Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 25 February 2010. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Rail Fares and Franchises.


Rail Fares and Franchises

I accept that. There would have been an option for the Government, I think, to end the franchise early. Obviously, they took legal advice on the matter. The franchise had not run for long so they would have been making a political point. Pragmatically, the idea of letting it run to the end was probably the right one in this particular case. A couple of Members have spoken of the need to involve local bodies in the franchising process, including the integrated transport authorities. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough made that point in her contribution. I very much agree. However, I gently remind her that I tabled an amendment to the Local Transport Act 2008 to that effect, to try to ensure that local authorities and ITAs were more involved in their local rail services. I made the case for that change on that occasion, and I will not repeat it now. However, if ITAs and local councils are concentrating on roads and buses, which is what they do, and they are being kept out of the rail process entirely, it is not surprising that, when they put in their bids for money, those bids are road-related and not rail-related. We must ensure that those bodies see local transport more in the round than they do at present. Of course, the east coast main line has been referred to. I welcome the fact that at least three Members who have spoken in the debate so far, including the Chairman of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, believed that there was a case for having a public sector comparator. Having such a comparator has very much been our party's position. We supported that with Southeastern, when it was temporarily in the public sector. We support it with the east coast main line, and I believe that there is a case, even now, for that line to be held in the public sector for an extended period, as a comparator. If we are now moving collectively across parties towards a more passenger-orientated, target-based franchise arrangement—that seems to be the move—why do we not try that arrangement now on the east coast main line, while it is in the public sector and see what comes of it? Let us try that now; it does not cost anything, particularly. If we cannot do that and the franchise must be retendered, I agree that East Coast should be allowed to bid, if it is possible for it to do so.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
506 c162-3WH 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Subjects
Capital investment Contracts for services Fares Infrastructure Franchises East Coast main line Railways Passengers Regulation Tickets National Express
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk