MP Blogs

Britain's social and economic landscape has been shaped by the railway lines that criss-cross our countryside, link our conurbations and serve our communities. But a glance at British railway history would see the dynamism and innovation of the early years giving way at times during the last century to decline and stagnation, especially between the late 1940s and mid 1990s.

In spite of some notable exceptions – such as the Channel Tunnel – too little investment and too many missed opportunities ensured the final years of the 20th century was the age of the car and the plane, rather than the age of the train.

Since the late 1990s there has been a renaissance of the railways. If you have stood shoulder-to-shoulder in a carriage, or had your journey delayed by upgrade works recently, you might think that too bold a claim. However, there have been welcome improvements both in the number of services and in service quality.

Rail punctuality and reliability are at their highest levels since the current measure was established seven years ago, and passenger numbers are more than 50 per cent higher than they were in 1997. In fact, today the network is carrying more people than at any time since 1946. Rail freight traffic is up too, by 40 per cent in the last decade – something that's good for our economy and good for our environment.

But I know that is scant comfort to us when we suffer delays or experience problems: passengers have real concerns about the railways here and now, and I want to see improvements happening month by month. So, in addition to specifying an improvement in train reliability to 92.6 per cent by 2014, the government is also demanding 25 per cent reductions in delays of more than 30 minutes.

I'm a rail user myself and both my father and grandfather worked in the railways in Derby. You could say the railways are in my DNA. You could also say that looking at things from the rail user's perspective is at the heart of my job.

Consequently, setting higher benchmarks and taking action to deal with unsatisfactory performance are fundamental to government policy – as is our commitment to a system of ticketing and fares that is accessible, understandable and fair. That's why we asked the industry to back the simplified fares structure that came in last year with a price promise to ensure that customers are sold the right ticket at the right price.

It's also why we've made it clear that we intend to stick with the formula that limits average increases in regulated fares to no more than one per cent above inflation each year, even if this means an actual reduction in fares. To scrap this formula at a time when commuters and travellers are facing the challenges of the economic downturn would simply have been unfair.

Increased investment – public and private – has underpinned the UK's rail renaissance in recent years. It's crucial that we continue to invest to improve – hence a range of projects, initiatives and work under way.

For example, the transformational £16bn Crossrail project will bring 1.5 million more people within an hour of London's business centres. The £9bn upgrade to the West Coast Main Line has been completed and offers a seven-day service with improved journey times. And our planned £200m investment in the strategic rail freight network will enable it to handle more and longer trains, carry greater loads and provide better connections with the UK's local transport networks and international gateways.

Then there's our intercity express programme, which will provide a new generation of express trains offering greater speed, flexibility and reliability. We've also successfully completed the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the country's first high-speed rail line, as well as established High Speed Two, a company that will consider the case for a new North-South high-speed rail link.

In order to meet growing demand the government is also determined to increase the capacity of our rail network. Over the next five years we will invest £15bn to increase capacity by up to 183 million passengers a year. For the long term, our aim is a network able to carry double the current number of passengers.

The UK gave birth to the railways during the early part of the 19th century. Yet, for part of its history, our railway system was characterised by false dawns and new beginnings that never quite materialised. Undoubtedly there is still work to do and progress to be made. Quite simply there can be no room for complacency. But now, thanks to sustained investment and a supportive policy framework, our country is moving again to the age of the train in the early part of the 21st century.

Socially, economically and environmentally, that has to be something worth celebrating.

The problems with transport in Britain are obvious to everyone who has anywhere to go. This government has failed the British passenger.

If we win the general election, a key goal for a Conservative government would be to improve Britain's transport system to strengthen our economic competitiveness, provide better services for travellers and help fight climate change.

The most ambitious project we have proposed could have a transformational effect on the country's transport network. We would give the go-ahead for a new high-speed rail line connecting London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds with the continent through the Channel Tunnel. The new line will create jobs across the country, providing an especially strong boost for the economies of the West Midlands and the North. It will also provide a far greener alternative to thousands of car, lorry and plane journeys. We see this as just the first stage in a new national high-speed rail network that would be extended to Newcastle and Scotland in time, with additional connections linking major cities across the country.

