asked Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to deal with overcrowding and capacity on railway services.

The noble Lord said: I make no apology for bringing the subject of railways back to your Lordships. We are desperately short of capacity now. There is no spare passenger rolling stock on the railway. In many cases, you cannot park a car after 8 am because the car parks are full. There is no energy strategy, despite the looming oil crisis, and, generally speaking, there are no diversionary routes available for much of the network. I submit that there is a lot of suppressed demand in the system, and frustration among passengers will grow and grow.

The reason for this is not the lack of potential investment. The Government do not have the cash anyway, but franchisees and rolling stock companies have plenty of cash, and utilities are a good investment, particularly at a time when stock markets are falling.

I believe that the Government’s lack of vision is causing this crisis. The Government and their officials are very good at producing reports, studies and procrastination. They are poor when it comes to vision, courage and enterprise. Because of that, there is a lack of investment.

The Minister for railways in another place is very strong about not writing detailed timetables or managing the rolling stock cascade. These things are repeated over and over again. But there is no rolling stock; there are bottlenecks which prevent timetabling being more flexible. The Government, in my submission, have the industry by the throat. Their policy is to eke out capacity by means of high fares and short franchises, which means lack of investment. Indeed, the franchises are too short to enable the investment demands to be met. If somebody says that the rolling stock companies can buy more rolling stock, there is the question of getting the Government’s permission or getting residual guarantees. So the Government are holding the industry by the throat.

I have some proposals. The southern franchise is about to be specified and I suggest that this specification should include the opening of the Uckfield to Lewes line. All of us who know about railways know that that is the key to unlocking capacity on the Brighton main line, which is one of the most congested in the country. It would enable us to access the south coast by one way or the other when, as frequently happens, engineering work blocks the main line. But that specification should be much wider and more generous. It should insist on more car parking space—not the odd hundred spaces here or there but thousands. It should insist on longer platforms and more rolling stock. That franchise will come at a price, which may be that you have to give the people longer. I believe that the best thing we can do is to make the franchise as long as necessary with flexibility, rising performance standards, maximum fares related to the retail prices index, investment, commitment and revenue-sharing arrangements, which would give both parties some protection.

I turn to the subject of the west coast main line and the Virgin franchise. I remind the Minister that we have a Question about that on Monday and I hope to get more answers then than he may be able to give today. This line is already full—my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie will elaborate on that—and is growing at 10 per cent per annum, which is much faster than the Government forecast. We must have more capacity well before 2012. I gather that negotiations have broken down between Virgin and the department but I suggest that the Minister for railways goes by himself to meet the managing director of Virgin—without officials from the department, the Treasury, BERR, or lots of the consultants who support them—and that the two of them lock themselves in a room until an agreement is reached. That is how international diplomacy works, and I suggest that Scotland and England may be classed as international in this context. I am sure that Mr Harris is quite above any bribery.

I would not like to be the rail Minister, who in two or three years’ time goes to the country and visits the north-west and Scotland. By then, the railway system will be bursting at the seams; there will be wicked overcrowding and very high fares. What sort of legacy is that for a Minister for railways?

We know that train lengthening and resignalling are much, much cheaper than building new roads or railways. The figures are based on capacity and on the cost of doing the work, and I am perfectly happy to let the Minister see the figures if he has not already done so.

I should like to say another thing about electrification. I have had a piece of work done privately by an individual and he has shown that, by electrifying 167 route miles, which is a very small amount, we could convert a large number of InterCity or near- InterCity trains from diesel to electricity, which would enhance several of the diversionary routes. I know that there are arguments against electrification. They are fostered by people in the department who talk about things such as the advent of a fuel cell. I was around longer ago than I care to remember when fusion and advanced nuclear power were going to make electricity so cheap that we could almost give it away. That did not happen and I am sure that fuel cells are also pretty unlikely to happen.

