Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Debate between Lord Snape and Lord Berkeley
Lord Snape
I am grateful for that clarification; perhaps if the noble Lord had made it at Second Reading we might have spent less time bickering. The noble Lord’s Amendment 33Y seeks to put into the Bill some exemption for franchise agreements. The Minister will correct me if I have got this wrong but I think the Government have taken care of those franchise agreements and arrangements within the Bill itself. If they have not, they left themselves enough time, with the consultative procedures that the Minister has so ably outlined, to look at them again over the next few months, when these consultative arrangements are actually taking place.
The problem with accepting the amendment, of course, is that in effect it would pre-empt that consultation and we would be likely to see the pubcos working their way around the legislation in the way about which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, warned us. So although I found him as lucid as ever, I think that he convinced one or two of us on this side of the House that his amendment not only was not necessary but, were it to be accepted by the Minister, would lead to an even worse situation than we are in. Surely the noble Lord can see that making exemptions in the Bill, denying the adjudicator and the Pubs Code the opportunity to consider what agreements should be exempt, and to reverse that exemption if it transpires that the exemption is being gamed at a later date to circumvent the legislation, is the proper way forward. I hope that the way in which the Minister indicates the Government’s attitude to this amendment will indicate the way in which they will take this matter forward.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, I am coming to the conclusion of my own remarks on the Bill. I would like again to say a few words about investment. It has been a consistent theme of the noble Lord that the Bill and the failure to accept his amendment would have a serious negative effect on investment that the pubcos make in licensed premises generally; I think that that is a fair summing up of his position. However, when one looks at what I repeat is the myth of investment by the pubcos, a different situation is immediately apparent. In 2014, for example, Punch invested £43 million in its core estate but sold pubs to the value of £111 million. It has already announced that it hopes to make £307 million from selling over 1,000 of its non-core estate. Enterprise Inns invested £66 million in pubs that year, then disposed of £73 million-worth of them. This does not sound to me like either a prosperous industry or an industry controlled by those who seek a sensible and profitable way forward for it, regardless of the legislation before your Lordships today.
Lord Berkeley
Could my noble friend clarify whether those investment figures are those quoted by the companies concerned, or are they the figures that they told the landlords they were investing but in fact did not, so the landlord had to do it and then got charged extra for the investment that did not happen?
Lord Snape
My Lords, the figures that I gave were the ones that the pubcos themselves published, but I certainly agree with my noble friend. Again, without detaining your Lordships too long, I could produce in the course of the debate on this amendment 14 or 15 independent licensees who told me—along, I am sure, with other noble Lords on both sides of the Chamber—about the broken promises made by the main pubcos about investment.
I admire the oratory and indeed the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, who not only told us that these institutions—the pubcos, whose creation he inadvertently deplored as a result of the legislation passed by a Conservative Government back in the 1980s —were really decent chaps who are anxious to invest in their property, but forecast the result of the election as a Conservative majority. However, my reaction is: has he put his money where his mouth is? Even better, perhaps he could put the pubcos’ money in that direction because, like me, he does not know the outcome. None of us does. Not even those well known pundits, the pollsters, can tell us the result of the next election. I admire his optimism, if not his sentiments, as far as the pub industry is concerned. I hope that the Minister will do as she has done with the two previous attempts made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, at amending this legalisation and will smother him with honeyed words but kick his wishes into touch.
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
Debate between Lord Snape and Lord Berkeley(9 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Snape (Lab)
Before the Minister replies, I endorse and agree with the remarks made by my noble friends. On Second Reading, I intervened on the Minister’s opening remarks. I said:
“I am sure that the House will recognise how far the Government have moved on this”—
that is, the principle of consultation—
“and will welcome that movement. However, can she assure us that any future discussions will involve representatives of the tenants and will not be dominated by the pubcos?”.
The Minister replied as follows:
“My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we are always discussing these issues”—
I emphasise the word “always”—
“and changes with tenants—that is extremely important when you are making changes of any kind—and, indeed, they have helped us to get to the position that we are now in”.—[Official Report, 2/12/14; col. 1243.]