We also have important reform plans for the rest of the rail network. It is obvious to commuters on a daily basis that passengers on many lines face oppressive levels of overcrowding. Yet the problem with overcrowding goes beyond the unpleasant similarity train carriages can sometimes bear to a sardine tin. It taps into a deeper concern regarding people's view of rail travel – that they are not getting value for money for the higher and higher fares they are being asked to pay. The recession makes this an even more important concern for families worried about making ends meet.

If we are going to give passengers better value for money, we have to begin by fixing some of Labour's biggest mistakes.

For example, when Labour created Network Rail to maintain the UK's railway tracks, it left it accountable to nobody. Consider what happened in New Year 2008, when engineering work was delayed and disastrously disrupted the journeys for thousands of people as well as vitally important freight deliveries.

Neither passengers nor the companies running train services had any power to avert the crisis or put real pressure on Network Rail to remedy the situation. The only sanction available to the regulator was a £14m fine, which was picked up by the taxpayer anyway.

If we are going to see Network Rail's performance improve and ensure that it starts to get costs under control, we need reform to put the interests of the customer first and ensure that the management is made to answer for their decisions.

We will inject much-needed accountability by reforming Network Rail's governance to create a powerful supervisory board that will look after the interest of the customer. We will strengthen the rail regulator to give it the power to cut the bonuses of senior executives at Network Rail in the event of serious and persistent failure to respond to customer concerns.

And passengers need someone on their side when it comes to supervising the whole of the rail industry. So we will also turn the rail regulator into a passenger champion – a one-stop shop for customer complaints with the power to bang heads together and get action taken to resolve problems, regardless of whether the fault lies with Network Rail or with the train operating company.

We also believe that private investment can play a part in delivering much needed improvements such as longer trains, longer platforms, station enhancements and better parking facilities (for both cars and bicycles).

The short franchises issued by Labour discourage this type of investment because there is insufficient time to generate a return on the money spent. The South Central franchise has recently been tendered for 5 years, 10 months – far shorter than the lifespan of many railway assets. We believe that lengthening franchises to around 15 or 20 years will help generate greater confidence for investors and help deliver the new capacity we need.

These are just a few of a range of ideas we put forward in our Rail Review, to help us tackle the overcrowding crisis on our railways and to ensure that there is fresh focus on value for money for the passenger.

In a recent article, Lord Adonis claimed: "The prospects for rail in Britain are brighter than at any point in half a century."

I admire the government's optimism – but the truth is there are many causes for concern. The government has produced very little in terms of a strategy for managing the railways beyond 2014. Indeed, it seems to be continually behind the curve, and passengers suffer as a result.

Years after the Lib Dems outlined the many benefits of a high-speed rail network and explained how we'd implement it, the government has failed to progress beyond the creation of a body to assess whether such a network is viable.

The Tories have also jumped on the footplate recently, but their plans won't start until the Parliament after next, and would be paid for partly by raiding other railway funds. Meanwhile a grotesque lack of rolling stock in this country is providing sardine-can conditions for too many passengers. The government would like to blame rolling stock companies for this, but that has boomeranged back on the Department for Transport, thanks to the Competition Commission.

And the government's increasingly centralised approach is actually hindering development. It has recently created a new public sector company, Diesel Trains. Consequently, rolling stock companies may find themselves squeezed out of the market, meaning they will simply stop producing rolling stock without firm orders, further reducing what little slack there is in the system.

The network can't cope with increasing demand. There's been a 43 per cent increase in passenger miles travelled by rail since 1997, and overcrowding remains well above acceptable limits.

This must be addressed. The government has repeatedly promised 1,300 new trains, but only 423 have even been ordered, and none since September. This won't help passengers struggling to cope with inadequate services in the meantime.