I want to make one last point. The department is arranging a competition for the InterCity Express. This will be a train powered by diesel and electricity. If, instead of putting diesel on that train, a coupling was put at each end which could easily and automatically be attached to a diesel locomotive, then the extremities of the system—which by the time this comes along will probably be Plymouth, Cardiff, Edinburgh and places such as that—will be able to be serviced by electric trains by simply towing them with a diesel engine over the last bit of the line. One has to remember the huge advantage that would be gained from not having diesel engines and not carrying around the huge quantities of fuel that each of these trains has when it sets off on its day’s work.

The railways are in a crisis, but there are ways out of it which a Minister with the courage of the honourable Member responsible for rail services can find. However, he will have to cut himself loose from the bureaucracy and paraphernalia that surround his office in order to branch out, saying, “This is what I’m going to do. This is how we’re going to do it. You can keep all your consultants’ reports because I know that this is common sense, and that is what I want to do”.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for securing this debate, and the thrust of my comments will be not dissimilar to his. The issue is important as demand for rail services continues to rise, with growth at 6 per cent a year being twice the rate assumed in the 2007 White Paper. In 2006, a total of more than 45 billion passenger kilometres were travelled; that was an increase of 6.5 per cent over the previous 12 months and was indeed the highest growth rate in Europe. Over the past decade, passenger kilometres travelled have risen by well over 40 per cent, again the highest in Europe, and are now at a higher level than at any time since 1946. Freight traffic has also been increasing, with tonne kilometres up by more than 60 per cent since the beginning of the 1990s. With the population rising, the economy growing, road congestion at the very best unlikely to decline and the cost of fuel on an upward trend, the increase in numbers travelling by rail and the expansion in freight traffic will continue.

Some increases in capacity are in the pipeline, as set out in the White Paper. Crossrail will add significantly to London’s total public transport system, but it is to be nearly another decade before services start to operate, and that is assuming that the plans run to time. The July 2007 Government White Paper was widely welcomed for the positive future it outlined for rail, but it was based on an increase in rail capacity to address growth of 22 per cent up to 2014, and beyond that a projected doubling of traffic over the next 30 years. The question is this: has the increase in rail capacity been underestimated in the light of continuing trends, and if so, what needs to be done to deal with the overcrowding and capacity shortfalls that will result? One answer is to put up the fares and freight charges to reduce demand until it matches whatever is the existing capacity. That is certainly a policy, but it is not one with which I would agree, and I hope to hear from my noble friend that it is not a policy that the Government would countenance. That is because it is not much good extolling the environmental advantages of rail and encouraging people to use public transport if the supply side of the equation in the form of capacity is not to be effectively addressed to meet the demand.

It is with this point in mind that I, too, want to raise a question about addressing capacity issues in the short term on the west coast main line. In December 2006, Virgin Trains entered into an amended franchise agreement based on forecasts of an average annual 9 per cent growth in passenger demand to the end of the franchise period in 2012. The actual demand since December 2006 has exceeded forecasts and is already running at levels predicted for 2008-09. Service frequencies are to be increased before long with, for example, three trains per hour to Birmingham and Manchester, but the current capacity of the Pendolino trains will not cope with the future predicted growth, so there will be overcrowding before the end of the franchise term. Virgin Trains says that lengthening the Pendolino trains from nine to 11 cars would address capacity concerns which already exist at peak times and accommodate predicted growth on the franchise up to 2018. But in return for the risks arising from disruption to passengers and the financial expense of such a train-lengthening programme, I understand that Virgin Trains sought a two-year extension on the franchise to enable it to recoup the investment.

This the Government appear to have declined to agree to, presumably on the basis that either they do not think it represents value for money for the taxpayer, or alternatively because they do not accept Virgin Trains’ forecast on traffic growth and the consequences for overcrowding on the west coast main line. I would like to hear from my noble friend what the Government’s position is on addressing the apparently imminent overcrowding issue on the west coast main line. Are discussions still continuing with Virgin Trains or is there a complete impasse? That specific case is important because similar issues could arise from all the other routes if, as seems quite likely, the Government’s projections for passenger growth up to 2014 in the 2007 White Paper prove to be significantly lower than reality. We cannot afford to have lengthy wrangles between the Government and operators and either delay in taking the necessary action or take no action at all, because it will be the passengers, both actual and potential, who will bear the adverse consequences in particular and it will be the Government's transport policy which will bear the adverse consequences in general.

