---

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech

My Lords, I join the congratulations given to my noble friends on the Front Bench on their new responsibilities. I shall do my best not to add to their burden. I shall confine my remarks exclusively to the transport issues in the gracious Speech. I draw your Lordships' attention my entry in the Register of Lords' Interests, which states that I am an employee of the National Express Group, which operates some five train operating companies in the United Kingdom. Regarding the railway industry, I join the noble Baroness who spoke from the Front Bench for the Liberal Democrats in welcoming the lack of legislation in the gracious Speech. Too much legislation has been aimed at the railway industry and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench and his colleagues will allow the legislation that we passed in the dying days of the previous Parliament to be implemented and observe the impact of that legislation on the railway industry before we are tempted to introduce any more. I intend to deviate from the normal speeches that are made about the railway industry by saying a few words in praise of that industry, for once. We are all good at criticising things that go wrong, but over the past decade, if the measure of success is the number of customers carried—and I use the railway companies' favourite word, rather than "passengers", which was used in my day—the railways have been successful. Over the past decade, from 1995, the number of passengers carried has increased by some 40 per cent, which indicates that, despite its problems, the railway industry is contributing positively to the upsurge in the economy of the United Kingdom. We should occasionally pay tribute to the men and women who work in the railway industry who brought about that improvement. Within that 40 per cent increase, there has been a 27 per cent increase in inter-city carrying. That is a creditable figure, considering the increase in low-cost airlines over long distances within the UK. There has been a 35 per cent increase in regional railway carrying and an incredible 53 per cent increase over 10 years in London commuting. London commuters do not normally have much to say that is complimentary about the railway industry. But few industries could absorb such an increase, with comparatively little extra investment, in the manner that the London commuter lines have done. Noble Lords might say that there is no point in having extra trains if they do not run on time, but the current figures on timekeeping for the whole of the UK show that some 83.5 per cent of trains arrive within five, or, in some sectors, 10 minutes of booked arrival time. That is not bad. The coach and aviation industries would give their right arms—if that is the correct term—for such figures. I imagine that few noble Lords who drove a car from here to Manchester, for example, would guarantee that they would be there within 10 minutes of a specific time. I am as guilty as anyone of criticising the railway industry, but tributes should be paid to the success that it has had in recent years. The latest figures for April, which have not yet been published, indicate that 88 per cent of trains in the UK arrived either on time or within five or 10 minutes of booked time. Of course, it is the 12 per cent that always makes the newspaper headlines, not the trains that run on time. The problem is that the track is nearly full. Nearly all paths available at peak times are used and, as we all know to our cost, trains are crowded in many parts of the country. The Network Rail business plan includes provision for an increase of only 2 per cent in passenger train miles, because, so far, no money has been committed to any projects that would deliver more. Passenger growth at 4 per cent and a planned increase in passenger train miles of only 2 per cent indicates further congestion. I hope that Ministers wil look at the proposals of the Great North Eastern Railway company, which deserves much credit for its achievement on the east coast main line and for its plan to electrify the line north of Leeds around to the east coast main line to avoid trains terminating and reversing at Leeds. I hope that Ministers will regard that example of franchising as a model to follow. I know that my noble friend Lord Berkeley will say something about rail freight. How do I know that? I have listened to many of his speeches over the years. I am sure that his comments will be well worth listening to. But I hope that Ministers will examine the vexed question of the transfer of freight from road to rail. Rail freight can play an important role in ensuring the smooth distribution of goods around the country and I know that the Government are considering their policy on ports and whether to grant applications for the development of at least three southern ports. I ask Ministers to pause for thought on that. It would seem an odd approach to transport, to say the least, to bring into southern ports huge quantities of containers which are then largely transferred by road to the Midlands and the north of England. Such vast movements of freight would add to the already intolerable congestion on our roads network and add thousands of unnecessary food miles to the annual total. Ministers have promised to bring forward a national ports strategy either in this or the next Parliament but will make decisions about the future of the southern ports before doing so. Surely, with respect to my noble friend, that is the wrong way round. Such a national ports policy should include those ports not in the south of England. Developments such as Teesside, which have not been particularly welcomed with acclaim by the Strategic Rail Authority, really should be looked at again if we are to avoid the added road congestion that thousands of extra lorry movements would bring. Before concluding, I want to talk for a short time about the question of community railways, which the Government introduced in their last piece of legislation but about which they have not gone into any great detail. In the 40 years since the Beeching era, the question of research and development in the railway industry has been sadly neglected. All too often in those years, politicians, governments of both political hues and even railway managers have been of the opinion that the local commuter railway system was in a process of continued decline, that R&D was not necessary for the future and that the private car would provide and pick up the extra journeys that have been made over that 40-year period. As a result, road vehicles are quieter, cleaner and more energy efficient, while the railway industry has largely failed to recognise the potential for cleaner fuels, hybrid drive lines, regenerative braking or lightweight vehicles. As I have indicated, so far as the car industry in particular is concerned, those are now bread and butter issues. In my opinion, for what it is worth, those matters have been sadly neglected in the railway industry. If community railways are to be segregated from the main network and their lower speeds and perhaps lighter rolling stock are to be complemented by, we hope, less demanding regulatory standards, we need to look at new kinds of vehicles for our railway industry. I have no direct financial interest in these matters. However, there is a company close to my former constituency, in Cradley Heath in the West Midlands, that produces something called a Parry people mover, which it has been trying for 12 years to introduce on a 700-yard branch line between Stourbridge junction and Stourbridge. For various reasons, much of it the fault of the railway industry itself, obsessed as it is with conventional rolling stock, it has not been possible to introduce that vehicle. I should add that presently there is no Sunday service, so it is not as though we are replacing one kind of vehicle with another. But in 12 years we have not managed to introduce that particular vehicle. I hope that my noble friend will relay to his fellow Ministers the need for innovation so far as our local railway services are concerned. If we are to save money—and I understand the Government's need to save money in some local rail services—then innovation is surely essential. I close, as I started, by welcoming the fact that there is no railways Bill in the present gracious Speech. I commend such an approach to my noble friend. I can tell him that the railway industry from top to bottom is heartily sick of legislation that changes its objectives apparently annually. The railways are suffering problems, but they are problems largely of success. If the Government leave well alone, perhaps that success will continue over the next decades, as it has in the past, and the railway industry will continue to flourish.