Railways

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

rose—

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Burns]

I am trying to answer my hon. Friend’s question. His second point is also absolutely right. As he knows—and as Labour desperately tries to forget—since privatisation the number of passengers using our rail network has doubled, the number of journeys on our rail network has doubled, the standards have improved noticeably—but there is still some way to go to get even better quality and standards for passengers—and the investment in the infrastructure to improve the quality of the journeys has increased. It is incredible that, although the Labour party pays lip service to a good, efficient rail system, in 13 years of the last Labour Government there were just 10 extra miles of electrification on the network, yet in the first three years of this coalition Government there have been 850 extra miles of electrification.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Ian Murray]

rose—

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Gentleman has had his turn, so I suggest he sits down. I will now give way to the hon. Lady, and then I will make progress.

[Sheila Gilmore]

If our system is so much better than the European systems that have more state control, why is it that Members, including on the Government Benches, have been saying that the costs here are too great? Is there, perhaps, some relationship between the costs under a privatised system as opposed to the costs under a state-run system?

[Mr Burns]

I think I am in a better position than the hon. Lady to know what my hon. Friends say, as I probably mix with them more frequently than she does. They are impressed that since privatisation the number of passengers using the rail network has doubled, the number of rail journeys has doubled and the amount of freight on rail, and off our congested roads, has increased by 60%. They want continued investment in infrastructure to improve the quality of journeys and to improve rolling stock and track electrification so that people can travel around this country by rail far better than under British Rail. As someone who, sadly, is old enough to remember British Rail, I find it incredible that so many—almost dinosaurs—on the Opposition Benches seem to have a rose-tinted view of how fabulous it was. It was not.

I turn to the safety aspects of the package, which are important and are of major interest to the various sectors in the UK rail transport chain. In consultation with stakeholders, we are giving full consideration to their implications. The proposal to move from a two-part safety certificate to a single-part certificate is welcome as a simplification of the existing process. We expect it to lead to a significant reduction in the costs and regulatory burdens for railway undertakings. It will especially benefit those who operate cross-border services.

However, we need to look carefully at the justification for the extension of powers for the European rail agency to issue the single safety certificate, and we need to understand how it supports market opening objectives. Enhancement of the agency’s powers for audit and inspection of national safety authorities will change its current role. It is a fundamental shift away from a partnership role to a policing function. We are not convinced that those powers are necessary given the high level of co-operation already achieved between the majority of national safety authorities. We will ask the European Commission for further clarity about how any issues exposed will be resolved.

The communication includes proposals for a recast of the interoperability directive for railways. The Commission believes that there are problems with the authorisation process for rail vehicles, especially when the vehicle is intended for use in more than one member state. It refers to delays and costs reported by operators to the Commission owing to vehicles sitting idle in sidings awaiting authorisation from national safety authorities. To solve the problem, the Commission proposes a recast of the directive and changes to the authorisation process. A key change would be that the applicant applied to the European rail agency instead of the national safety authorities for authorisation of their vehicle.

Removal of powers from national safety authorities to the agency will change their role. The three safety authorities in the UK—the Office of Rail Regulation, the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission and the Department for Regional Development in Northern Ireland—will no longer be able to issue those authorisations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

There is actually something slightly surreal about this debate. So often in this Chamber we hear diatribes from Government Members about how Europe is trying to tell us what to do and interfering in how we do things. We now seem to have a situation in which the Government and many—although not quite all—Back Benchers who have spoken, seem to be happy for us to impose on countries in Europe our view of how railways should be run.

I raised this issue earlier today and perhaps the Minister will answer this time. It seems slightly odd that the McNulty report—which has been mentioned particularly by Conservative Back-Benchers—said that the cost of running the railways seems to be much higher in Britain than in European countries that have a higher degree of state rail operations. If that is the case, why do we suggest that our system is so much better?

In any event, why does Europe have to impose a one-size-fits-all proposal? Why not allow national Governments to have the choice? We are not necessarily arguing that countries must choose to run all their railways publicly. Apart from anything else, a comparator is extremely useful. In politics, we do not often get a chance to see different ways of doing things at the same time, in similar economic circumstances. A comparator allows us to say that one thing works and that another does not.

The five years since East Coast was set up by Directly Operated Railways to run the service have been helpful in that regard. We have learned a considerable amount. The Minister is fond of telling us, as he has today, what Lord Adonis and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) said five years ago, but we must learn from what happens. The Secretary of State said earlier today that we must base our decisions on evidence. We now have evidence. In the light of the evidence, it is right to say that we perhaps want to do things in a different way. That is not unreasonable, especially for a Government who have turned semi-circles and circles and done U-turns in a shorter time than five years—they turned on the pasty tax and the caravan tax within months. It is reasonable, after five years, to say that any EU country should be able to choose to have directly operated services. They might want both directly operated services as well as franchises. Why not have both?

East Coast is making an important contribution to our environmental ambitions by making the service more attractive, particularly to people in Scotland, who have the alternative of flying—they are not a captive market. East Coast has made the service more attractive by extending services. It has an early morning service—a fast runner—and an evening service that enables people to get back after a late meeting. It offers a service to business customers and those who are able to take advantage of the first class service. Because of that, they might say, “I’m going to take the train rather than fly.” That is very important environmentally.