Railways

My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Berkeley and, to some extent, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in welcoming the Statement, which in my experience is the first time that the Government have given a long-term commitment to an expanding railway. I thought him a little harsh on the noble Baroness who speaks for the Official Opposition. After all, she had the task of delivering an inaccurate and intemperate statement that sounded like it had been prepared by a 14 year-old at Conservative Central Office, or wherever Tory party headquarters are these days, without the support of a single Conservative Back-Bencher. In fairness to her, it sounded no better in your Lordships’ House than it did when it was first read four and a half hours ago in the other place. We can safely say in those circumstances that Conservative Party policy on the future of the railway industry is virtually non-existent. I take my noble friend to one side, at least verbally, about fares. He mentioned that fares had fallen somewhat dramatically in certain areas. But he will know that for the walk-up railway or the pay-and-go railway—still the biggest proportion of passengers turn up and go—fares have increased fairly dramatically over the past 10 years, while at the same time the true cost of motoring has fallen by 10 per cent. That is not likely, if it continues long-term, to bring about the transfer of passengers from one mode to the other in the way that he would like. Finally, on a parochial note, can we have his assurance that no further money will be spent on Birmingham New Street until a proper inquiry has looked into the need for expanding rail capacity through Birmingham New Street and on the west coast main line, rather than throwing half a billion pounds into what is, in the opinion of many of us, purely a property-driven tarting up of a station that is palpably unfit for use?