House of Commons Hansard Debates for 23 Nov 1992

Hansard

House of Commons

Monday 23 November 1992

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]

Oral Answers to Questions

TRANSPORT

Single European Market

1. Mr. Salmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EC Council on improving transport infrastructure in order to maximise the benefits to be gained from the single European market ; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor) : At its meeting on 26 October, the European Community Transport Council under the United Kingdom presidency reached provisional agreement, subject to the agreement of the European Parliament, to extend the regulation on EC transport infrastructure for a further two years. Investment in road and rail infrastructure is now at record levels in Britain and will assist British business in making the most of the single European market.

Mr. Salmond : Given that the geographical limit of the Government's rail policy seems to be docklands and of their road policy the M25, what provision has been made to extend transport links for the single market for the world beyond Watford Gap? If it is appropriate to spend £1,700 million to extend the Jubilee line to nowhere in particular and £300 million to build 1 mile of motorway in Limehouse, why is it not appropriate to spend £80 million on electrifying the railway line from Edinburgh to Aberdeen, the oil capital of Europe and from where most of the funds that the Government have squandered over the past 10 years have come?

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman is being astonishingly and misleadingly selective, and he knows it. He knows that he is talking arrant nonsense. He is well aware that there is a substantial road-building programme from the channel ports all the way to Aberdeen, which will greatly assist Scottish businesses. I was in Aberdeen recently for a meeting and the chairman complained that there were still 20 miles of single carriageway road between Aberdeen and Paris. That shows the degree to which there are already motorways and dual-carriageway roads. The hon. Gentleman is aware of what is being done on what soon will be the M74, he knows of the Moss End terminal and he should know that the M25 is probably the greatest bottleneck to the Community for Scottish businesses. He is talking total nonsense.

Column 592

Mr. Adley : Does my right hon. Friend agree that when it comes to infrastructure on both sides of the channel, actions speak louder than words? If the Government, for entirely respectable reasons, decide that they must protect and restore the national heritage after the fire at Windsor, could they not use the same approach to improve our rail infrastructure? Will he study the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act 1929 to ascertain whether that might be appropriate in the current circumstances?

Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend must know that we are expecting British Rail to have record levels of capital investment this year and for the next three years. They will be well above the levels of the 1970s and 1980s. In real terms, they will be at twice the level of those for most years. There is a substantial investment programme in British Rail, including one for the channel tunnel, but funds cannot be unlimited. We must have a mind to other spending claims as well as a mind to the overall level of Government spending. The fact that capital investment is at record levels shows the priority that we are giving to British Rail.

Mr. Martlew : Is the Secretary of State aware that unless £800 million is spent on the west coast rail line to upgrade it to the standard of the east coast line, my constituents--indeed, all those living in western Britain--will not be able to benefit from the single market?

Mr. MacGregor : I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges the substantial sums that are already being spent on the east coast line. Some improvement to the infrastructure of the west coast line is taking place now. Falling revenues have caused British Rail to reconsider its overall plans for the moment.

Mr. Horam : Is there any possibility of European funds being used for the channel tunnel rail link?

Mr. MacGregor : Some European funds are already being used for studies on the rail link. It is for British Rail to put forward proposals for next year. Fundamentally, we need to study the overall financing of the high-speed channel tunnel rail link after I have received Union Railways' recommendations for a precise line. We are publishing the options and can then consider the financing.

Channel Tunnel

2. Mr. Hain : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his proposals to upgrade rail links from south Wales to the channel tunnel.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman) : It is for British Rail to bring forward proposals to upgrade the rail network. For channel tunnel services, BR intends to utilise the existing freight terminal at Cardiff for freight and to provide a night time passenger service from Swansea to Paris and Brussels. Passengers from south Wales will also be able to connect with the inter-capital services from Waterloo.

Mr. Hain : The Minister must accept that that is wholly inadequate for the needs of south Wales. Does not the Government's abysmal failure to invest in a modern, direct link from south Wales to the channel tunnel-- coupled with the 500 rail job losses resulting from the pit closure

Column 593

programme and with British Rail's job loss programme--mean that south Wales is in danger of being left with a skeleton service by international standards?

Mr. Freeman : On the hon. Gentleman's point about a direct link, I am sure that he appreciates that when the channel tunnel rail link is built between Folkestone and King's Cross, that will permit direct services via King's Cross on the Great Western line all the way to Cardiff and other parts of Wales. Therefore, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will support the channel tunnel rail link project when my right hon. Friend introduces proposals for consideration.