That is not the view of the tenants who I have spoken to. Indeed, most of them take the view that the position we are now in is thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and some of the pubcos.
Although we are grateful to the Minister for the sympathetic way in which she pointed out that there was a difficulty with some of the amendments in the group, we should return to the question of consultation. I hope that she will spend some time explaining to us exactly what consultation has taken place and with whom. Is it true, for example, that, despite the Minister’s promise on Second Reading, the consultation with the representatives of tenants consisted of an hour or so in the department? What consultation has taken place with the pubcos in the department and elsewhere?
I have a feeling, looking around at the Room, that a considerable amount of entertaining—if I can put it that way—has gone on over lunch. Perhaps the views of the pubcos have played a major role not only in the grouping of the amendments—about which we rightly complain—but the sentiments that the Minister expressed and, I fear, will express, about the postponement of proper legislation that was voted on in the House of Commons but seems to us by the amendment and the grouping to be being flouted by the Government.
I hope that the Minister can reassure us at this early stage, because if she cannot, I can assure her of a fairly long and drawn out Committee sitting here today, and that a considerable number of amendments will be tabled at Report on behalf of those who feel that they have a raw deal under the existing arrangements and cannot see it getting any better under the Government’s proposals.
Lord Berkeley
Of course it could, but to some extent that defeats the object, because if it is a tied pub, the brewery is already supplying the beer. It would be for the tenant to decide; that is the point. If the tenant decided to do that and to have a monopoly with one brewery, that would be fine.
Lord Snape
I do not object, and I do not think my noble friend does either, to pubcos insisting that their tenants sell their own beer. His amendment states that they can buy that beer from any source, rather than from the pubco through the tie. I think I am correct. I do not know whether the examples he gave of the excessive price difference that tenants have to pay—the 50% to 70% that CAMRA revealed—are common, but I do not think even the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, could defend that sort of gap. Could the noble Lord emphasise that this is not about preventing pubcos from insisting that the tenants sell their beer but about the source of that beer and the price that the tenants pay?
Lord Berkeley
My noble friend raises an interesting issue. It is quite reasonable that a pubco that has a tied pub with tenants requires the tenants to buy the beer from them. That is the reason we are going through this—so that tenants can get out of it if they do not like it. While they are in it, the fact that they are buying beer at a certain premium—50% to 70%—provides part of the profit to the pubco, along with the rent. We can debate which. It has always been my understanding that if the tenants choose to go down the route of getting away from being tied, then presumably the calculation of the rent—we talked about this earlier—will in part take into account the loss of profit to the pubco in no longer being able to sell the beer at this inflated price to the pub.
There is a balance to be struck here. The amendment would allow the tenant to buy another beer from somebody else at whatever price and it would not necessarily affect the relationship with the pubco. It could do, but that is for negotiation. I hope I have clarified that.
Infrastructure Bill [HL]
Debate between Lord Snape and Lord Berkeley(10 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, it is worth reminding the House that we already have public sector operators in this country; we have lines owned by Dutch railways, French railways and German railways. They are not called that in this country—they have different names—but they are owned by those countries. On the continent, some of them operate effective, positive and well liked services; some of them are pretty awful. When you hear that Eurostar, which is still 40% owned by the British Government—although it is for sale—is allowed to bid for the east coast, but a company that is perhaps 100% owned by the British Government would not be allowed, it does seem a bit odd. I am sure that the Minister has an answer to that, but it seems to me that we are selling off our crown jewels in the shape of a piece of Eurostar and allowing the companies that buy them—perhaps from the continent, perhaps from elsewhere—to come back and provide a good service on certain occasions, but to compete a little unfairly against what our own companies might do if they existed.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I have followed this debate over the years with some interest and have a number of questions arising from this amendment that I would like to put to the Minister; perhaps my noble friend on the Opposition Front Bench would also like to consider them. I have no interest to declare in this debate other than the fact that I worked for the railway industry, as did my father. The romantic view, perhaps, of British Rail that some of my colleagues occasionally expressed was one that neither my father nor I shared.