I turn to the wider question of what the Government intend to do in the light of the much greater growth in rail traffic than that projected in the recent White Paper. Is it intended to speed up work on the initial short-term plans up to 2014 and the development of the medium-term plans scheduled for 2014 to 2019, so that they can be implemented earlier if growth continues to be stronger than forecast? Will further planning for electrification be started now, because, as has been said, electrification can raise capacity? Will work start on new line planning? We need action to be taken now if we are to address the imminent serious problems arising from success for the railway industry. The problems will be upon us with no solutions in place or just around the corner if we take the view that we act only when the crisis is already upon us, rather than acting early enough to avoid the problem in the first place.

The Government's approach to the railway industry has been positive and the White Paper was a major step forward. However, what I want to hear from my noble friend is not only answers to my specific questions about the lengthening of the Pendolino trains on the west coast main line, but what action the Government intend to take now to address the real likelihood, in the light of current trends and figures, that their estimates of growth in rail traffic in the 2007 White Paper are significantly understating the actual position of a railway network that already has capacity and overcrowding issues on some key routes and at some key locations.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for securing this short debate. He certainly scored a point with me, because I have been in the House for very many years and this is the first time that I have spoken on a transport issue, although I have spoken on many—perhaps too many—other subjects.

I declare an interest, because I attend the House every day; I have practically always attended the House and I come up every week on long-distance trains from the West Country, so I am fairly used to what actually happens. Indeed, I have done many hundreds of long-distance journeys on First Great Western rail, which will apparently stand me in good stead when I get to heaven.

I want to distinguish between two issues. First, there is the question of the forward planning of the rail network and the trains that run on it in such a way that we adequately foresee and provide for the volume of traffic. I stand four square with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on the key point of getting a reliable assessment of the forward demand and not underestimating that when we are already up against the fence. In my view, it has been clear for some time that there is substantial growth in passenger traffic and that it will continue to grow. It is after all common sense, when taking account of the small scale of our islands, the time lost in airports and the congestion or risk of congestion on many roads, especially at peak hours. In many cases, rail travel simply makes sense and we have to respond to that in planning. That is the key issue. In addition, it would be in the public interest for rail freight to increase, and that should be factored into the equation.

To return to passenger traffic, I do not say that we have failed totally, but we have partially failed. That is not just down to the railway operating companies. The number of trains to meet demand depends on the upgrading of the track; the availability of finance; sufficient stability in the system of franchising—and here, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that there is sometimes a risk that we do not have that. Therefore good planning is not possible. None the less, it is depressing for someone who speaks on this subject for the first time to find that, confronted with a very large market, which is also a growth market, we do not have a sufficient number of good trains and we have not been able to avoid overcrowding, to the consequent irritation of passengers. The national news this morning tells me that there is to be a revolt of passengers on First Great Western next week. That makes two revolts over the past year: first, the shareholders of Northern Rock and now the passengers of First Great Western. Not many issues make people revolt but I believe they will next week.

My second point relates to the rail companies themselves. Of course, the Government could not and should not micromanage the rail system. However, Parliament should be concerned about these issues as for many citizens the journey to and from work—crowded or not, punctual or not—is one of the most important elements of their lives. In my part of Britain, people often use the phrase “one train earlier”, which means that those with fixed engagements decide to travel on an earlier train because they simply do not trust that the trains will arrive on time. On Monday week I shall take one train earlier with the consequence that I shall get up much earlier and I shall pay much more. Sometimes it is the only way that one can get to an engagement.