Mr. Rowe : My hon. Friend will know how grateful I am that our right hon. Friend has said that he will publish the proposals when he receives them from Union Railways. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is fully seized of the anxieties of all local authorities in Kent that the channel tunnel rail link will suffer from the present plans to run it overground? Will he also confirm that he is not prepared to sacrifice the environment of Kent for a cut-price line, especially as the building of major capital projects is probably cheaper now than it has been at any time?

Mr. Freeman : My right hon. Friend will publish a proposed route for consultation as quickly as possible after he has had the opportunity to study the proposals from Union Railways. He will not subscribe to a cut- price route that abandons all sensible environmental protection. I give my hon. Friend and his Kent colleagues the assurance that the Government will carefully consider the best environmental protection possible with regard to the rail link.

Mr. Win Griffiths : Does the Minister think that the proposal to upgrade the line south of London, which would avoid the need for services from south Wales and the west country to come into the capital, would be a much better alternative? Otherwise, will not London and, in particular, the area around King's Cross become the equivalent of Heathrow--where people can be stuck for hours because of the difficulties of air traffic finding a slot? Why do not the Government invest in the future rather than in short- term plans that will make London a nightmare for rail travellers?

Mr. Freeman : I believe that King's Cross is a sensible terminus for the new high-speed channel tunnel rail link. The capacity created will definitely be needed at some future stage. That choice of terminus will also benefit those who live in the north-east and north-west.

However, there is much to commend in the hon. Gentleman's specific point about routing to the south of London--presumably through Redhill and then on through Reading. I shall draw his comments and those of other hon. Members who have made the same point to the attention of the chairman of British Rail.

Speeding (Villages)

3. Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to reduce excessive speed in villages.

Mr. MacGregor : I have today laid a draft order to remove the requirement that local traffic authorities obtain my consent before establishing a speed limit on any

Column 594

principal road. In addition, I shall shortly be issuing a circular advising local authorities, when setting a speed limit, to place greater stress on environmental considerations and less on the need to show that the road has a poor accident record.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith : My right hon. Friend will be aware that many villages in my constituency are bisected by busy roads. Do such villages have to wait for someone to be killed or for a series of serious accidents to happen before action is taken to control excessive speed?

Mr. MacGregor : Many villages in my constituency are in a similar position. I have long been aware of the concern among villagers that it appears that they have to suffer serious road accidents before a speed limit can be allowed. I share that concern. I have changed the criteria so that that will no longer be the case.

Traffic (Town Centres)

4. Mr. Fabricant : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will visit mid-Staffordshire to assess the effect of traffic on town centres.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle) : My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit mid-Staffordshire at present. But I shall be in the west midlands on 16 December listening to the views of all the local authorities on traffic problems in their areas.

Mr. Fabricant : Is my hon. Friend aware of the huge traffic build-up that occurs when travelling north and south on the A51 through Rugeley and Brereton? Is he aware of the even more desperate need of a bypass in Stone, which is an ancient and beautiful market town?

Mr. Carlisle : My hon. Friend has pressed clearly on me the need for a bypass in Stone. I well understand his argument. We shall make an announcement shortly on our backing for local authority schemes in the coming year. I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall listen carefully to the clear expression of his constituents' views. I understand the need for a bypass in Rugeley. Our bypass programme is substantial. The Government have included 130 bypasses in the present programme, and there are dozens more bypasses in the local roads programme. So my hon. Friend speaks for many other constituents besides his own.

Mr. Bennett : Does the Minister accept that the problems of mid- Staffordshire are replicated throughout much of the midlands and the north- west of England because people are switching from rail travel to roads as a result of the poor quality of service on the west coast main line? Is it not essential to get the new rolling stock for the west coast main line as quickly as possible? Would not investment in railways be much better than putting one or two extra bypasses here and there, because investment in the railways would help the whole country?

Mr. Carlisle : The hon. Gentleman's question is far from the subject of this question. We have a balanced programme with a substantial investment in railways. The hon. Member would do well if he could press the claims of his constituents as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid- Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) presses for his.

Column 595

London Underground (Investment)

5. Mr. Carrington : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what level of capital investment in London Underground he is expecting to authorise in the coming year.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris) : The settlement reached will allow investment of about £1 billion in London Underground, including the Jubilee line extension in each of the next three years. Investment next year in London Underground will be higher in real terms than at any point in the 1970s or 1980s.