Working for a nationalised railway industry, as I did before being elected to the other place and before being appointed to this House, was a massively depressing experience. Year after year, the amount of finance available to the railway industry was the subject of debate. It was quite often cut back. Short-termism was the only way to describe the finances of BR. Although I am no great supporter of the form of privatisation that the Government have inflicted on us, at least it has provided some degree of long-term continuity so far as railway finances are concerned—a continuity that did not exist when the railways were nationalised. Indeed, some of those in my own party used to mock what they called the concept of Morrisonian nationalisation. They said that it was not nationalisation at all and that the railways were being run by the civil servants. That view was widely shared by many of us who worked in the industry at the time.
I speak to this amendment not from any romantic attachment to a nationalised railway but as a confused supporter of the railway industry who wonders how we got into this particular mess in the first place as far as franchising is concerned. I have said in previous debates that what we have at the present is neither one thing nor the other. It is certainly not franchising. If we look at the new trains that are in the process of being ordered and built, it appears that they were designed by civil servants. The Government or civil servants set the fares as far as companies are concerned. The Japanese build the trains and the rest of us ride around the country in what remains of the whole industry. It is a confused picture, to say the least, but I do not feel that the amendment would help to clarify matters particularly.
I have one or two questions I want to put specifically to the Minister about the current process, before we look at whether or not directly operated railways should be allowed to bid for franchises. How are these decisions actually taken? The whole thing is shrouded in mystery. Various companies, we understand, put forward bids for the franchises, and a process of evaluation takes place behind the scenes. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how this process is conducted and who is involved in it.
If this amendment were to be accepted, would it mean that one desk in the Department for Transport would put together a bid and its merits or otherwise would then be decided by another desk in the Department for Transport? I hope that I am second to none in my admiration of the legal profession, which does not go unrepresented in your Lordships’ House, but if the answer is yes, one can imagine a bonanza for lawyers in the event of an appeal. Indeed, the taxpayer has just paid heavily for the mess that was the west coast main line franchise. Perhaps the Minister could tell us in passing exactly how much that cost.
If the amendment were accepted, how much does she envisage it would cost the taxpayer to fund legal inquiries or complaints if DOR’s bid—an internal departmental bid in some ways—were accepted over and above a private sector bid: or, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley rightly reminded us, a bid from a nationalised railway industry in Germany, France or Holland, to name but three? I hesitate to sound critical, but one can imagine the legal profession rubbing its hands at the prospect of such a financial fracas taking place behind the scenes.
Allowing DOR to bid is not particularly revolutionary. In the debate on privatising the railway industry in 1993, your Lordships’ House accepted an amendment moved by that well known left-winger Lord Peyton of Yeovil to allow the British Railways Board, as it then was, to bid for franchises. That amendment was struck out in the other place and we have the system of privatisation, franchising or whatever you like to call it that we have now. I do not wish to add to the difficulties of the Minister if, as I suspect, she rejects this amendment, but some clarification is long overdue before she does so as to exactly how this process works at present and how it would be affected if the amendment were accepted.
HGV Road User Levy Bill
Debate between Lord Snape and Lord Berkeley(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Snape
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Berkeley on this topic. I well recall nearly 40 years ago when I was first elected to the other place and was told that the most effective political lobby in the United Kingdom was the farmers. I came to realise that in that conclusion they may well have been right. After all, I seem to remember that the farming lobby managed to blame the spread of foot and mouth some time ago basically on Ministers in the Labour Government rather than on their own practices.
Certainly, one lobby that runs the farming lobby very close in its effectiveness is the road haulage lobby. Most of us in your Lordships’ House are old enough to remember the immediate post-war period when heavy goods vehicles—I think this referred to those above seven tonnes, but it was a long time ago so I would not like to put my shirt on it—had to carry a 20 miles an hour plate and were restricted to that maximum speed. Given the number of heavy goods vehicles that appeared on our roads after World War 2—many of the drivers were demobbed from our Armed Forces—that issue was the first campaign that I remember the road hauliers lobby indulging in. It was very successful and it has indulged in many campaigns since, many of which have been successful.