Of course, sometimes trains are late because of circumstances totally outside the control of the rail operating companies. People fall on the line, lorries run into bridges and so on, but I cannot understand why matters directly under the control of management so often go wrong. Of the many hundreds of journeys that I have made on First Great Western, in about 50 per cent of cases something has gone wrong. Lack of punctuality is the most annoying. Last week I was an hour late, which is a rather long delay for that sort of journey. Frequently the toilets do not work; or there is no water supply; or there are other obvious problems such as no reservation cards. I often find that I have booked a reservation in coach B and there is no coach B—that is quite common. We also often find that a train is signalled as arriving at the station in five minutes and at the very last minute we are notified that it will arrive 10 minutes late. One would have thought that someone would have some control over what is happening to the trains as they draw close to a station, but that is not always the case. I sometimes wonder whether these minor, but oft-repeated problems ever come to the attention of middle management or senior management.

I loved Great Western and I could grow to love First Great Western, but I make these points because even if some of our forward planning is not always spot on—it clearly is not and that is the main point for the Government—the British public would truly welcome the correction of some of the small failings which are extremely difficult to take when one is paying a considerable fare and travelling, in my case, some distance. If those could be eliminated—I think it is possible—passengers would be even more favourably disposed towards what should be a good system and very much in the public interest.

I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for initiating this debate. I congratulate him and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—two great experts on the railways—on their contributions. I agree with just about every word. It is also good to listen to someone new like the noble Lord, Lord Williamson. He is a great expert in government generally but he has spoken from the heart. He seems to know an awful lot about First Great Western and I am sure that it will be following up with interest. It is really good to have him among the usual suspects.

I want to concentrate on long-term issues concerning the railways. A number of speakers have talked about the medium term and the short term and one or two have mentioned the long term. If there are to be changes to the infrastructure, they take an awful long time to build. One can probably put 30 years on both the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and Crossrail projects from the first definitive statement by Government that they would like them to when they actually happen. I am not saying who is to blame or why. I hope that the planning Bill will help because it does take a long time. Roads take much the same time as well.

I hope that the Government will take notice of what is happening on the Continent. Yesterday in Brussels I had the honour of helping to chair a conference called New Opera, which is rather an odd name for a new freight-dedicated network across Europe. It will come to the UK, although we are not the most critical area for freight. The point, however, is that the Commission is funding a study costing several million euros which is looking 25 years ahead at issues such as increase in demand, maps, commercial arrangements and how it is going to happen. Two hundred people from the industry, Governments, railway companies and customers are all being very positive.

I have nothing to say about the French rail services—I think ours are much better here. I was travelling across France two days ago on the new TGV Est when it stopped in the night in the middle of the countryside. A man announced that we had stopped for an indeterminate cause and for an indeterminate time and he did not know when he could tell us what the problem was. It was quite interesting. So we have nothing to learn from the French in running trains. On the other hand, they have a vision of what the TGV network will look like 20 years ahead. That helps businesses, industry, the public and local authorities to plan ahead.

The TGV is not necessarily there to get you to your destination faster, although it does. It was built originally to increase capacity on the existing lines for passenger and freight services. France is a much bigger country than the UK and we can debate whether we need high-speed lines, but we are challenged with a capacity issue and I have explained what happened in France.

Turning to this country, I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. As I have mentioned before, forecasts indicate that, on the present economic and tax scenarios, rail freight traffic will probably double in the next 20 years. Other indicators show that passenger traffic will do the same. According to our calculations, that means that in 20 years’ time, based on its capacity at the end of this year when the existing upgrades are finished—if they are—the west coast main line will be 200 trains short of capacity every day. Similar numbers apply to other major routes. With possible changes to the economic and tax systems, oil prices, road user charging and so on, demand could go up by perhaps 25 per cent. The Government have agreed the forecast for freight and so we are going to need more capacity on these lines in 20 years’ time—or much sooner, as other noble Lords have said.

In connecting ports, centres of consumption and major areas of population, it is obvious where the extra capacity has to be found. How is this going to be done? Other noble Lords have mentioned longer trains, better signalling, much quicker travel, cheaper travel, more loops for freight yards—which is easier—and more tracks beside existing lines, which is not very difficult either if it is within the boundaries. But then we move to more grade separation, more stations and platforms, which are quite difficult to build in towns—look what happened in Birmingham—new lines, be they passenger or freight, and new freight terminals. All these latter examples will need planning permission, debates and everything else that goes with them.

