Debate on the Address

My Lords, I hope to speak about rail transport and, if there is time, about the constitution. We must view the transport legislation proposals in the light of actual needs and see how the legislation will deal with them, if at all. The first challenge to be met is overcrowding and congestion, both on trains and in station car parks. As demand rises, it should be met. We are regaled with the 1,300 carriages that the Department for Transport promises to deliver, once the order has been sorted out, but they are unlikely to be in service until 2011, if indeed that early, and they are needed now. Why the prevarication? In any case, as demand for passenger rail travel grows, even more carriages will be needed by the time the initial 1,300 have begun to arrive. There is also a need, albeit a second-order one, for a new class of trains for scenic lines where the windows and seats are aligned and the windows are larger. I am impressed with ScotRail’s conversion of some Class 158s to work the far north line to Wick and Thurso with aligned seating, albeit with fewer seats, and greater bicycle capacity. These should be the forerunner of improved passenger services on rural lines throughout Britain. The development of high-speed lines is essential. Congratulations are in order on the Channel Tunnel rail link, now sensibly described as High Speed 1. More high-speed lines are needed to combat overcrowding and to close down domestic air routes. It is the depressingly slow process of appraisal that is failing us; it could take 20 years, but the lines are needed now. I will certainly be looking for High Speed 2 to link London and Heathrow with Birmingham and Manchester. Direct rail services from Birmingham to Europe must be a priority. Multi-billion pound costs are quoted at us—but then we can apparently find £10 billion a month for the National Health Service in England, so it can be done. The next focus must be on Crossrail, which is needed in the London area. However, it is clear that more work needs to be done to sort out how Crossrail will enable freight to cross London. While the core route is well thought through, there must be serious doubts about the terminals. Surely these need relocating, particularly from Maidenhead to Reading. The Channel Tunnel must be used by more freight trains. It is a tremendous strategic asset, but it is underused. Having only one freight train a day is a disgrace. Will the Department for Transport give a commitment to enable more freight trains to use the tunnel? Finally, attention needs to be given to the franchising process and its suitability for purpose. We are about to see significant new franchises on the east coast main line and the cross-country route. The criticism of all the franchises is that they are too short in duration and too closely specified by the Department for Transport and hence unable to demonstrate entrepreneurial flair or to develop new routes and services. The same short period also affects the training of staff at all levels. Only longer franchises will deliver the value of better training. These Benches continue to advocate rolling franchises, whereby an effective franchisee has the franchise extended by performing well. At the same time, I accept that a franchise competition is necessary when the network is reorganised—such as, for example, the reorganisation that led to Arriva winning the new cross-country network franchise. The treatment of good franchise performers needs to improve. Surely a system should evolve that weights the refranchising appraisal of a good operator. Those are some criteria for railway improvements. However, bar the Crossrail Bill and the rather technical Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill, there is no legislation for the railway this year. We can only hope that the Department for Transport can incorporate these ideas into its plans for the next legislative programme. Only a wee bit of time remains, so I will give your Lordships the short version on the constitution. The UK Government in general and the Scotland Office in particular need to become substantially more open to the desire of those who live in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom to find a new and more sustainable political settlement. The union of 1707 has run its course and is being distorted by devolution and the West Lothian question. I hope that the Scotland Office will end the unionist propaganda and start discussing the future with those who live in Scotland.