Since the end of World War 2, we have seen heavy lorry weights increase dramatically. I think that the maximum now is 44 tonnes, although the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. It used to be about 12 tonnes, so the industry has done well there. The length of heavy goods vehicles also has increased fairly dramatically over that period. Each and every increase in weight and length has been accompanied by a cry from the road haulage industry that there would be fewer vehicles on the road because they are bigger, longer and heavier, and that once the motorways had been built they would not be much of a nuisance anyway.
This is not strictly speaking a matter for this debate, but I would be interested to know—perhaps the Minister will tell me, or write to me if he does not have the figures now—how many heavy goods vehicles above the 12 tonnes figure mentioned in the Bill are on our roads now compared to, say, a decade or two decades ago. Although it is not a matter for this Bill, it would be interesting to see not only how successful the road haulage lobby has been but how accurate it was in its predictions.
Another of the lobby’s major complaints was about the number of foreign lorries on our roads. Reverting back to my experience in the other place, I chaired for 15 years the West Midlands group of Labour MPs. It was one of my duties—whether it would be considered onerous or not I leave to noble Lords to work out for themselves—to attend meetings of the Sandwell chamber of commerce, which covered my former parliamentary constituency. The chamber of commerce may not have been dominated by the issue, but certainly a strong presence from the road haulage industry raised the same issue more and more often. It questioned the number of foreign heavy goods vehicles on British roads, and how they were filling up on cheap European derv and able to snatch the bread from the mouths of British hauliers by demanding not only the freedom to travel on our roads, which of course they had, but to take loads back to the continent, which rightly should have been the job of British hauliers.
I was a bit cynical and not inclined to believe that entirely, because every time I asked how many of these wicked foreign hauliers were behaving in this manner I did not get an answer. I found it difficult to believe, and I believe that I expressed the rather unpopular view at the chamber of commerce that I could not honestly believe that Mr Norbert Dentressangle, in his brightly covered lorries, was as guilty of undermining the British road haulage industry as the allegation made at the time suggested.
The Minister talks about 1.5 million trips, which I assume refers to round trips. Are we talking about 750,000 heavy goods vehicles that will be covered, at least in theory, by this measure? I should like to know just how many of these wicked foreign hauliers there are. They cannot use the excuse that they are driving around on cheap, continental derv anymore, because I understand it is just as expensive on the continent as it is in the United Kingdom these days.
The Minister went on to say that the maximum price we could charge foreign hauliers on a daily basis was €11. That will make a big dent in the deficit, whether or not the Prime Minister was accurate in his summing up of it. I cannot off the top of my head multiply 750,000 times €11, but while it is not an inconsiderable sum it will not make much of a dent in the road budget, let alone the deficit as a whole. Therefore, is this piece of legislation actually necessary, given the amount of money it is likely to raise?
The Minister did not use the phrase “a level playing field”, but he implied that this would balance the differences between British hauliers and their continental counterparts. However, €11 a day does not strike me as a particularly large penalty if one considers that for a heavy goods vehicle to travel 100 miles on a German autobahn, it would pay tolls of between €35 and €46. We throw open the whole road network of the United Kingdom for €11, but if you drive a heavy goods vehicle through Germany it costs €35 to €46.
As I indicated, the Minister said that this mighty measure before your Lordships today would raise the sum of £19 million to £23 million. He might recollect that a few days ago we had a debate about toll roads, and I pointed out that there was a toll road in the West Midlands that was not used much by heavy goods vehicles. I have noticed that Eddie Stobart vehicles do use it, but by and large those are the only heavy lorries that I have ever seen on the toll road. The heavy goods vehicle industry generally uses the M6 motorway, which passes through my former constituency on an elevated section. During my 27 years as the Member of Parliament for West Bromwich East, I calculated that the taxpayer had spent something like £800 million repairing just that one section of the M6 because of the damage done to it largely by heavy goods vehicles. On the department’s own figures, the heaviest heavy goods vehicles do as much damage to Britain’s road network as 30,000 private cars. This great sum of £19 million to £23 million, therefore, might repair one archway of the Ray Hall viaduct in the West Midlands, but it will not make much of a dent in the overall road budget.