That brings me back to my 30-year example and the need to look at options. The European example I gave and the TGV French Government network do not provide a commitment to building or funding anything; it is a vision which people can buy into and then, assuming that the funding can be found and it is still wanted, the project will get built. But there needs to be a vision to start with. The Government should, very soon, produce a 25-year strategy of where they believe the railways should be and how this will be achieved bearing in mind the examples I have given. The strategy should be led by the department, with major inputs from Network Rail, the industry, the public generally and Parliament. On the basis of the forecast to which we have all referred, something needs to be done. If we do not start now, in 10 years’ time we shall be in serious trouble.

My noble friend Lord Bradshaw was right to call this short debate, as rail passenger capacity is already a live issue on many of the main lines in Great Britain. What is more, rail passenger demand is expanding exponentially. This expansion of demand will only exacerbate the issue, despite being desirable.

Rail’s great contribution is threefold: first, in order of ascendancy, as a substitute for domestic air travel, secondly, as a road congestion buster, and thirdly and most importantly, as an obvious form of high-speed and bulk transport. It is for good reason that the railway is a British invention. My own family constructed wagon ways first with wooden and then with iron rails in the Alloa area from the 1760s. That was during the years of the Act of Attainder, passed on my family. Did they make good use of the attainder? Yes, they developed railways.

Therefore, it seems amazing that the railway on the British mainland should be in a state of such undercapacity and that we should still worry about lengthening platforms, more parking spaces, and a lack of power and electrification. Yesterday, I travelled to London with Virgin West Coast on the 6.10 from Motherwell. Privileged to have a first-class open return, I was one of two passengers in the fourth innermost first-class compartment of the Pendolino. As we descended through England, the train filled up, especially in the standard-class end with its five coaches. By Watford Junction, and one should bear in mind that it was at a decidedly off-peak moment—it was 11.05 am—the vestibules were full of standard-class passengers, yet it was obvious that there was space in the four first-class coaches. Can the Minister insist that Virgin West Coast declassify its fourth first-class coach regularly, at least for the off-peak services?

Certainly, slowly, capacity is being constructed, but we have to talk about the middle distance and well into the future. Crossrail will help. High Speed 1 is already helping and perhaps, by 2010, when some Kent commuters are able to use the High Speed 1 domestic services, it will be even more of a help. However, High Speed 2, to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds from London Heathrow, is still in its infancy or perhaps at an even earlier stage.

Train operation and climate change mitigation measures would imply that there should be more electrification of the fill-in project type. My noble friend mentioned 167 miles, which would be a substantial expansion of the electrified network.

I recently travelled to the House on TransPennine Express from Edinburgh to Preston and then on Virgin West Coast to Euston. My whole journey with TransPennine Express was in a diesel-powered Desiro, but wholly under the wires, because the Preston to Manchester section of the line is not electrified yet. How soon can Preston-Manchester and Leeds-York be electrified, along with Sheffield to Doncaster and Ely to Peterborough?

I am very pleased that the Scottish Parliament approved an electrified railway renewal between Airdrie and Bathgate, giving a second 15-minute-interval service between Edinburgh and Glasgow. I hope that the Scottish Government will next electrify the old Edinburgh and Glasgow line, via Falkirk High. At present, the 15-minute-interval service requires eight diesel Turbostars—Class 170s—to be in operation at any one time. That, if anything, is a ripe example of the need for electrification, especially as many of the Turbostars are doubled up.

I hope that the Minister can give us some hope about new carriages, among other things, for they are certainly needed now. I also support the idea that the IEP, the new Intercity Express Programme passenger train, should be electric; it should have a proper set of auto couplers at each end and it should be expected that diesels will be used in the extremities of the network.