The government has also admitted that, in the present economic downturn, one or more of the train operating companies could simply collapse. Should this occur, the government will be immediately responsible for ensuring that services continue to run, yet it has given no indication that it has a coherent plan to do so.

The Lib Dem vision is different. We will facilitate a real rail renaissance: high-speed rail will start the day after the next election. Lines – and stations – that should never have been closed will be reopened. Tracks that should never have been singled will be redoubled.

A tall order? Perhaps, but we know where we want to get to, and we've said explicitly how we'll pay for it. Introducing a lorry road user charge, capturing foreign lorries for the first time, and a surcharge on non-lifeline domestic flights would free up big money and help build the rail network that passengers deserve.

We were the first to recognise that introducing longer franchise agreements would alleviate problems with infrastructure. By introducing 30-year franchises, we would give operating companies real incentives to invest in rolling stock and capacity enhancements. Provided they met their targets on a five-yearly basis, they would keep their franchise without a retendering exercise.

Finally, there is the question of fares, which have been rising at above inflation levels for some time. Since 1977, regulated fares have increased by 43 per cent on average. Passengers are not getting a fair deal. The government has implied that rail fares may fall in line with the economic downturn, but it remains wedded to forcing fares up one per cent above the Retail Price Index each year. This January, of course, fares rose by six per cent on average.

The Lib Dems have shown that British rail fares are the most expensive in Europe – £10 takes you an average of 26 miles, compared with 512 in Serbia. For the average passenger, a season ticket is roughly twice as expensive as an equivalent ticket in France, according to Passenger Focus.

If that weren't bad enough, it's hard to get accurate information about fares. Customers have to show great ingenuity to be able to purchase cheaper ‘split' fares, and rail companies seem intent on reducing staffing levels in many stations, forcing people to buy from ticket machines, where advice on the cheaper fare is self-evidently not available.

A freeze in the price of rail fares should be introduced, paid for by cancelling just a few miles of motorway widening, and steps should be taken to make the pricing system simpler and more transparent.

It is good that passenger numbers continue to increase in most areas, even in this recession, but without the strategic sustained investment we advocate, there is a real danger the system will hit the buffers before too long.

Conservative MP Patrick McLoughlin takes part in this Q&A on the Miners' Strike

What was your personal involvement?

I was an underground worker at Littleton Colleiry in Staffordshire. I was a member of the NUM as you were required to as it was a closed shop.

Were you political?

I was a Tory councillor and I had stood for Parliament in 1983. I was very much a known Conservative?

Were you striking?

I think probably I didn’t go in on one day but overall I worked throughout the strike. I took the view that I wouldn’t go on strike until there had been a ballot. There was a ballot in the western area and I think it was 70 per cent to work. So I carried on working throughout the strike.

Did anyone realise how long it would last?

No. I don’t think anyone could have anticipated how long it would have gone on for or the nature it would take. It stared off as a dispute that was engineered by Scargill about pit closure arguing that should never be pit closures.

Was there any personal violence?

Obviously there was. It was a very heated battle. People took views. It split communities and it split areas. I had no doubt in my own mind that it was politically motivated and I would have no part of bringing down a government which I supported and thought was doing the right thing. It was very nasty. Certain families were split. Somebody I was working with never spoke to his father in law again and his father in law never saw the grandchildren. It was very, very tough.

Would you have voted in a national ballot?

Yes, and I think so would everybody else. There annoyance was there was no ballot. People forget that. Individual areas did and all bar one I think voted to carry on voting. And that’s what caused the great split. When Scargill was elected people thought he wanted a strike but they believed that there was as safety valve of a pithead ballot, and that meant he couldn’t cause a strike unless we agreed to it. I didn’t vote for him, but those who did said, “well he still has to come for us for a pithead ballot.” The fact is he didn’t because he knew we couldn’t win.

Do you think the working miners were let down by the Conservative government ten years later when a lot of pits were closed in that wave of closures?