I therefore have to say to the Minister, as the wartime sign said, “Is your journey really necessary?” as far as this piece of legislation is concerned. We heard from him that continental hauliers can pay on a day-to-day basis—not something that is open to British hauliers, who pay through VED on an annual basis—so why give them this particular benefit, which will be not shared by their British counterparts? I do not know whether, again, this is a matter for Europe, but why not insist that lorries used in the United Kingdom pay on an annual basis? Then they could come and go as they wished. Why allow them to pay on a one-day, two-day or weekly basis: a privilege denied to their British counterparts? Perhaps the Minister could explain.
Of course the penalties for non co-operation, under this legislation, can only be described as pathetic as well. Is a maximum fine of £200 really going to deter a heavy goods vehicle driver with, perhaps, £30,000 worth of valuable cargo? It is surely not serious that we impose a penalty that is so palpably inadequate. The Minister and the Government ought to look again. Even that penalty is based, as I understand it, on a vehicle limit and the number of axles. Who in this country of ours would be able to tell the vehicle limit or count the number of axles?
That leads me to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley about enforcement. Is the Minister seriously going to tell your Lordships’ House that there will be proper and adequate enforcement of this legislation? If he is, I do not believe him. Let me refer him to one of this morning’s newspapers. I am sure that the Daily Mail is the Minister’s favourite newspaper. From its optimistic front page to its unbiased sketch writing, I always think of it as a newspaper of value and repute. Today there is a story in the Daily Mail which I cut out as, reading it on the train, I thought: “The Minister will be interested in this one”. It is headed: “Toll of illegal foreign cars on UK roads”. I appreciate that it is not about foreign lorries, but I will come to those in a moment. The story says that:
“Only four out of an estimated 15,000 foreign cars driving illegally on British roads were caught last year. And not one of their drivers was prosecuted”,
the Department for Transport said yesterday. Given that record, it does not inspire me with confidence that our jails will be full of non fine-paying continental lorry drivers. What can the Minister tell us about the likelihood of enforcement under this legislation?
About 15 years ago, the then traffic commissioner for the West Midlands, Mr John Mervyn Pugh, invited me to join him on what he described hopefully as a purge of overloaded vehicles on the M6 motorway, particularly foreign ones. My noble friend asked about an enforcement officer. I presume that that enforcement officer must be from the police, because we were accompanied by three or four police cars. Between Birmingham and Stafford, the police directed heavy goods vehicles off the motorway so that they could be checked.
Lord Berkeley
Clause 10 refers not to an enforcement officer but to a “stopping officer”. Perhaps my noble friend would like to comment on that.
Lord Snape
Whether stopping or enforcing, my only response is that I guess he would have to be in police uniform. Perhaps I might take your Lordships back 15 years to the enforcement on the M6. I still have the paperwork, which I kept. Out of 14 vehicles that were stopped, only three of which were foreign, six were overloaded. In two of them, the driver had exceeded the permitted number of hours. A couple were borderline, while one was taken off the road immediately because of its lack of roadworthiness. Only 14 vehicles were stopped because, within about 40 minutes, there were no heavy goods vehicles heading north on the M6. This is before the days of mobile phones; it was presumably in the days of CB radio, or whatever it was called.
The problems in enforcing legislation such as this are enormous. The fact is that we do not enforce the existing heavy goods vehicles regulations at the moment. How can we, when the traffic commissioner’s total staff 15 years ago was four to cover the whole of the West Midlands and Wales? Given the Government’s clampdown on the Civil Service, I do not suppose that there are 44 of them these days. I suspect that if those four positions are still in situ, that is about it. Are these the people who are going to enforce this particular legislation? I honestly very much doubt that.
