House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 Jul 1992

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : My right hon. Friend will be aware of my interest in these matters. Can he confirm that the integration of bus and rail services in remote areas of the United Kingdom, including parts of Scotland, will be a factor that is taken into consideration?

Mr. MacGregor : Yes, that may well be part of the arrangements for the franchises. I am well aware of the interest that my hon. Friend takes in these matters, and I know that he will agree that there are considerable possibilities for open access for new operators to the British Rail network, in respect of both freight and passengers.

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian) : Can the Secretary of State give any guarantees on the continuity of standards and security of employment for railway staff under the new fragmented franchise set-up? Can he say something about the future of passenger transport executives in local authorities in operating local rail services under the proposals?

Mr. MacGregor : PTEs will remain, and there will be the opportunity to franchise the services to which their subsidies at present apply. I should not wish to say that that will be within precisely the same boundaries as those within which passenger transport authorities currently provide grant. In some cases, there may be groups of passenger transport authorities, for the simple reason that a franchise arrangement may look rather different from the present arrangements. We would expect PTAs to make their subsidy contributions if they wish to do so in the same way as the Government will be making theirs, and we have already had discussions with them.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of many commuters in my constituency who use the Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street lines every day, who view with great anticipation the possibility of the trains running as frequently and being as cheap and as clean as many buses in our area? Is my right hon. Friend aware that seven of those bus companies have already expressed interest in taking over the Fenchurch Street line because they think that they can make a big success of it? Will he assure my constituency commuters that he will seriously consider

Column 984

selling off the line lock, stock and barrel, possibly to the many commuters who have expressed an interest in buying shares in it?

Mr. MacGregor : I am very interested to hear what my hon. Friend has to say about the possible prospects for franchise bids. We certainly look forward to making more of the details about franchising arrangements available over the months ahead as we complete our work on them. I am sure that the people to whom my hon. Friend referred will want to consider those arrangements, and they will then have to discuss them with the franchising authority when we have the appropriate parliamentary consent to go ahead.

With regard to sale, I must state that our first objective is to get the franchises set up. I have already made it clear--and the Bill will make it clear--that outright sale could be a prospect in due course.

Mr. Hugh Bayley (York) : Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is already intense pride in the railways in my constituency of York and in many other constituencies? We do not need to break the railways up into regional fragments to install that pride. Given that the bus- building industry virtually collapsed after bus deregulation, what guarantees can the Secretary of State give to the 1,700 men who build railway trains in my constituency that their jobs are secure? What job guarantees can he give to the 3,000 people working at British Rail's eastern region headquarters in York? Specifically, as 25 men who worked at the BREL works in York in the 1950s and 1960s have died from asbestos- related diseases, and sadly, it is likely that more will die, and given that BR has continued to maintain responsibility for compensating the families of the men who died, even though--

Madam Speaker : Order. We must have questions. The hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber earlier when I said that I wanted direct questions to the Secretary of State so that I might call a number of Back Benchers.

Mr. Bayley : Who will pay compensation in future in such cases? Will it be the track authority or the residual BR operating authority?

Mr. MacGregor : I would obviously want to look into the latter point. I imagine that, for some time to come, it will be the BR board. However, that is a very precise detailed point that I would like to look into. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

With regard to the hon. Gentleman's request for guarantees for jobs, it simply is not possible for me to guarantee for many years ahead the jobs of people in a manufacturing industry : the hon. Gentleman will be aware of that. The best guarantee is that we continue to expand the railways ; that we have a significant level of capital investment, such as we have now ; and that, through that operation and through successful completion of the capital investment programme, we attract more customers.

Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough) : I congratulate my right hon. Friend on establishing a balance between reassuring the public on safety grounds by creating the track authority and on introducing competition by what one can call gradual privatisation. The remarks about possible management and employee buy-outs were encouraging. Will my right hon. Friend go a little further

Column 985

and give them a little more encouragement by saying that they will receive treatment similar to that which is likely to be offered to employees in municipalised bus companies, which are also contemplating privatisation?

Mr. MacGregor : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I share his desire that we should encourage management-employee buy-outs. The precise arrangements by which we should do that have still to be completed, but I have noted my hon. Friend's interest. The White Paper fills out a considerable number of the details and all the broad approaches that we will be taking to privatisation and to the Bill itself. However, there is still quite a lot of work to be done on many details between now and Royal Assent.

