Skip to main content

Railways (Investment)

Volume 25: debated on Wednesday 16 June 1982

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

3.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when next he intends to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss investment in the railways.

5.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail the level of investment required by British Railways to enable them to continue the productivity improvements achieved in 1981.

I meet the chairman regularly to discuss investment and other matters of mutual interest.

When will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that British Rail is an important national asset which requires increasing investment, and that some parts of it are now being run down as a result of the Government's parsimony and their deliberate attempt to use investment as a means of attacking the trade unions? The trade unions have co-operated with the British Rail management for many years in getting increased productivity on the railways, and that should be recognised by giving increased investment to a vital national asset.

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is other people who should recognise that British Rail, in the service that it gives to the public, is an important national asset. Of course we want to see a high level of investment in the railway system, but the problem with investment is not Government constraints but the fact that investment resources have been drained away in day-to-day losses and industrial disputes. If the hon. Gentleman feels as he does, rightly, about the future of the British Railways system, he should use his influence to see that those disputes do not do any more damage to the future investment programme of the railways.

I acknowledge that productivity issues remain to be resolved, but will the right hon. Gentleman concede that the rail unions have delivered massively on manning reductions and on productivity? Will he give some encouragement to the rail community, especially in these critical and tense times, by authorising major investment programmes, such as the East Coast main line programme, instead of making ludicrous, Luddite charges against the rail unions, as he did last Friday, which only inflame the situation?

I recognise fully that there has been some demanning in line with reduced demand. That took place last year and the year before. But at this moment productivity agreements have been signed and pay is being drawn for them, and these should surely be honoured. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will share the view that that is the proper way to proceed. Productivity and progress on productivity are the key to the future. The more that is realised, the better.

Is it not rather pathetic that we should have the kind of supplementary questions that we have just heard from the Opposition Benches? Is it not a plain, simple fact that investment in British Rail, which is very important, can be justified only if at the same time there are increases in productivity and, in particular, an abandonment of the restrictive trade practices of the nineteenth century, which are exemplified by ASLEF on flexible rostering?

My right hon. Friend is wholly correct. Productivity and investment go hand in hand. It is no encouragement when substantial investments are made in new electric equipment and in new electric rolling stock if they are not manned properly. The problems of 1982 cannot be solved with the attitudes and practices of 1919.

Has the Secretary of State read the statement by Sir Peter Parker about the massive increase in productivity in the carriage of rail freight in recent years, and particularly last year, when there was an increase of more than 20 per cent. in tonne-mileage freight productivity? Will he accept that, in the light of that, his right hon. Friend's question shows a lamentable ignorance of what is happening on the railways?

I have also read the view that the entire new system of air brake freight wagons is still run on old manning practices and that, regrettably, overall, despite demanning, improvements in the productivity of British Rail have been marginal. That is the real starting point that one has to face.

While many of us would like to see further investment in British Rail, is it not discouraging that there are examples of investment in new, modern equipment which is lying unused because of the practices that are continuing among British Rail employees?

It is indeed a discouragement and an obvious disincentive to the taxpayer and the British public to invest new large sums in British Rail. Productivity and investment must go hand in hand. If the investment is made and then not worked properly, or worked only on traditional practices, that is not a great incentive to invest further in British Rail.

4.

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he gives to the consequences of resulting service reductions when deciding on investment in British railways.

It is for the British Railways Board to formulate investment proposals to meet its business needs, and within the resources available to it.

Is the Minister not aware that the rail service between London and Birmingham has already been reduced because of the state of the track? Is it the Government's intention, whether inadvertently or not, to force all freight and passengers, including the Minister and myself, off the railway system and on to the M1 and M6 motorways?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that the board receives over £2 million a day from the Government in grants to support its passenger services. I expect the board to meet the costs of maintaining the network out of those substantial resources.

With regard to reduced services, what redress have the general public, the local authorities or, indeed, Members of Parliament if British Rail continues to reduce services to a state where they are inconvenient to the travelling public and will not accept the views of those in the area that the service is inconvenient?

I emphasise that it is for the British Railways Board to manage the railways and to arrange timetables. Although, naturally, we expect the board to make wise use of its resources, we also expect it to conduct its affairs on a sensible business basis to take account of passengers' needs. If there is a conflict of view such as my hon. Friend has mentioned, his constituents are entitled to complain to the transport users' consultative committee, which will investigate the matter.

In the sense that the loss of the APT is not conducive to an amelioration of the service, can the Minister say what is the position on the APT? Why is it not being used? What is the delay? How long will it be before it is used?

The hon. Gentleman will know that British Rail has decided to make a considerable investment in the APT. There has been some disappointment with the immediate results, but I understand that British Rail hopes to make further progress on it.

Will my hon. Friend tell British Rail and those who work in it that unless its efficiency and productivity approach those of the rest of British industry he will be unable to ask the rest of British industry and those who work in it to pay the taxes to maintain existing services, leading to a massive reduction in the services currently available.

There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. Progress has been made in these matters, but British Rail needs to generate resources itself by continuing to cut costs and by improving productivity to meet the changing needs for its services.