The Minister says that there will be a reduction in vehicle excise duty for UK-based hauliers. I have to ask why. I have a copy here of the report of the Armitage inquiry, Lorries, People and the Environment, from December 1980. Your Lordships will be relieved to know that I have no intention of reading that fairly bulky document, but as I would summarise it it pointed out that the number of heavy goods vehicles on Britain’s roads in those days was possibly more than the road network could cope with. If we have moved on from 1980 to 2013, I repeat the question: how many heavy goods vehicles are there on our roads these days, compared with then?
I hope the Minister does not think that I have been too rude about this legislation but it is palpably inadequate and will not be enforced. I do not think that unenforceable legislation—given the present lack of enforcement, that is the only way this can be described—is at all sensible. It is not actually necessary because, despite the propaganda from the British road haulage industry, I do not see this as the great problem that it outlines. If it is, let the continentals pay exactly the same price as British hauliers pay to drive across Europe. If a Bill is necessary, I am afraid that this is not it.
Public Bodies (Abolition of the Railway Heritage Committee) Order 2013
Debate between Lord Snape and Lord Berkeley(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Faulkner. He has worked tirelessly on railway heritage. If it was not for him, we would now be in a complete mess. I was very surprised to hear the Minister say that the Railway Heritage Committee was a good example of voluntary work that has now been moved to the Science Museum. He said that it had had a bit of administrative support from the Science Museum before, or that it now has it. I cannot see what the difference is between them. It is moving the deckchairs for the sake of it. I suspect that it will cost more and do exactly the same thing; where is the benefit? My noble friend Lord Grocott talked about old steam engines. A month ago I went round the National Railway Museum in New Delhi, where most of the engines, as he said, were built in this country—largely in Glasgow—and they were very fine. I hope that this tradition continues. Of course, they now build very good engines of their own in India.
Having listened to the Minister’s explanation, which I believe lasted a good seven minutes, and to the story that my noble friend Lord Faulkner told about the work that he had to do just to move things across to the Science Museum, I am afraid that my only conclusion is: thank God he was there to do it. It will be fine in the future when the next Labour Government make things better, but this is a classic case of dogma ruling brain when it started. As my noble friend Lord Grocott said, I hope that it is not repeated.
Lord Snape
My Lords, I, too, join in the general chorus of discontent about the actions of the Government today. I support my noble friend Lord Faulkner and agree with his very able speech about the need to care for railway artefacts and his description of the work that the Railway Heritage Committee has done over the years. I have no personal interests to declare except that in the 1980s, along with the late Robert Adley, I served on the advisory committee to the Railway Heritage Committee, which was newly formed at that time. The work that it has done over the years is enormously commendable.
Some of the reminiscences—if I may put it like that—of my noble friend Lord Grocott apply to railway installations all over the world. However, there are many such installations still in the United Kingdom, which the Railway Heritage Committee would have been interested in seeing properly preserved. I do not suggest for a moment that transferring these matters to the Science Museum will necessarily adversely affect the future of railway heritage. However, I am conscious, as your Lordships will be conscious, that the Science Museum has lots of other things with which to concern itself. The great thing about the Railway Heritage Committee is precisely that it was concerned about our railway heritage, and worked to preserve that which we still enjoy at present and which future generations should also enjoy. I deplore and regret any diminution of that concern for our railway heritage as a result of this order.
I suspect, as did my noble friend Lord Grocott, that some civil servant somewhere drew up a list of quangos to be abolished and this one found itself on there. Even at this late hour, I urge the Government to think again. As a railwayman myself, and the son of a railwayman, I feel strongly about our railway heritage. I have bored your Lordships previously with stories about my own railway career. I point out that there are still artefacts—they can still be regarded as such—in use on the present-day modern railway which are well worth preserving. I am not sure I would have the ability, or that the Science Museum would have the time or patience, to listen to the case for preserving them. For example, there are signal boxes in the Stockport area, where I spent the early part of my career, which were built by the London and North Western Railway in the 1880s, and which still signal trains today. Do I approach the Science Museum when eventually those signal boxes are abolished, to say that these are part of our railway heritage, and ought to be kept?