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East) : Having rightly paid tribute to the contribution of railway workers in the United Kingdom, does the Secretary of State accept that the proposals in the White Paper directly contradict the recent reorganisation of BR, conducted at a cost to public funds of at least £150 million? Does he accept that that damages the morale of those who work in the railway industry? Will the new private owners of railway stations, big or small, be allowed to propose the closure of those stations and the disposal of the assets once they accrue to them?

When will the Government acknowledge the inherent unfairness of the investment criteria that are applied to our railway system compared with our road network? Will the newly privatised lines or services be expected to deliver an 8 per cent. return on investment, unlike the proposed toll roads that he has proposed for the west midlands?

Mr. MacGregor : On the first question, of course I recognise the benefits that have come from the reorganisation. British Rail is not alone in facing the fact

Column 986

that further changes take place in organisations after 10 years of reorganisation. I strongly believe that there are additional benefits to come from these proposals. It will, of course, mean a further process of change for British Rail--I recognise that, and the chairman of British Rail recognises that. I have been very keen to ensure that the transition and the changes are managed properly. That change should take place is a feature of life at present. I have said that I believe that, in terms of morale, there are big opportunities for British Rail staff.

On the closure of stations, it will be a condition of any sale or long lease that the operation of the track and the station aspect will be secured.

On the hon. Gentleman's question about investment, as he will see from the White Paper when he gets a chance to read it, there are quite a number of references to investment in the track. Time forbids me to mention them all, but the view is sometimes around that there is unfair treatment between the level of capital investment in the road programme and on rail. In fact, the level of capital investment in the trunk road network and in motorways this year is about £2 billion. British Rail's extra financing limit is £2 billion.

Mr. Prescott : What about the different criteria?

Mr. MacGregor : The criteria have been referred to. No doubt we will be able to examine that matter in more detail later. There is also the suggestion that, somehow or other, the playing field is not level, because those who operate on the road pay much less towards the infrastructure than those on rail. The contribution from fuel duty and other vehicle taxes is about two and a half times the annual programme of expenditure on the road construction programme.

Column 987

Tilbury-Gravesend Ferry

4.26 pm

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) : I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific, important and, above all, urgent matter.

For 900 years, a ferry has plied between Tilbury in Essex and Gravesend in Kent. For many years, it was run by British Rail before the ferry was privatised. At 9 am tomorrow, that ferry will cease. It will stop not because of under-use but because of the precipitate and unreasonable instruction of the Crown Estate Commissioners who control the ancient rights of ferry. That decision by the Crown Estate Commissioners, who are unelected, unaccountable and highly favoured establishment figures, jeopardises that ancient ferry and puts at a substantial disadvantage the good people of Essex and of Kent, and it raises a number of urgent issues.

The Minister has been aware for some days that the ferry is in jeopardy, but he has declined to take any action in safeguarding that public service. That is reprehensible and an example of double standards. The ferry is used daily by 300-odd passengers, and it is important to workers, industry and commerce and shops at Gravesend. They now face serious disadvantage, because the alternative will be a 45-minute trip by road instead of a five- minute trip by ferry. The Minister should reconsider his action and use the remaining hours until 9 o'clock, perhaps with the support of the House, to intervene and use his good offices to persuade the feudal barons who run the Crown Estate to think again.

If British Airways were to decide, or was instructed, to halt the shuttle between London and Belfast or Edinburgh, there would be an almighty row in this House, and the Minister would intervene. But because we are dealing here with Essex, and because the passenger-carrying capacity is relatively small, he has shown a marked disinterest in this ferry and in the passengers it carries between Essex and Kent. I believe that that is not abdication by the Crown but abdication by the Minister in the face of the Crown, because the Crown is involved here. I hope that people will decide--

Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman will understand that his time is now up. All the same, I have listened very carefully to what he has said. As he knows, I have to give my decision without giving a reason. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter that he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. Unfortunately, therefore, I cannot submit the application to the House at this stage.