Mr. Carrington : Does my hon. Friend agree that London desperately needs new underground lines to relieve the congestion on London transport? The news in the autumn statement that the Jubilee line extension will go ahead, subject to private sector money becoming available, is good news. Will my hon. Friend confirm when he expects work to start on the Jubilee line extension?

Mr. Norris : My hon. Friend is right that we need to continue extending the infrastructure of tube lines in London. We made it clear in the autumn statement that funds for the Jubilee line are reserved. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is a matter for negotiation between the two parties to the partnership--the Government and the creditors of the former Olympia and York. Those discussions are proceeding. I hope that we shall be able to start construction in the near future, subject to those discussions.

Mr. Austin-Walker : Does the Minister recognise that, in addition to the capital problems that London Underground faces, it has a severe revenue problem, which is one of the reasons why 5,000 jobs are under threat? Although I welcome the fact that tomorrow's impending strike appears to have been called off, on the ground that there will be no compulsory redundancies, does the Minister accept that the loss of 5,000 jobs will have a serious effect not only on safety on London Underground but on passengers' perception of safety and may lead people back onto the roads?

Mr. Norris : I know that the hon. Gentleman has not been here long, but it might be a good idea if he knew what he was talking about before he started on a rant of that nature. The first thing to establish is that the reductions in jobs are a result of the progress in contracting out services, which produces better quality services for passengers. The basis of the company plan always was voluntary redundancy and more staff on stations, not fewer. In short, I reject everything that the hon. Gentleman says, with the one exception that I join him in expressing pleasure that both sides have seen the sense of continuing to implement the company plan, as they appear from the recent announcement to have done.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : My hon. Friend will have heard the welcome on both sides of the House for the Jubilee line new investment. In what way can he and the House be satisfied that the remaining funds for London Transport will allow maintenance and re-investment in existing lines to continue so that there is no deterioration in track or trains?

Mr. Norris : May I direct my hon. Friend to the fact that investment in the next three years--excluding the Jubilee

Column 596

line and for that matter the crossrail project, the funds for which are also protected--will be about £ billion greater than in the past three years. That should give my hon. Friend the reassurance that he seeks. We shall continue to improve the quality of the existing infrastructure, as well as adding to it through the significant projects that I have mentioned.

Mr. Keith Hill : Can the Minister confirm that, as a result of the autumn statement, the long planned modernisation of the Northern line will be delayed for at least a further three years? Does not that mean that travel conditions for my constituents in Clapham and Balham on the already atrocious misery line can only get worse?

Mr. Norris : The hon. Gentleman must not be caught in one of those embarrassing political time warps. I suppose that he has read the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. If he has, he will know that the MMC singled out the Northern line as one on which it had noted a significant improvement in the service.

Mr. Tracey : My hon. Friend has mentioned the MMC report, which says that £700 million per year is required for core funding of the London transport network--the underground and indeed, the bus services. Can my hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that that level of funding will continue to be provided alongside what he said about the Jubilee line and lines such as the Northern line?

Mr. Norris : The figure in the MMC report is London Transport's assessement of the cost of producing the decently modern metro service, to which the Government remain entirely committed. In this year's settlement, London Underground Limited will continue to tackle the backlog of under- investment which the report identifies. Clearly, it is for London Transport to determine the priorities for the investment at its disposal. I confirm to my hon. Friend that we remain entirely committed to the principle.

Mr. Tony Banks : Is it not a fact that in his autumn statement the Chancellor announced a 30 per cent. reduction in capital investment for London Underground, as compared with the figure that was announced in the autumn statement of 1991? The chairman of London Regional Transport says that the reduction will mean that the Northern line modernisation will not go ahead. It will mean the closure of Aldwych station and eventually the loss of 7,000 jobs in the supply industry. Is it not amazing that we have the most expensive underground system in Europe and that we have the angriest travellers, the angriest management and the angriest staff? That is a remarkable achievement, even by the Minister's standards.

Mr. Norris : If I have to pick something to answer out of all those points, I make the point that I understand the hon. Gentleman's disappointment at the level of the settlement, even as he expressed it. However, he will know that investment in the survey period will still be higher than in any year in the 1970s or 1980s. That represents a considerable investment measured in hundreds of millions of pounds-- investment not merely to maintain the system in its present state but to improve it, and it excludes the commitment measured in billions to extending the system.