As regards the governance of Network Rail, we might like to insist on the directors being examined by Parliament every six months—I throw that in as a wee idea. Finally, when I was looking in the Irish papers just before I came in here, I saw that the Republic of Ireland is setting a good example, advertising a new service of eight trains a day between Dublin and Sligo with brand new trains. It is interesting that by about 1990, Ireland had decided never to invest again in its railway, then tremendously saw the error of its ways, especially bearing in mind that 55 per cent of the population lives in the Dublin area. It had road traffic congestion and emissions issues and is now really expanding the railway again—so much so that I read yesterday that after Great Britain, the Republic of Ireland's passenger rail network was the second most expanding network.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for introducing this Question for Short Debate. Like most noble Lords, I have an interest as I regularly use the train at peak times, so I also see the problems at first hand. I have not heard much today with which to disagree. The noble Lord explained with his usual skill the problems associated with passenger rolling stock. He made interesting observations about diesel tractions and fuel cells possibly replacing diesel. I have to confess that I was not aware of that surprising possible development.

However, the noble Lord’s particular concern was the west coast main line. It is clear that the rail industry is a victim of its own success. Many noble Lords have talked about the problem of passenger numbers exceeding expectations. Of course, that is a nice problem for an industry to have. However, a lot of problems in the industry have been slowly and steadily resolved. Many noble Lords have discussed the remaining difficulties. Much of the rolling stock is now of good quality, although we need to remember that it does not last for ever. I take it that some thought has been given to such matters as mid-life overhaul, life extension programmes or replacement of the stock because, when we get sufficient modern stock in service, the first tranches of post-BR stock could be reaching the end of their planned service life. Can the Minister say roughly what is the rolling stock’s life expectancy?

It is self-evident that rail travel is much more attractive if passengers can nearly always sit down. If they cannot sit down, that is a measure of lack of capacity. Conversely, if they are packed in like sardines, there will be great dissatisfaction and trains will be used only as a last result. Passengers will use their cars instead. One noble Lord mentioned suppressed demand. To me, one of the great advantages of rail travel is the ability to work and, in particular, to read. Therefore, unreliability and standing-room-only has a hidden cost, which is a loss of productivity. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, talked of taking one train earlier. Although that strategy will work in the majority of cases, it will have an effect on the productivity of the people taking that strategy, especially businesspeople travelling as part of their work duties.

The noble Lords who spoke before me are much more knowledgeable than I am and nearly all of them mentioned the 1,300 carriages and the rolling stock that are to be procured. Clearly, that is a serious problem. There is no doubt that they are needed, but during my research, I was surprised at the extent to which the Government are directly involved in the procurement. Of course, it is necessary to ensure that the new stock is suitable for any subsequent franchisee; in other words, meeting the problem of residual guarantees. If the Government have to be involved, it is incumbent upon them to ensure that the procurement happens.

I hope that the Minister can claim that the structure and the organisation of the industry are now appropriate. Are they? It is worth remembering that the period of this Government’s stewardship of the rail industry, post-privatisation, is far longer than the stewardship of the previous Conservative Government. Indeed, it has been long enough for the Government to create the Strategic Rail Authority and then to disband it. I anticipate that the Minister will say that the necessary finance is available. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, described some of the procurement problems in his opening comments. If the finance is available, if the structure is right, but there is still uncertain progress, that sounds to me rather like poor leadership, which leads right to the very top of Government.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for organising this debate and for putting forward a case for rail in such an enthusiastic and persuasive fashion. I reflect that this is probably not a debate that we would have had in these terms had we been discussing these matters some 10 years ago. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has observed, we have to deal with the problem of a rail network that is a victim of its own success. It would be nice to hear noble Lords from the opposition Benches making it plain that it is a success story more often than they do. Normally it is the role of Conservative politicians to talk down the rail network and our policy successes. They see that as their path to political glory. I also thought, somewhat whimsically, that it was perhaps worth reflecting that more people use the rail network than when the noble Earl's grandfather was the Prime Minister in the 1945-51 Government. That is not something that I thought we would ever be able to boast about.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, talked about many things: vision, or the lack of it, as he saw it; fares; electrification; Virgin west coast rail; short franchises and the need for longer ones; oil prices; and car parking. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, touched on the west coast line, the Pendolino issue and electrification. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, spoke about First Great Western and made much of the need for forward planning and the abilities of the rail companies to manage growth. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, as ever, made a powerful intervention on freight and the value of working internationally and commented on some of the European initiatives. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, talked about problems on the west coast line as he experienced them and the welcome rejuvenation of the southern Ireland rail network which, as he says, is fast improving. Of course, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, talked about the need to look at issues like structure and organisation—or not. We have had a fairly wide range of contributions.