I might say in passing that, although those of us who travel regularly on the west coast main line are familiar with the litany of equipment failures—“failure of lineside equipment” seems to be the stock response to any delays—that does not happen in the Stockport area. Thanks to the London and North Western Railway, which installed those signal boxes in 1888, they still do not have any problems, all these years later, in passing Pendolino trains through the town of Stockport. If we are properly to preserve that sort of railway heritage, we might need a wider scope than saying, “We will leave these matters to the Science Museum”.
So I ask, even at this late hour, for the Minister to reflect again. The abolition of quangos is not necessarily a bad thing, but the old proverb about babies and bath water certainly applies in this particular case.
Transport
Debate between Lord Snape and Lord Berkeley
Lord Berkeley
I, too, congratulate the Minister on opening this debate, but in doing so I reflect that he must be feeling a bit lonely. Eight Liberal Democrat colleagues are speaking but none of his own Back-Benchers. It makes me wonder whether his Back-Benchers support the coalition’s transport policy; perhaps he will tell us when he winds up.
Two months after the election, I thought that I would have a quick review of the progress of the coalition’s policies on transport. The policy on page 31 of the coalition programme states:
“We will stop central government funding for new fixed speed cameras”,
and use drug analysis instead. They are rather different in their effect—and their cause, probably. The Minister mentioned that in his opening remarks. First, can he explain how removing speed cameras will contribute to a reduction in road accidents? As we are talking about roads, perhaps he can also explain whether the Government will reduce the blood-alcohol limit from 70 milligrams to 50 milligrams, which I understand would save 200 deaths a year. That sounds good but maybe we will not get that either.
Secondly, on the HGV road user charges, perhaps he will explain what is green about that policy. It will help the UK haulage industry to compete with foreign lorries but unless the charge is quite high it will not help the environment very much.
Thirdly, the coalition programme states:
“We are committed to fair pricing for rail travel”.
However, in the Financial Times a week or so ago, the Secretary of State for Transport said that he would increase rail fares more than inflation. As the noble Lord, Lord Snape, mentioned earlier, that would surely reduce the number of passengers using the railways and encourage more people to go by car. What is safe and green about that?
Fourthly, the programme states:
“We will support sustainable travel initiatives, including the promotion of cycling”.
Will the Minister confirm whether the Government are removing the advance stop lines at many intersections, which are there to create a nice green box for cyclists to go into? Apparently Ministers believe that cyclists are slower than cars so the cars should get away fast. That is a policy for reducing rather than increasing the number of cyclists on our roads.
I am pleased that the Government will,
“reform the way decisions are made on which transport projects to prioritise”.
I think that is longhand for looking at the new approach to transport appraisals, which I welcome. Perhaps the Minister can explain when they are going to start.
Lastly, I want to concentrate my remarks on the Government’s statement that they,
“will make Network Rail more accountable to its customers”.
I fully support that. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, got there first and I am grateful to him for his declaration on my behalf. I am also one of the 100-strong membership of Network Rail, to which my noble friend Lord Snape alluded.
Lord Snape
Perhaps I may exempt my noble friend personally from any criticism of the 100 members of the board.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to my noble friend, but perhaps he had better wait to hear what I have to say. Infrastructure management and privatisation became Railtrack’s responsibility and most noble Lords would, I think, agree that that was a disaster. In management and engineering terms, it was a good way of siphoning perhaps £4 billion of public money straight from the Government to shareholders, but it did not last very long.
The new Network Rail is, I believe, much better than Railtrack in the sense that the network is in a much better condition. It is reliable and there has been a lot of investment in it. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, and others have said, the costs are getting very high. The Office of Rail Regulation has required Network Rail to halve its costs over 10 years, and we are about half way through that, but it still has a long way to go. As regards the value-for-money study chaired by Sir Roy McNulty, the document referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, is very significant. He was given a number of options and was told, first, to cut services; secondly, to grow services with increased costs, which is clearly unacceptable; and, thirdly, to do it cheaper—and if you do not do it cheaper, you have to close things. We need to work out ways of getting Network Rail and to some extent the train operators to do it cheaper. But we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath-water.