Column 597

Car Commuting (Central London)

6. Mr. Corbyn : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest information he has on the daily car commuting journeys into central London and the equivalent for five years ago.

Mr. Norris : In 1991, the daily number of people entering central London by car during the morning peak was 155,000, down from 166,000 five years previously.

Mr. Corbyn : Does the Minister accept that no less than 17 per cent. of all commuter journeys in and out of central London are made by car, congestion and pollution are getting worse, and the danger to Londoners is growing worse as a consequence? Should not the Minister take steps to reduce further the level of car commuting in and out of central London and concentrate on reducing the cost of bus and train travel, so that this will be a cleaner, safter city in which to live?

Mr. Norris : The actual figure for commuting by car is something like 14 per cent., so I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. I agree also that our policy should be to contain and, where possible, to reduce car commuting into central London. That is why we devoted substantial funds to improving our public transport network--not only the tube but buses. Bus priority measures include the pilot red route, which I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees has produced considerable benefits. However, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that I do not believe that the answer is simply to slash fares. That is a disastrous policy, which would leave the taxpayer with a huge bill merely to cover operating costs--instead of investing resources in improving the system.

Mr. Dunn : Does my hon. Friend the Minister accept that for many people, the car is the only way of gaining access to central London? Will he promise to hold an inquiry in respect of the roadworks on the M20, A20, on two points on the A2 in my constituency, and at the Blackwall tunnel that are all being undertaken simultaneously--that is, at the same time? Will he hold an inquiry, so that we may achieve ease of access from north- west Kent into central London?

Mr. Norris : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a former education Minister, for pointing out the precise nature of his question. Using grammar as simple as I can muster, I may tell him that I entirely-- that is probably the wrong word--rather, wholly accept his comments about the necessity in some cases to use a private car. It is just a shame that some single-issue lobby groups do not appear to recognise the obvious truth of my hon. Friend's observation. As to the particular problems that he mentioned, I will undertake to bring them to the attention of the appropriate officials.

Mr. Harvey : Given the cautious welcome that the Secretary of State for Transport gave recently to proposals for road pricing, will the Minister give an undertaking that any revenue raised from any road pricing scheme will be used to provide an effective and affordable public transport alternative?

Mr. Norris : The hon. Gentleman will note that--subject to your allowing it, Madam Speaker--my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly be answering a question on that subject.

Column 598

Rail Privatisation

7. Dr. Spink : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to ensure the continuation of British Rail's safety standards after privatisation.

Mr. Freeman : We are committed to ensuring that high safety standards are maintained. We have asked the Health and Safety Commission to arrange for a thorough study of the safety implications of our proposals and to make detailed recommendations.

Dr. Spink : Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern in south-east Essex following weekend press comment that the Fenchurch Street line may be subject to closure in the future for safety reasons? Will my hon. Friend comment on that, and guarantee that the £50 million made available to British Rail to invest new signalling on the Fenchurch Street line will be ring-fenced? Will my hon. Friend meet me at Benfleet station in December to discuss all those and many other problems on the Fenchurch Street line?

Mr. Freeman : The press speculation is entirely incorrect. I have spoken to the chairman of British Rail, who has confirmed that the investment in signalling on the line has been approved. British Rail is now negotiating with the contractor chosen to install the signalling to ensure that the best possible terms are included in the contract, but there is no doubt that the work will proceed.

Mrs. Dunwoody : Is the Minister aware that British Rail has made it clear that it will be able to undertake only repairs as opposed to major renewal schemes? Is he prepared to state that the report that he is to receive will be published quickly so that the general public can assess the accuracy of his chaotic plans for privatisation?

Mr. Freeman : British Rail will have the capacity to invest about £1,000 million next year--which will include investment in safety work --following this year's higher figure, which includes preparations for the channel tunnel.

I can give the hon. Lady the assurance that she seeks : we shall publish the Health and Safety Commission report as soon as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received and considered it.

Mr. Peter Atkinson : We have heard that investment in British Rail is reaching a record level. Will my hon. Friend pass on to British Rail a message from the travelling public that they want the money to be spent on improvement in services? Will he tell British Rail that passengers are tired of hearing about British Rail's campaign for yet more funds and feel that, instead of holding out the begging bowl, BR should face up to the challenge offered by privatisation? Only then can the British public be given the real service that they deserve.