Column 988

Points of Order

4.30 pm

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : I wonder, Madam Speaker, whether you can give us any guidance on the protection of the rights of Back Benchers. The lists of Members' names relating to the Division that took place at 12.10 last night will not be published in Hansard until tomorrow, so I refer to sheets from upstairs. The Division to which I refer relates to the amendment concerning membership of the Health Committee of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). These are Back-Bench Committees, whose purpose is to look into and oversee departmental functions. In the same Division Lobby opposed to the nomination of the hon. Member for Macclesfield were a majority of the Cabinet, including the Secretary of State for Health, the head of the Department that the Health Committee will inquire into. She went into the Division Lobby with the other members of the Cabinet to oppose a certain hon. Member's retention of his membership of the Committee.

Does not this make a mockery of the way in which these Back-Bench Committees are set up? What protection can we have? There is supposed to be a free vote, and the Government deny that there is any whipping, yet it has come to my notice that the Government Chief Whip sent all Ministers, senior and junior, a letter asking them to be present.

Madam Speaker : I must refer the hon. Gentleman to column 830 of the Official Report of yesterday. He raised this point with me, and I gave a ruling, in which I said :

"In answer to the hon. Gentleman's point of order, it is a matter entirely for the House and for every individual Member of the House, whether a Minister, Back Bencher or whatever, to make up his or her mind".--[ Official Report, 13 July 1992 ; Vol. 211, c. 830.] Mrs. Audrey Wise (Preston) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker : Order.

Mrs. Wise : On a new point of order.

Madam Speaker : May I just finish?

The way in which hon. Members vote in this House has nothing whatsoever to do with the Chair.

Mrs. Wise : Is not the point that we--and I am sure you, Madam Speaker--want Members to make up their own minds and to be free to do so? Is it not clear that some hon. Members were under a very serious constraint not to make up their own minds but to follow instructions? Is not that an abuse of the House?

Madam Speaker : Having been in this House for some time, I understand that from time to time disciplines are exercised by people called Whips. It is not for the Speaker to know whether a Whip is issued in respect of a certain matter. I would not be aware of that. It is not the business of the Speaker.

Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Does not a contradiction arise here? As has been made absolutely plain, the Select Committees were established to oversee the Government,

Column 989

and they were to be constituted in such a way that the Whips' Office would have no power or control over them. In this regard, I quote--

Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is simply continuing last night's debate and points of order with which I have already dealt. The House should accept the rulings that I have given. I cannot allow continuation of a debate that took place when I was in the Chair. I have heard it all before.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker : Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Dalyell : It is a variant on the point of order. Should there not be a code of behaviour for senior Ministers, not least the most senior, in voting on the composition of Select Committees? You say that it is not a matter for the Speaker, but it is at least a matter for the code of behaviour of each Member of Parliament. Some of us might think that we have been rebuked for far lesser things than voting on matters in which we have a definite interest.

Madam Speaker : If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue that point, I am sure that it may well be pursued with the Procedure Committee. He cannot pursue it with the Chair at this stage.

Column 990

Water Charges

4.35 pm

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) : I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable water companies to vary charges in order to assist retired, disabled and unemployed people, those on low incomes and those in full-time education, and to allow an abated charge for single-person households ; to amend the Social Security Act 1986 to permit payments made to certain persons in respect of charges levied on them by water companies to be income-related benefits ; and for connected purposes.

The Bill seeks to redress a considerable and widespread wrong. I seek to assist the most needy in our society to meet payments for a utility which is a basic daily need. It is, in the words of the Roman poet Pinder, "the noblest of elements". I seek to assist retired, disabled and unemployed people, those on low incomes and those in full-time education with their water bills by amending the Social Security Act 1986 to permit payments made to certain persons in respect of charges levied on them by water companies to be made through the income-related benefit system. I also seek to enable companies to vary charges to allow an abated charge for single- person households.

Between 1980-81 and 1992-93, water charges in Wales have risen by 80.3 per cent. in real terms. That is a truly astonishing figure. Unfortunately, the trend is ever upward and water charges are evidently becoming more and more of a burden on families each year. The privatisation of the industry was strongly opposed by my party and others in the House. We now see the effects of a policy which created a damaging monopoly in the provision of water and environmental services so utterly important to all of us. We still believe that water should be a public service.

The water companies have made fantastic profits--for example, Welsh Water made a profit of £128 million two years ago and £138 million last year--yet the upward curve in charges continues relentlessly. The sum of £138 million is a fantastic return on a turnover of £293 million. The last increases in charges were twice the level of inflation.