Noble Lords and people outside have come up with many ideas about what to do with Network Rail, which could range from a new management team to deliver cultural change, to breaking the company up into regional businesses, and, of course, the usual story of vertical integration—nationalised or in the private sector. However, we must be careful about the problem that we are trying to solve. It is easy to refer to benchmarking and great savings, but one must look at the detail and I suggest that the devil is in the detail.
I am against breaking Network Rail up. I certainly support Merseyrail’s idea of having a separate network there, probably extending to Wrexham, and to do a little bit of benchmarking. Of course, Transport Scotland is promoting a new line to the Borders, which will be designed, built and operated entirely without Network Rail. Therefore, that will produce some benchmarking. However, I calculate that if, for example, Scotland was separated off into its own infrastructure, there would be five passenger operators there and as many freight companies. The bureaucracy of the extra agreements between all these people in different areas would make it more complicated rather than less.
The problem with Network Rail is that, although it is far from perfect, the extra costs are in what we might call the sticky bits—the laws, the processes, the standards and the procedures that seem to govern every action. The other day, I was on a train going down a freight branch line when we were stuck on the main line for about half an hour. I asked the Network Rail person on the train, “What’s the problem?”. He said, “Well, they’re unpadlocking the points. In my day, 20 years ago, it took one person five minutes and now it takes three people 20 minutes”. It is the same job, so why does it take that long? Yesterday, I received an e-mail from some people stating that it was time that the railway did some research into dogs and their owners walking perhaps on a footpath beside continuously welded track. They said that the dog might get excited or worried by the whine of a train approaching and pull the owner on the lead towards the train and hurt the owner. I thought: why do we want to bother with things like that? If people cannot control their dogs and have the lead wrapped around their hand several times, why does the industry need to talk about research? Those are two stupid examples, but unless we start at the bottom and ask, “Do we need those standards at all?” and all that goes with them, we will not get anywhere.
Some suggest that Network Rail should be sold off, but we tried that with Railtrack, did we not? I think that we should improve what is there and define what kind of company it should be. It has decided on its own that it should emulate a public limited company and get efficient going forward with maximum achievements and, of course, maximum bonuses. That is its decision. No one has asked it to do that; the Government have never asked it to. It justifies that on the basis that it is like a plc. It is nothing like a plc, because it cannot go bust. We all know that no one would allow it to go bust, and, anyway, there are no shareholders. I am one of the 100 members, and our liability is limited to £1, which I suppose is comforting.
Should it not have some public interest duty to influence its activities? I do not think that the membership structure has worked. Network Rail effectively still appoints most of the members. We do not hold the company to account; that will not change. There are various alternatives which I hope that the Minister will consider. One of them has been mentioned before: a two-tier board, with the higher one to ensure that the public interest in the railways is maintained. Alternatively, members could all hand over their membership to the Secretary of State. When I put that to a Minister he said, “That’s fine. What happens if the members don’t want to hand over their membership?”. The answer is simple: turn off the finance. That might focus their thoughts. The third alternative is a mutual, with a small number of members elected by all interested stakeholders. That would give members legitimacy and a smaller number.
The real issue is that the board and the management need to reflect Network Rail’s public interest role, as well as driving efficiencies. It must drive them much more strongly from within. Iain Couch has done well up to now, but we now need someone else. It needs a new team dedicated to creating the most cost-effective, cost-efficient and least bureaucratic infrastructure manager in the world. I suggest that the figure of two to three times the best cost, which we have heard in this debate and from the regulator before, comparing Network Rail with other infrastructure managers, is mainly due to bureaucracy. It is the bureaucracy that must be cut through with a sword, because I do not want bits of the network to be lopped off because we cannot do it cheaper, we cannot run Parry People Movers or anything else. As someone else said in this debate, we do not need high-speed lines for Parry People Movers.
I hope that the Government, in considering what to do with Network Rail, will not throw the baby out with the bath-water but will make strong intentions clear that it must change. Whether that should be done from without or within, I do not know, but I will certainly support such change.