Mr. Freeman : The Government have always accepted that investment constitutes one contribution to the improvement of service. That improvement can be seen on the Chiltern and Northampton lines, and will shortly be seen on the Kent link line. On Wednesday, with several other hon. Members, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will be helping to launch the Kent link service officially. It is to receive £700 million of investment. As for management effort, the citizens charter has made a difference on Network SouthEast. I agree with what my hon. Friend has said.

Column 599

Mr. Wilson : Will the Minister now admit that the timetable for this unwanted and unworkable privatisation is in tatters? This country's financial settlement will lead British Rail to close stretches of track on safety grounds because it cannot meet the capital costs ; on the other side of the channel, the French Government have just announced a grant of £4 billion for SNCF in the coming year--almost three times the British figure. Which Government have their priorities right? Should the priority be unwanted, unworkable privatisation, or decent investment in a safe public railway system?

Mr. Freeman : I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post. Sadly, however, he always seems to devalue the strength of his argument by exaggeration.

My right hon. Friend's introduction of a railways Bill clearly depends on the early passage of the paving Bill. I think that all hon. Members would accept that, as a courtesy to the House.

Red Routes

8. Mr. Jessel : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he is making on the installation of red routes in Greater London.

Mr. Norris : Following the success of the pilot red route, I have designated 315 miles of priority routes. I have set objectives for the traffic director, who is now consulting on his network plan.

Mr. Jessel : Does my hon. Friend agree that the red routes--the brainchild of our former excellent colleague Sir Philip Goodhart--are not being introduced nearly fast enough? When the economy revives, London will face monster traffic jams. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the red routes on the A316 Great Chertsey road and the A4 Cromwell road are put in as quickly as possible, that being the main route into London from Twickenham?

Mr. Norris : As you will know, Madam Speaker, the Great Chertsey road is not only the road into London from Twickenham, but the road down which Bill Sikes took Oliver Twist en route to the blag in Chertsey. With that in mind, we shall of course deal with the matter at an early date. The traffic directors' draft network plan proposes implementation of that section during 1994.

I shall be delighted to pass on my hon. Friend's congratulations and good wishes to Sir Philip Goodhard, who did indeed articulate the original concept.

Ms. Glenda Jackson : Will the Minister reconsider his previous refusal to meet traders in my constituency who view the imposition of red routes in Finchley road as catastrophic? I quote from what they say : "If they are " [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker : Order. I should inform all hon. Members that during Question Time they are not allowed to quote.

Ms. Jackson : I apologise, Madam Speaker. The traders in my constituency believe that if red routes are imposed in the Finchley road there is no way that either they or their businesses can survive.

Mr. Norris : As one who has spent all his life in small business--I did not intend it that way ; it just turned out that way--I take very seriously indeed the idea that

Column 600

businesses might have been adversely affected by the introduction of the priority routes. I have examined with the greatest care all the evidence that has been submitted to me in an effort to demonstrate that proposition. There is not the slightest evidence that priority routes have had any impact on businesses in the priority route areas. [Hon. Members :-- "Nonsense."] I hear Opposition Members, from a sedentary position, claim otherwise. They are of a particular mind about red routes, but there is no evidence whatever for the proposition that they advance.

Mr. Bowis : Does my hon. Friend agree that what we have heard is an example of the misinformation going around London about the red routes? Will he redouble his efforts to make sure that the truth about the results of the experiment comes out? Will he constantly point to the improvements through the reduction in pollution and rat running and also to the improvements in bus reliability and the number of legal parking spaces?

Mr. Norris : I agree with my hon. Friend. Certain political positions were taken up on the matter by Opposition Members. The obvious advantages of the scheme now being evident, they are in some difficulty. They continue to peddle alarming disinformation--for example, regarding the supposed disadvantages to shopkeepers in the area. The reality is exactly as my hon. Friend says : improved safety, improved bus reliability and the much better management of traffic in the area, to the benefit of all concerned.

Railway Manufacture

9. Mr. Bayley : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take measures to ensure the continued possibility of the manufacture of railway locomotives and rolling stock in the United Kingdom.

Mr. MacGregor : My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have already taken such measures. In his autumn statement last week, my right hon. Friend announced, in addition to further substantial external financing limits for British Rail, new leasing arrangements which would allow British Rail to order an extra £150 million of new rolling stock in the run-up to privatisation.

