My Lords, as a Great Western passenger, I wish I could speak as glowingly as my noble friend Lady Scott has done about Greater Anglia. GWR is known fondly to its passengers as “Great Western Roulette”. Will it or will it not turn up? How late will it be? Will it have five, eight, nine or 10 carriages? I can see people for whom that rings a bell.
The Liberal Democrat Amendment 1 turns on its head the Government’s proposed time-served system, which noble Lords have been discussing. In some ways, Amendment 48, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, addresses the same issues. This is really about natural justice. Why should a poorly performing franchise be allowed to continue while an excellent one is terminated? Bear in mind that we are not bothered about the franchise owners; we are bothered about the passengers who have to suffer the service it provides. Why should passengers be denied reliable services?
There are two serious problems with the Government’s scheme. By chance, as has been said by several noble Lords, Greater Anglia, a profitable and very good operator, will have its contract terminated at the start of the process, while Avanti, whose performance is poor, will outlast almost all other train operators. That is topsy-turvy logic. The rail industry will lose the example set by Greater Anglia at a time when it, as a company, could be setting the new standards we all hope will be achieved by the new integrated public sector railway.
By imposing this rigorous approach to nationalisation at all costs, and nationalising even those train operators that are performing very well, the Government’s attitude is really inconsistent. They are not applying the same logic to roscos or freight services, or even to open-access operators. It is simply illogical to insist on the upheaval and dismantling of Greater Anglia, for instance, while regarding an open-access operator such as Grand Central as quite acceptable.
5.30 pm
On the one hand, the Government are saying that a mixed economy is fine, and with that we on these Benches would agree. On the other, they are saying that train operators must be public sector, and in a particular order which has no logic other than the luck of the date on the contract.
Later, in group 8, the Liberal Democrats have an amendment that talks about devolution. I will briefly refer to that here, simply because it is another area of confused logic by the Government. The Government appear to think that it is alright if it has already been devolved, but there will be no more devolution. I think the Government will rue their approach to nationalisation because, in the public mind, nationalisation will mean standardisation. By definition, train passengers get around a bit. They travel the country and are able to compare experiences. They will therefore ask, “Why are we getting a better service here than in my part of the country?”
People accept unwillingly the differences between companies, with trains that look different and staff who wear different uniforms. They may resent it, but they accept it. But they will not accept it when it all looks the same.
In conclusion, the Government have a flexible approach to certain elements of the private sector. But they have a hardline approach to other elements, such as train operators. Even at this stage, I urge them to reconsider this, to allow good private sector operators to extend their franchise while the Government concentrate their efforts on the worst-performing areas, because that will certainly take all of their capacity.