Rail Fares

Debate between Paul Maynard and Tom Harris

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harris]

That says quite a lot about the Secretary of State’s reluctance to accept her own culpability for supporting the spending plans of the previous Labour Government.

I do not believe that the railway industry is broken, or a basket case. I was proud to serve as a railway Minister in the last Labour Government, and I understand the successes that have grown from 13 years of Labour governance of the railway industry. We have more people travelling on the railways than at any time in their history outside of wartime. We have more services every working day than ever before, and punctuality is at an all-time high. Those were achievements that this Government have managed to continue—and I hope that that continues—but fares are a fundamental weakness. They are the crucial interface between the travelling public and the railways and—irrespective of the public subsidy to the railways—if we do not make rail travel affordable for ordinary people, it will not be surprising if they feel that the railways are letting them down.

The previous Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), famously described the railways as a “rich man’s toy”. A few weeks ago, I challenged the Secretary of State in the Transport Committee about whether she agreed with that assessment and, understandably, she did not want to commit herself. She told the Transport Committee that she wanted to see the balance between the taxpayer and the fare payer move towards the latter. She also said that in the long term she wanted the fare payer to pay less. Well, she can have one or she can have the other, but she cannot have both. It is clear that unless the taxpayers’ contribution is increased, fares will not come down. The Secretary of State refused to answer that point at the time.

[Paul Maynard]

The hon. Gentleman raises the interesting question of whether the burden can be switched to the fare-paying passenger at the same time as reducing fares. Does he agree that if we do what McNulty recommends and try to reduce the overall cost base of the railways, that conundrum could be solved?

[Mr Harris]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who also sits on the Transport Committee, is as much of an expert as any other Member, and I will agree to consider his comments.

The Prime Minister was wrong today and failed to give the facts about the policy of the last Labour Government and the policy of this Government. Even if it was for only one year, Lord Adonis managed to challenge the rail industry on the so-called basket of fares and whether the RPI plus 1% policy should apply to individual fares or to a basket of fares. He got a lot of support on both sides of the House for insisting—against the arguments of his own officials and the resistance of the industry—that that policy should apply only to individual fares. As we know, if it is applied to a basket of fares, some can go up by 6%, instead of 1%. Whether or not that was a temporary agreement for one year, surely when a new franchise is let the Minister has a responsibility to challenge the industry and set such an arrangement in stone at the very start.

When the railways were first privatised, the policy—it was then RPI minus 1%—was applied to a basket of fares, as agreed with Ministers. That was what Lord Adonis succeeded in challenging, but sadly only for one year. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that, in future new franchises, the Adonis approach will be applied to fares to protect fare payers and to ensure that train operating companies take money out of their own pockets, rather than the pockets of fare-paying passengers?

Rail Investment

Debate between Paul Maynard and Tom Harris

Thursday 17th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Paul Maynard]

I agree almost entirely with that point—but perhaps only 80%. It very much depends on where someone is flying from and where they are going to, and I suggest that in 15 years’ time perhaps no one will be flying domestically to Heathrow, if only because it might have ceased to be an international hub. We might all be flying to Paris, Amsterdam or Frankfurt, but that is another matter entirely.

The key variable in the discussion on HS2 is demand. Whether demand will increase is contested, but as someone who travels regularly on the west coast main line, I know full well that that line is already reaching capacity. The east coast main line is also struggling, and we cannot have people being herded into pens at Euston station on a Friday evening and say that we are not at capacity already. I accept entirely the argument that extra capacity has to be provided, but it is not simply a matter of expanding a few platforms here and inserting a few carriages there, making cattle class a literal concept for millions of travellers. We have to discuss what type of capacity to provide, and I realise that that is perhaps a confused area for people on both sides of the argument.

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

The record will show that the hon. Gentleman has just referred to a literal cattle class. I hope that he will take time to examine exactly what that means. When I was in a previous position and people used to challenge me about whether it was right to treat humans in the same way as cattle, I was always quick to point out that the cattle’s final destination was somewhat less enjoyable than Paddington.

[Paul Maynard]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, but the conditions that many passengers are forced to face on our inter-city trains are analogous to those experienced by animals, even if their end destination is perhaps more pleasant.