I am mindful of the large burdens which have fallen on the water companies in the form of long-awaited environmental work which should properly have been undertaken and paid for by central Government, but the astonishing fact is that each household now pays £130 per annum directly to Welsh Water's profits. I am sure that the figure compares with those for all water companies. I find that position utterly intolerable and unacceptable. It amounts to taxation without representation.

We all know only too well of many thousands of good, honest people who simply cannot pay their water bills. The principle of fair play appears to be markedly absent. The Government acknowledge the important principle of ability to pay. That principle appears in the law courts daily in connection with the unit fines system. Indeed, so important is the principle that it has been thrust from above upon magistrates courts as if it were a commandment, and no cogent contrary argument existed. The principle is even enshrined to some extent in the odious community charge and will apply to the council tax when it eventually sees the light of day. I venture to suggest

Column 991

that it is a vital principle and a most welcome one, particularly in the context of a utility and of all-important resources such as water and environmental services.

The report of the Office of Water Services last year referred to the fundamental aims of charging policies. It said that the policies must achieve

"fairness and equity to ensure that customers in similar circumstances pay similar charges ; and that, where they face different bills, the differences in charges properly reflect relevant differences in circumstances."

The current position is certainly not fair and equitable. During the past 12 months or so, I have had dozens of complaints from people in my constituency about the high level of water rates and, more importantly, their sheer inability to meet them. The point was forcibly driven home to me recently by a retired lady in Bala, who was in tears as she showed me her water rates bill.

That lady was in debt for the first time in her life. She was a shining example of a person who lived by the possibly outmoded work ethic. She lived in a modest flat, with one bedroom. To my alarm, I found that her water rates were £248 per annum--only a few pounds less than mine. We are a family of four with a larger house, and I have a teenage daughter, who spends a substantial portion of her waking hours in the shower. There can be no justification for that, since it is painfully obvious that the old lady is paying too much in comparison with my situation. I am not seeking a change that would result in remaining consumers having to pay more, but I strongly urge that that lady's plight is answered, and that of the tens of thousands like her.

During the election campaign, that was one of the most prominent issues that I heard on doorsteps. Time and time again, I found that people living alone were paying disproportionately for water and environmental services. I also found that those people most in need in our communities received no help, and were slipping into debt, frequently for the first time in their lives.

When I discussed this Bill with a Conservative Member, I was told that he accepted the position and that it needed redressing, but he went on to say, quite flippantly, "Why stop there? Why not television licence fees, and telephones next?" Some pensioners pay reduced television licence fees, and rightly so, but that misses the point completely. Water is a utility. We could not exist without it. The argument that if the Bill became law it would somehow set a precedent is too facile for words.

Welsh Water is a league leader for disconnections in the United Kingdom. That gives me no pleasure whatsoever. Possibly it does not give it pleasure either. The main issues involved are debts and disconnection. The crisis was highlighted last week when Ofwat met at Aberystwyth and urged upon Welsh Water the need for a reappraisal of the methods of payment, and a more sensitive approach to disconnection. I reiterate that there is a crisis in Wales, and I suggest that the situation is also serious elsewhere.

What is a person whose water has been disconnected to

Column 992

do? As Aristotle put it "When water chokes you, what are you to drink to wash it down?" [Hon. Members :-- "Wine."] Thanks for the suggestion.

I seek two changes. First, I want a 25 per cent. reduction for single- person households. That would be practicable and straightforward to operate, as the data will be freely available under the new council tax structure, which provides a similar 25 per cent. reduction for such householders.

Secondly, people on low incomes, including the retired, disabled, unemployed and those in full-time education, need direct help. Assistance could be given to those people by introducing a water charges benefit, which would operate as an income-related benefit. Again, the database is readily available and the solution is simple and straightforward. It would require an amendment of the Social Security Act 1986, but I venture to suggest that such an amendment would be easily achieved and simple to introduce and to operate. Theoretically, income support takes into account the cost of water, but there is evidence that the shortfall of years up to 1991 was not made good. That is the contention of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and I am sure that it is right. Historically, we in Plaid Cymru have always taken an active interest in the provision of water. Some say that it is one of our pet subjects. Pet subject or no, there has never been such an urgent need for reform. That is reflected by the fact that my Bill is sponsored by hon. Members from four parties in the House.

