PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

1491 Rail Franchising
26 MARCH 2013
Rail Franchising
1492
Mr McLoughlin: I think the hon. Gentleman will
know that we are undertaking a full review of fares.
That will report later this year, probably in June; the
date may move a bit, but I hope it will report in June. He
will make his points on fares during that review. However,
I would point out that, on a number of routes, cheap
fares are available if people book in advance.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): By
deciding to refranchise the east coast main line, we risk
not being able to assess whether the public sector or the
private sector is best for the passenger, the taxpayer and
the railways in general. Surely as a minimum, therefore,
we should allow Directly Operated Railways to bid for
the franchise.
Mr McLoughlin: That is not the case—Directly Operated
Railways is not a company in its own right; it is a
company owned by the Department for Transport. We
will certainly be able to see how the companies are
doing. The process will be open. I have already seen
reports, although I have not had it confirmed, that
Virgin will put in a bid for the east coast main line, and
a lot of people were very happy with the service they
received on the west coast main line.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/
Co-op): On that very point, given that Directly Operated
Railways is owned by the Department for Transport,
surely the Secretary of State could instruct Directly
Operated Railways to put in a public sector comparative
bid so that we can judge who will provide best value for
money and best value for the customers.
Mr McLoughlin: I would just point out to the hon.
Gentleman, who has been in the House some time, that
he was very happy to support a Government whose
Secretary of State said:
“I do not believe that it would be in the public interest for us to
have a nationalised train operating company indefinitely”. —[Official
Report, House of Lords, 1 July 2009; Vol. 712, c. 232.]
I agree.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): The east
coast main line is integral to the economy of Peterborough,
and my constituents are concerned about value for
money, punctuality and cleanliness. The Secretary of
State rightly mentions the PAC report, which found
that this Government inherited systemic lack of leadership
and of oversight, miscalculation of risk capital and failure
to heed legal advice. Is he absolutely convinced that, in
respect of the east coast main line, we have learnt those
lessons and that mistakes will not be made again?
Mr McLoughlin: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend
that we have learnt a number of lessons as a result
of what happened with the west coast franchise. I well
understand the importance to his constituents of the
service that is provided on the east coast main line. It
will be one of the first lines to get the new intercity
express programme trains, which are due to come into
service in 2018-19.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab): As a north-east
MP, I have been approached by a number of the companies
that hope to bid for the east coast line, all of which are
backed by foreign countries. Why does the Secretary of
State think that it is not okay for the Government to
run British railways, but it is okay for the French,
German and Dutch to run them?
Mr McLoughlin: I think I pointed out clearly in the
statement the vast growth we have seen in the railways. I
do not think that that would have happened without
privatisation. We have seen levels of investment that
were not seen beforehand. I point out to the hon. lady
the simple fact that I inherited the system of franchising
that operated under the previous Government.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con): I thank my
right hon. Friend for his statement. Can he give a bit
more detail on how he will increase competition and
improve efficiency on the railways?
Mr McLoughlin: Reading station, in my hon. Friend’s
constituency, has seen a major refurbishment. That will
make a huge difference. There will be closures over
Easter, but more platforms will open and the work at
the station will conclude in two years. About £800 million
has been invested. We would not be investing that kind
of money if we were not getting a good return for the
passenger, his constituents and those who are served
further along that line by First Great Western.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab): Passengers on the
east coast main line have twice suffered the catastrophic
collapse of a private franchise. What guarantee can the
Secretary of State give that whichever company gets the
new franchise will not collapse, and will the railway
headquarters remain in York?
Mr McLoughlin: As for where the headquarters will
be, that will depend on the case that is put forward by
the various companies that I hope will compete for the
franchise. The hon. Gentleman is right: two franchises
collapsed under the previous Government, so that and
this Government have both had some problems with
franchising. I hope we have learnt our lessons. The rail
industry has become a lot better at competing for these
franchises.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con): The Secretary
of State rightly spoke of the innovation and ambition
that he expects from the new franchise companies. Can
he assure me that that innovation and ambition will
extend to providing services off the east coast main line,
most notably to Cleethorpes?
Mr McLoughlin: I am certainly willing to discuss in
greater detail with my hon. Friend the services to his
constituency, which I know have been very badly disrupted
because of earth movements, which must be put right;
the work is taking longer than we would have hoped.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab): The Secretary of
State says that success on the railways has been achieved
because of privatisation. The rolling stock in east Lancashire
must be among the worst in the UK—it is absolutely
dreadful. Privatisation has certainly not worked. The
northern franchise is coming up, so what will he do to
ensure that my constituents and others in east Lancashire
benefit from that success?