I dispute the commentary of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that we lack vision. I think last year's rail White Paper was perhaps one of the most positive statements about the growth and development of our railway in 50 years. In terms of third-party endorsements, it received a fairly warm response. After all, it commits £15 billion worth of funds in public support for the railway in the period 2009-14 and, as such, is a vote of confidence in rail travel. With the tremendous revival of rail, both passenger and freight, clearly the priority is, as the matter before us says, capacity and the need to ensure that we have that capacity over the next planning period.

That is why the Government have made firm, funded commitments to the biggest single increase in capacity for a generation. No one can dispute that. Some £10 billion pounds will be spent specifically on enhancing capacity between 2009 and 2014. These investments will enable the railway to accommodate a further seven years of record growth. One can argue about the size of that growth, but we know it is there, along with the opportunity to expand passenger numbers. We need to meet the demands placed on the network. This will enable the Government to make a start at tackling overcrowding on some of the busiest services and routes.

To deliver the extra capacity the Government will fund an additional 1,300 new carriages for our franchising system. The Department for Transport will be publishing further information on our rolling stock plan in the very near future.

We have heard the figure of 1,300 new carriages time and again. When will they start to be ordered?

I think I have answered this question before. The orders will roll out this year. As I said, we are about to publish our plan on the rolling stock rollout in the near future.

Passengers on the busiest routes will continue to see capacity increases; for example, extra coaches for the cross-country and east coast services, and more fast services between London Victoria and Brighton in the high peak. There will be major network and station upgrades at Reading and Birmingham New Street. There will be improvements on 150 medium-sized stations, which is a very big programme. The Government are spending £5.5 million to increase capacity by some 50 per cent on the Thameslink service, which, as we all know, is used by millions of people every year.

Then—and I am particularly proud of this—there is the go-ahead for Crossrail, the culmination of a momentous year for British railways, with £16 billion of funding from Government and business. That project, as I am sure all will acknowledge, is of tremendous importance. Last year also saw the completion of High Speed 1. That line was on budget and on time. Many of us have now had the opportunity to see the spectacular refurbishment of St Pancras. This is a tremendous period for the new age of the train.

The government plans will result in a network capable of carrying a 22.5 per cent increase in passenger demand by 2014. To put that into perspective, that will equate to 6 billion additional passenger kilometres being accommodated, and it will see 34,000 extra high-peak hour passengers into London and 10,000 into other major cities.

We are committed to a growing railway and to tackling issues of capacity. The priority is to increase capacity in order to tackle congestion, and the measures in the rail White Paper and the high-level output specification will do that for the foreseeable future. These record levels of investment are set to continue. Having invested substantially in getting the basics right, the Government’s focus must now be on building on that success.

Noble Lords raised a number of issues in questioning aspects of our strategy. I will try to work through some of those, because I believe, as noble Lords do, that these are important issues. The west coast line and the Virgin Pendolino lengthening issue were mentioned. Last November the Department for Transport received an unsolicited proposal from the Virgin Rail Group to procure the lengthening of the existing fleet of Pendolino trains by the end of the current franchise in 2012, which included additional subsidy and further two-year franchises from 2012 to 2014. It is fair to say that the department has analysed this in considerable detail, and it has concluded that Virgin’s proposal provides significantly less value for money compared with the likely outcome of the normal refranchising exercise that is scheduled for completion in 2012. We have to look at the issue of value for money because we have to ensure that the money gets to the right place. The department advised Virgin of its decision on 21 December and we continue to provide further explanation of the analysis on which it was based.

I give the commitment that the department will continue to take the necessary action to ensure provision for the extra capacity on the west coast main line, as envisaged in the 2007 rail White Paper and HLOS. We will talk to the Virgin Rail Group and other operators about how best to get those 1,300 new coaches on to the network in the required timeframe.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned fares. I do not agree that we are pricing people off the railway. On the contrary, passenger numbers, as we all know, are at record levels and the Government are delivering the investment necessary to accommodate continuing demand in growth. Increases in regulated fares will remain capped until 2014, generally to RPI plus 1 per cent. One has to remember that regulated fares account for 80 per cent of all fares on the network. On unregulated fares, there are excellent bargains to be had, without necessarily having to book months in advance. However, we are committed to making the fare structure simpler, and the Department for Transport is involving Passenger Focus in the design of franchises so that passenger concerns are fully taken into account at the outset. Our task is to get a balance between the fare payer and the taxpayer, and the increased revenue arising from the increasing passenger numbers will play a large part in the current shift. I do not accept that the railways should be paid for entirely by those who use it—the wider community benefits from rail use, not least through reduced congestion on other modes—but we have to strike a prudent balance between fare payer and taxpayer.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred also to renewing use of disused rail lines—he drew attention particularly to the Lewes-Uckfield line. We have no immediate plans to reopen disused rail lines, although one should never rule that out. The noble Lord made a good case for ensuring that that some of those issues were brought together in considering new franchises, and drew attention to the potential for reopening lines with the Southern franchise coming up for renewal. The Lewes-Uckfield line attracts a lot of attention. Tom Harris met representatives of the Wealden Line Campaign last June and made the commitment that we would listen if a business case could be demonstrated. I understand that Mott MacDonald is doing some work for the local authorities. It will be wise to look at what contribution that line could make if reopened, with particular reference to what it might add to capacity on southern routes.

A number of noble Lords referred to demand increasing faster than government predictions. We have had to make a best estimate. If demand increases more rapidly, the effect will be felt mainly towards the end of the HLOS period, which is seven years away. We have the opportunity to review and adjust plans if demand growth in the mean time suggests that that is necessary.

Does that mean that the Government still stand by their passenger growth forecasts in the 2007 White Paper as being accurate and realistic in the light of current passenger growth?

Yes, we do, but, as I said, flexibility exists, and we can take account of more rapid periods of growth that occur towards the end of that HLOS period. That is not to say that there are not difficulties from time to time. It is impressive that on some routes there is even faster growth, which we should welcome and seek to take advantage of.

I have not covered electrification and car-parking.

My noble friend said that the White Paper gave the Government’s plans for the railways for the foreseeable future. Eight years is really not foreseeable in railway terms, as he has agreed. What about a longer-term, 25-year strategy for the railways?

I heard what my noble friend said about that earlier. It makes good sense to look into the longer distance. The Government always have to do that, particularly when looking at infrastructure issues. We are trying to anticipate growth in capacity over the next, shorter period. My noble friend makes a fair and reasonable point. The White Paper, Towards a Sustainable Transport System, considers the longer period. That is why we approach the issue with such optimism.

As I am running close to the time for the next debate, I shall take some of the other issues away and ensure that they are covered in correspondence. I was asked one or two specific questions on rolling stock by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. The usual life expectation for rolling stock is 30 to 40 years, which is why First Great Western, in particular—I am sure this will be welcome—is currently refurbishing its high-speed trains to a new and much higher standard.

Points were also raised about car parking and electrification in Scotland. I will duck the electrification question by simply saying that it is a matter for the Scottish Executive—which it is. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that car parking is important, a point emphasised in the White Paper. I am pleased that Network Rail and Virgin, in particular, are proceeding with expanding car parks on the west coast line. That may well help in adding passenger numbers on that already busy route.

I shall go through all of the speeches again and check that I have covered most of the points. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for the opportunity to set out the Government’s case for dealing with capacity issues. I am sure we are all delighted with the expansion of the railway network and passenger numbers; it is a welcome problem for the Government to deal with. We can be much more optimistic when looking at the future of rail than could possibly have been imagined 10 or 11 years ago. I am grateful to noble Lords for their interest in and continued attention to these important issues.

[The Sitting was suspended from 2.57 to 3 pm.]