Mr. Bayley : I welcome that change. The Government are welcome to plunder the Labour party manifesto for many more of our proposals. Will the Secretary of State ensure that British Rail has the revenue to pay the leasing costs? Will he specifically seek to obtain the Chancellor of the Exchequer's approval to reverse the £40 million cut in British Rail's finances announced in the autumn statement the week before last? Will he also seek to ensure that British Rail's budget is not cut to £1,500 million in the following year and to £1,080 million in 18 months' time? Is the Minister aware that when his colleague the Minister for Public Transport was in York on Thursday last week he described as "bunkum" my fear that job losses would result from the under-financing of British Rail- -just hours before the British Railways Board announced 5,000 redundancies? Or was the Minister for Public Transport not aware that those redundancies were coming? Did the Secretary of State not tell him?

Mr. MacGregor : I cannot answer all the hon. Gentleman's questions or I should be here for 20 minutes, but I will answer some of them. The announcement that

Column 601

British Rail made last week on voluntary redundancies--a commercial decision that it reached--had nothing to do with privatisation or anything announced in the autumn statement. Like any company with falling revenue and rising costs, it took action to deal with that. The redundancies will be voluntary, and British Rail has an extremely good record for so managing staff reductions over many years. As a result of the autumn statement, compared with the 1970s and 1980s British Rail will be able to make record capital investment of about £1 billion over the next three years. Part of the graph of the external financing limit reflects the fact that, this year and in the forthcoming year, we shall peak on rolling stock for the channel tunnel.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Charters

30. Mr. Flynn : To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what new charters he intends to introduce.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave : Twenty-seven charters have been published so far. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will publish his courts charter on Wednesday, and five more charters will be published in the next six months.

Mr. Flynn : Does the Chancellor think that our democracy would be improved by the introduction of a voters charter, which would create an elected second Chamber and put controls on national spending at election time? The Register of Members' Interests for the previous Parliament showed that 14 per cent. of Labour Members had outside jobs, whereas 85 per cent. of Conservative Members had two, three and sometimes four or five salaries from outside. As name tags are a main feature of the charters, would not a voters charter benefit from having a list that hon. Members could wear on their lapels showing the companies that are filling those Members' pockets with money, so that voters and the House would know whether Members were speaking on behalf of their constituents or on behalf of Megagreed plc?

Mr. Waldegrave : I am afraid that the question goes a little wider than my responsibilities, wide though they are. I used to be a supporter of an elected upper Chamber, and if we had one with a solid Conservative majority, which would be the result, we might have less difficulty in that Chamber. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the other matters and will report them to the Leader of the House, who is the proper recipient.

Mr. Nicholls : Does my right hon. Friend agree that what he said today about the courts charter will be most welcome news to members of the public, witnesses and practitioners who have had to cope with the vagaries of the system? Will he accept my word for it that the way in which listing hearings take place often shows scant regard for those who need to use the criminal courts and simply means that important items are decided according to the whim of court listing clerks?

Mr. Waldegrave : I believe that my noble and learned Friend's charter will be widely welcomed, but I must leave it to him to present it on Wednesday. Many of my constituents, perhaps like those of other hon. Members, have been disappointed by the way in which they have

Column 602

been treated by the courts whether as witnesses or as victims. The charter will be welcome in setting proper targets for the courts' treatment of people.

Ms. Mowlam : Does the Minister accept that the letters that I have received from constituents do not talk about the wonders of the charter, but show that they think that the Minister's handling of it has made it more of a farce than an asset to consumers? Does he accept that his credibility as a Minister is in doubt when he claims, as he has in the House, to have no departmental responsibility for monitoring specific charters or for providing information? Despite that, he still believes that he is the Minister for open government. Surely his failure to stand up to Ministers at the Foreign Office means that he is not up to the job.

Mr. Waldegrave : I think that the hon. Member may have strayed into the wrong debate. If, as an Opposition spokesman, she did not receive letters criticising the Government there would not be much point in her existence. The point of the central campaign is to get charters established throughout the public service. That has been done and I think that the hon. Member will find that the White Paper that we publish on Wednesday will catalogue formidable progress in the past year.

Research (South Dorset)

31. Mr. Ian Bruce : To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much Government-funded research is carried out in South Dorset.

Mr. Waldegrave : My hon. Friend's constituency of South Dorset has a wide range of important Government-funded research facilities. They are as follows : the Defence Research Agency at Southwell, Portland and Holton Heath ; AEA Technology at Winfrith ; MAFF Fish Diseases Laboratory at Weymouth ; the NERC Institute of Freshwater Ecology at Wareham ; and the NERC Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, also at Wareham.

Next Section

Home Page