Lord Moylan (Con)

My Lords, it is difficult to follow my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham because his expositions of difficult issues are always so clear and compelling. There is a movement on the left wing of the Labour Party—which is well represented in your Lordships’ House—to nationalise the roscos so that we can have a full sweep of nationalisation. To date, nationalisation of the railways has cost the Government nothing because, of course, they already owned nearly everything. All it has done is allowed certain franchises to expire at no cost to the taxpayer. But the cost to the taxpayer of nationalising the roscos would be absolutely enormous, which is one of the reasons why the Government have resisted pressure from the more Corbynite wing of their party to proceed on that basis. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham is suggesting that, at the stroke of some scribal pen in the Office for National Statistics, at least the financial consequences, if not the legal consequences, of nationalising the roscos would land on the Government’s plate as a result of the Bill—in other words, as a result of eliminating the relative multiplicity of buyers of rolling stock that exists at the moment and replacing it with a single buyer: a state-owned entity. As I understand it, that is the gravamen of what my noble friend is saying. The amendment is almost too gentle for the circumstances because this is something that we would need to know in advance of the passage of the Bill. It is dilatory of the Office for National Statistics to say that it would review this matter only after the Bill has passed because it is of such consequence that legislators should know before they pass the Bill whether it will ensue as a consequence of their doing so. This is a matter of considerable importance. I do not know whether the officials advising the Minister perceived the full complexity of the noble Lord’s amendment in advance. They may not have given him a full response to the points made by my noble friend—although they may have done so, of course—so he may wish to follow up in writing. That may be acceptable to my noble friend—I do not know—but this is an extremely important matter that we really need to know about. I do not propose to comment on the other amendments in this group so I turn to my own amendments, which were slightly mocked by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. We have been told—I accept that this is probably the case—that, should the Bill pass into law, it is likely to set a framework that will last for many years. People say that it is often 20 or 30 years before you get round to restructuring the railways; that is roughly the cycle on which it happens. I think, therefore, that it is very disappointing that the Government are seeking to restrict the debate to very narrow issues around the structure of the railway, which is the main basis of the Bill, when noble Lords want to debate other matters. For example, in our debate on the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who is sadly not in his place any more, wanted to discuss the whole structure of funding the railways—not the amounts of funding but the mechanism by which it is done—in order to avoid crashing from one decision to another and to make it possible for both the railway and suppliers to plan what they will do with some knowledge that the funding will continue for at least a period into the future. Essentially, the Government want to escape having that debate and say, “Everything’s fine as it is so we’ll carry on as before”. Through my amendments here, I want to have what I think is a very important political discussion about the Government’s vision for the level of subsidy that should go to the railway and for the balance between fares and taxpayer funding to support it. We have in this country a particular balance that is different from what exists in many European countries, and we have held on to it, but where do we want to go with it? The noble Baroness says that the railways will always require funding but, for their first 100 years, they did not require any public subsidy at all, and they provided the most comprehensive, intense and innovative transport system you could imagine, reaching to nearly all parts of the country. Further, they did so at a time when there were practically no roads, and there was certainly no air travel. Yet they did this without subsidy. We really only talk of subsidies to the railways when you get to the 1920s and 1930s, when money started leaking out of government and into the railways. That was before we had the full subsidy regime that came in with the Second World War and what followed. So it is possible to think about it. I am not saying that it is particularly realistic to think about it, because I accept what the noble Baroness says: there is likely to be an element of subsidy all the way through. But what is the Government’s plan and what is the direction of travel on this? Would the Government not like to set out their policy and vision? If they do not want to do so today, then where in this process is it going to appear? Is the noble Lord going to tell us that it will all be in the long-term rail strategy, so that we can have a debate then about what is the appropriate level between taxpayer and fare payer? Remember that only 10% of the population makes regular use of the railways; the rest of the population is expected to subsidise it through their taxes, but only 10% actually use it. Is that a fair and sensible balance in an allocation of subsidies? These are important issues. Amendment 112 is closely related but not quite the same. It asks for the railways to publish annual savings targets. Why should they not have such targets? There are great inefficiencies in every organisation. I do not say “in every public sector organisation”, although that is true, because there are inefficiencies in private sector organisations as well. When I was deputy chairman of Transport for London, we had a process for trying to reduce, with an annual savings target of 3% per annum. We took out that amount of cost year after year, bringing it down because we could find those efficiencies. I had learned from local government officers that they could do exactly that, because they knew where the inefficiencies were. In fact, they built them in a little, to give themselves some fat, but if they were required to reduce them under pressure, they could do it. Why should Great British Railways not have a similar discipline imposed on it? Where is the sense of financial discipline that we are looking for? These are times when the Government have very little money; I think we know that. The tax burden is higher than ever, yet public expenditure is under huge pressure. Choices about defence and so forth cannot be made sensibly because of commitments elsewhere. I am not disagreeing with or criticising the noble Baroness. It is all very well to say that railways will always require subsidies, but the fact of the matter is—I believe this firmly, and I am a believer in the railways—that a railway that relies consistently and heavily on subsidy, in the current and foreseeable fiscal circumstances of this country, is a railway that will come under huge pressure and will be cut. It is not sustainable unless it can show that it is contributing from its own efficiencies and through generating higher fare income, which does not necessarily mean through higher fares but can be a combination of fares and passenger numbers. It needs a plan to show that it is doing that. These amendments ask the Government to set out that plan or tell us when they are going to do so, in the interests of Great British Railways itself.