To quote from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux' June report :

"water is a vital service, and immediate action must be taken to ensure that it remains available and affordable to vulnerable members of the community".

If we merely stand by and take no action, we are failing thousands of our constituents. I therefore commend my Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Andrew Welsh, Mr. Alex Salmond, Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Paul Flynn, Ms. Liz Lynne and Mr. Alex Carlile.

Water Charges

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd accordingly presented a Bill to enable water companies to vary charges in order to assist retired, disabled and unemployed people, those on low incomes and those in full-time education, and to allow an abated charge for single-person households ; to amend the Social Security Act 1986 to permit payments made to certain persons in respect of charges levied on them by water companies to be income-related benefits ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon 22 January 1993 and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

Column 993

Orders of the Day

Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 3

Restrictions on time spent at sea

appeals--

After section 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 there shall be inserted--

"Restrictions on time spent at sea--appeals.

4AA.--(1) For the purposes of performing the functions conferred by this section there shall be a tribunal to be called the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal.

(2) If--

(a) a licence under section 4 of this Act contains a condition restricting the time which a vessel may spend at sea, and (b) no licence containing such a condition has previously been granted in respect of that vessel,

the person to whom the licence is granted may make an application to the tribunal requesting it to review the time which according to the condition the vessel may spend at sea.

(3) The Ministers shall by regulations make provisionas to-- (a) the manner in which and the time within which applications under subsection (2) above are to be made, and

(b) the principles on which the time which vessels may spend at sea is to be arrived at ;

and the quorum and procedure of the tribunal on dealing with an application shall be such as may be determined by or in accordance with regulations made by the Ministers.

(4) On an application under subsection (2) above the tribunal, consistently with the principles referred to in subsection (3)(b) above, may--

(a) dismiss the application, or

(b) determine that the licence should be varied either by increasing or by reducing the time which the vessel may spend at sea.

(5) If the tribunal makes a determination under subsection (4)(b) above, the Minister who granted the licence shall vary the licence so as to give effect to the determination, and shall make a corresponding variation of any other licence in force in respect of the same vessel.

(6) The tribunal shall consist of members appointed by the Ministers, and the number of members shall be such as the Ministers may determine.

(7) The Ministers shall make such provision as they think fit as to--

(a) the remuneration of the members of the tribunal, and the reimbursement of their expenses, and

(b) the staff and accommodation of the tribunal ;

and any expenses reasonably incurred by the tribunal shall be defrayed by the Ministers.

(8) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.-- [Mr. Curry.] Brought up, and read the First time.

4.45 pm

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Column 994

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Janet Fookes) : With this it will be convenient to consider the following : Government new clause 4-- Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992.

New clause 2-- Licence appeal tribunals--

. The following Schedule shall be added after the Schedule to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967--

"Schedule

--Licence Appeal Tribunals

1. The Ministers may by order made by statutory instrument appoint up to five licence appeal tribunals for each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

2.--(1) Each tribunal shall consist of a chairman and two assessors, appointed by the appropriate Minister, and shall be supported by a secretary and such other staff as the Minister may appoint. (2) A chairman shall be an advocate, barrister or solicitor of not less than ten years' standing.

(3) An assessor shall be a person who appears to the appropriate Minister to have practical experience of the catching sector of the fishing industry.

3.--(1) The Ministers may by regulations make provision for the procedure to be followed in appeals to a licence appeal tribunal. (2) Regulations under this paragraph may include provision-- (a) as to the time within which any proceedings before the committee are to be instituted ;

(b) for requiring persons to attend and give evidence and produce documents ; and

4. With the leave of a tribunal or of the appropriate Minister, an appeal shall lie from any decision of that tribunal

(a) in England and Wales, to a Divisional Court ;

(b) in Scotland, to the Outer House of the Court of Session ; and (c) in Northern Ireland, to a Judge of the High Court.".'. Amendment No. 6 in clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert-- (6C)(a) The skipper, owner or charterer of a vessel named in a licence may appeal to a licence appeal tribunal on the grounds that a condition imposed under subsection (6)(c), or provision made under subsection (6B) above, is unfair or unduly restrictive, provided that not more than one appeal may be made in respect of any one licence in any period of twelve months.

Next Section

Home Page