed rail link, but perhaps more pronounced, as with all other rail investments—that we have to appreciate that delays cost heavily not only on the resources of the nation but also upon private citizens. If we are not clear about important routes, private citizens will sustain the costs of planning blight. I have no doubt about the difficulties involved in planning the route of the high-speed rail link and the noble Earl will know that we were committed to that development. I hope that when the Statement is made in the new year a similar commitment will be reaffirmed by this Government. I hope also that it will be recognised that it is important to define that route clearly and quickly. Whatever problems there may be for rural England—I do not underestimate the issues for an area of outstanding natural beauty such as the Chilterns—one must also recognise that uncertainty about the route going to Britain’s second city, Birmingham, has colossal implications for planning blight in that area and costs to citizens and businesses. After all, given that the high-speed rail link is predicated on the economic benefits that it will bring to the nation, we should be careful to minimise the cost. We shall scrutinise critically the new year announcement in those terms.

Tendentious reference was made to the 1,300 carriages planned by the previous Government—we also had £1.2 billion of investment scheduled for that. The noble Earl has reiterated the Statement, so I know where its origins lie—namely, with the Secretary of State. If it is contended that the previous Government had submitted a piece of paper rather than a plan, such conjecture is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and freedom of information. It is quite clear that the Permanent Secretary at the department thinks that the plans that were laid for 1,300 carriages were clear and were to be developed. Where does the figure of 650 come from? Well, I am not the leading mathematician in the House, but even I can work out that it is exactly half of a number which the noble Earl pretends had been plucked out of thin air. It had not been plucked out of thin air; it was part of a departmental plan for 1,300 carriages to which we were committed and of which this Government are prepared to commit only to precisely half. We will look at that with critical scrutiny as well.

Of course, we welcome the constructive parts of the Statement; for example, with regard to electrification in the area around Manchester and Liverpool. We recognise that these projects cost significant sums of money and we know that there are limits on public expenditure. There was anxiety on all sides that the Government’s commitment to reducing the fiscal deficit might lead to an abandonment of future investment in vital infrastructure. I therefore commend the Government on having made a Statement today which meets some clear objectives in those terms. However, it has been expressed in terms that scarcely bear any scrutiny that would be satisfactory to this House.