Yes to a degree I think they probably were. It’s difficult. The landscape had changed and the problem was with the market. But I don’t think the initial Heseltine announcements are something that I am particularly proud of in hindsight. I was a junior minister at the time.

What should the government have done?

There should have been more done to possibly allow the UDM the option to take those coalmines over instead of taking to equate it on a full privatisation. I don’t think there was enough knowledge of what was coming. It came out of the blue. Lessons needed to be learned from that. That was badly handled. Bearing in mind what happened it perhaps should have been looked at longer term.

What is the legacy of the strike?

The difficulty was, it wasn’t an NUM strike. It is fundamental to it. A lot of moderate, decent miners would not have broken a picket line if there had been a ballot. There would have been a proper strike. It was a fact that Scargill tried to avoid at every cost. I think it would obviously have re-enhanced the power of militant trade unionism and think it would have been bad for this country.

I don’t think we would have the kind of inward investment that we subsequently got into this country. One of the great successes of the British industrial era post the strike was the amount of inward investment into this country, which I don’t think would have come if they thought we were going to be run by militant trade unions. The whole landscape would have been different. But it didn’t happen, and we’ll never know.

Labour MP Michael Clapham outlines his recollections of the Miners' Strike

I was the Unions Industrial Relations Officer. Amongst other things the job involved attending NEC meetings as well as meeting with British Coal Corporation (BCC). I attended most of the meetings with them during the strike. I also attended meetings in the varies NUM regions. In addition I prepared papers and met with lawyers to discuss the impact of industrial legislation on the conduct of the strike.

Following the miners strikes of 1972 and 1974 the entire industrial relations world of BCC became highly politicised to the detriment of open consultation. from 1980 the government imposed tight financial guidelines on BCC.

At the same time leaked cabinet minutes from 1979 showed that the increased use of nuclear power to generate electricity had become a deliberate strategy to limit the amount of coal burn.

The Thatcher government blamed the miners for Ted Heath's defeat in 1974 and their actions showed that they were seeking revenge. Against this background the strike felt significant at the time.

It was against the background of politicisation of industrial relations in the coal industry as the country responded to the oil shock that BCC had started on a project to develop a semi automated production system. The new technology and its potential for the industry was not developed as a joint initiative the mining unions.

Instead MINOS (Mines Information System) was developed in great secrecy by the Mines Research Establishment between 1974 and 1983. This was because new technology was viewed by BCC and the government as the stick to beat the NUM. It was June of 1983 before BCC even admitted that the system existed and their refusal to negotiate a Technology Agreement to allow those displaced to leave the mines with dignity was the basis of the 1984-85 Strike.

In the five year following the end of the strike from March 1985 to March 1990 BCC reduced the number of coal mines from 169 to 73. The number of mining jobs was cut by 106,000 over the period and more than £2000 million was paid to fund the redundant mineworker’s scheme. Today there are about two thousand miners in the UK working at about a dozen coal mines.

In the years after the strike there is evidence to show that flexible working arrangements was more readily accepted by a weakened labour movement. Also there was a change in general working practices and new technology was spread without technology agreements. In many instances these changes accompanied changes in collective bargaining. The strike had in my view an extremely strong demonstration effect on other unions.

By the same token it is bound to have increased the confidence of management to seize on a perceived new situation. Nevertheless although significant changes have taken place in industrial relations over the last 25 years trade unions and collective bargaining structures have survived.

The government of the day also seized on the new situation afforded them after the miners defeat and pressed ahead with privatisations across the entire energy sector and further. In 1994 this includes what was left of the coal mining industry after the second phase of colliery closures.

In 1990 for the first time ever gas began to be burned in power stations and today about 40% of all electricity comes from this source. Although coal still remains an important for electricity generation in the UK most of it is imported from abroad. The short sightedness of revenge politics has bequeath to the country an oligopoly of just six major energy suppliers and made it a net importer of energy.