House of Commons Hansard Debates for 3 Jul 1995

Hansard

Monday 3 July 1995

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[ Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]

Oral Answers to Questions

TRANSPORT

Network South Central

1. Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from passengers regarding services on Network South Central. [30115]

The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): My Department has received 28 representations this year about services on Network South Central.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware, however, that commuters in my Sutton and Cheam constituency are angry, frustrated and tired of the embarrassing service that they are receiving? They complain of delays, overcrowded trains and unintelligible announcements. When I spoke to the director of customer relations on their behalf, he would not accept my complaints. Has not the time come to privatise British Rail, and give commuters the service that they want?

Dr. Mawhinney: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's last point. I know that there have been difficulties

Column 2

on that line, and that my hon. Friend has--as is her

wont--represented her constituents assiduously. I am aware that her constituents have also experienced difficulty in gaining access to proper information. As I think that she knows, I set great store by making as much detailed and accurate information as possible available to passengers.

Rail Franchises

2. Mr. Hoon: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's policy in relation to British Rail being invited to tender for rail franchises. [30116]

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): Under section 25 of the Railways Act 1993, the franchising director has the discretion to exclude the British Railways Board or any wholly owned subsidiary of the board from tendering for rail franchises.

Mr. Hoon: The Prime Minister says that Conservative Members of Parliament should vote for his sound management, his years of experience and, above all, his track record. Why do those principles not apply to British Rail's tendering for franchises?

Mr. Watts: The franchising director has decided that British Rail should not be allowed to bid for the first three franchises. He fears that other bidders would be deterred if British Rail were allowed to bid. I emphasise, however, that British Rail management teams--to which I think that the hon. Gentleman was referring--will not be excluded. Indeed, a number of management and employee teams have expressed an interest in becoming franchisees.

Sir Alan Haselhurst: Has not my hon. Friend made the exact point that, if British Rail is allowed to bid for each and every one of the franchises, the management teams will effectively be precluded from so doing--thus denying the possibility of innovative approaches?

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is entirely right.

Mr. McLeish: Is it not a scandal that British Rail should be excluded from seeking franchises on political

Column 3

grounds? More important, does the Minister accept that his policy of ensuring that 51 per cent. of train operators held franchises by May is now in tatters? Will he concede that, having spent £1.25 billion on privatisation, the Government have not managed to bring any of the train operators into the private sector? When will the Minister give up this meaningless exercise--or must we wait until the Secretary of State has been moved to another Department before someone will have the guts to abandon this crazy, lunatic idea?

Mr. Watts: The answer to the last part of the question is never. I would never wish to abandon a policy that I believe would be of benefit to passengers and freight users. I must emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that there is no political involvement in those decisions. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is specifically prevented from giving the franchising director objectives, instructions or guidance on the exercise of his powers under section 25 of the Railways Act 1993.

Northern Line

3. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about investment in the Northern line of London Underground. [30117]

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): Prospects for the Northern line have rarely looked better. Angel station has been completely rebuilt at a cost of £72 million, and London Underground is currently renovating 10 stations at the southern end of the line. The entire fleet of trains is being replaced under the private finance initiative, with the first train entering service in the middle of next year.

Mr. Marshall: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and I look forward to having a glass of champagne with him on the first new train next year. Will he allow London Underground to discuss with private entrepreneurs the possibility of using the private finance initiative to improve signalling and the track, and to introduce automatic ticket barriers on the Northern line?

Mr. Norris: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his consistent and persistent support of the campaign to improve the Northern line on behalf of his constituents. He knows that I could not possibly help myself to a glass of his champagne as London Transport has a no alcohol policy, to which of course I would want to adhere. That notwithstanding, he is right. Now is the time that we should be considering how we can apply the principles of the private finance initiative to other sectors such as signalling and power supply, as well as the successful deal on trains.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I welcome the Minister's reply about the southern end the Northern line, but he must be aware that Hampstead is the deepest station in the whole network. When can we look for improvements at the northern end of the Northern line?

Mr. Norris: I shall not be doing anything to raise Hampstead station, if that is what the hon. Lady is implying. At the southern end, as she knows, we are improving stations that are not in a satisfactory condition. I welcome her support for the idea that we might get the private sector involved in some renovation work north of the Thames, as there is no doubt that that has proved an

Column 4

extremely lucrative way in which we can improve the system, for the benefit of passengers. I am delighted to have her support.

Transport Policy

4. Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to encourage passenger and freight traffic to switch from road to rail. [30119]

Dr. Mawhinney: Privatisation will bring improvements that will make railway passenger and freight services more attractive to customers.

Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the past 45 years of the nationalised rail network have been years of decline in which freight has been deterred from using railways and pushed on to roads? Will he urge operators when they come forward to win back the business from the Royal Mail, the newspapers and innumerable other operators who send their freight by road instead of by rail because it has been so inefficient?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right that, in the past 40 years, there has been a relative decline in the amount of freight moved by train. In 1953, 24 per cent. of goods were moved by train; today the figure is 5 per cent. and falling, but my hon. Friend, and I suspect the whole House, will take encouragement from a survey recently conducted by the rail freight group, which considered current, former and potential rail freight users. It received 83 responses. Two thirds of those who responded expected to increase the use of railways for the moving of freight, and more than half of non-users thought that they were more likely to use rail now than in the past. Those are encouraging statistics and underline the importance of moving the freight railway from the public to the private sector.

Mr. Tyler: Can the Secretary of State clear up a mystery? He will, I think, agree that one of the principal reasons, particularly at this time of year, for trying to reduce the amount of road traffic and to move it on to rail is to reduce atmospheric pollution, especially for the considerable number of asthma sufferers. During the debate on the Environment Bill, the Minister for the Environment and Countryside said that powers were available to the Secretary of State for Transport to reduce the amount of traffic, to reduce speeds and even to close roads where atmospheric pollution had reached a danger point for asthma sufferers. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has such powers, explain how he intends to use them, and tell us what opportunities he would offer to local authorities to use such powers as well?

Dr. Mawhinney: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to road safety regulations, which are very complex--certainly legally complex. I suspect that both of us think that there may be a case for trying to find an easier way through that particular issue, as quickly as possible.

Mr. Sumberg: If my right hon. Friend wants to move freight from road to rail, may I give him a piece of advice from my area? I suggest that he abandons the disastrous M62 relief road, which is causing havoc in my constituency, and where the management by his

Column 5

Department of the houses that it has acquired is little short of disgraceful. Will he abandon that scheme sooner rather than later?

Dr. Mawhinney: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is robust in defending the interests of his constituents, as they and he see them. He will note that a number of alternatives are being explored at the moment. I shall reflect on what he has said as we move forward with those investigations.

Mr. Grocott: If the Secretary of State is serious about transferring freight from road to rail, should he not look urgently at an area of Government policy practised by the Ministry of Defence? At the beginning of the Tory period of Government, no fewer than 40 MOD depots had rail connections to the main line. Half of those connections have since been closed, including the Donington link in my constituency. Is that not a clear illustration of the MOD pursuing an obvious policy of transferring freight from rail to road, and what will the right hon. Gentleman do about it?

Dr. Mawhinney: You will understand, Madam Speaker, that I do not have responsibility for the Ministry of Defence. However, I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are brought to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is nothing more likely to discourage a move from road to rail than the annual threat of rail strikes? Does he have any idea whether future rail strikes are likely to have the support of the Opposition Front Bench?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am sure that I am speaking for everyone--at least, all Conservative Members--in saying that any threat of industrial action on the railways cannot be in the interests of the passengers, the industry or those who work on the railways. I should have thought that everyone would have had enough experience of industrial disputes last year to use great caution in the contemplation of similar activities this year--which I sincerely hope will not take place. Passenger transport in some areas of the country has not recovered from the negative effects of last year's strikes. We need a buoyant, viable rail service that will be attractive to passengers and there is certainly no way in which industrial disputes are likely to aid that process.

Mr. Meacher: We certainly hope that the right hon. Gentleman has learnt his lessons from what happened last year. What is the point of him launching a great debate on transport when there is to be no action at the end of it? How does he expect to achieve a major switch from road to rail when last year, for the first time since the war, there were no orders for new rolling stock, because of privatisation? Investment in the rail network as a whole plummeted by a third in one year to its lowest level for the past 50 years. When will the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is fast becoming the eunuch of the transport world--all talk and no follow through? --[ Laughter. ]

Dr. Mawhinney: I am sorry, Madam Speaker; I know that I am not supposed to laugh out loud at the hon. Gentleman, but it is too great a temptation.

First, I did learn a lesson from last year's strikes--that if there is a strike in the public sector, we can always expect the Labour party to row in behind it. I hope that

Column 6

the hon. Gentleman will think very carefully before he repeats the foolish support that Labour Members gave to that damaging industrial dispute last year.

Secondly, unlike the hon. Gentleman, virtually everyone else in the country --those who take transport seriously--has welcomed the debate. Indeed, I had the opportunity to talk to 700 people at the Sheldonian theatre in Oxford just a couple of weeks ago. I was told that, apart from graduation ceremonies, it was the largest event at the university in the whole of the academic year. People came together to study, debate, discuss and explore the possibilities of transport policy and transport strategy through to the next century. We know that the hon. Gentleman does not have a policy--he does not have one on railways, on roads or on aviation--so we understand his embarrassment. We are happy for him to continue to sit on the Labour Front Bench and make his rather silly remarks while the rest of us get on with developing a transport policy for the next century.

Vehicle Excise Duty Fraud

5. Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to combat vehicle excise duty fraud. [30120]

Mr. Norris: The number of evaders penalised and revenue recovered from direct enforcement action has been increased in each of the last 10 years. Last year was the best yet, when £46.5 million was recovered from 458,000 evaders.

Mr. French: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. I congratulate him on the progress that has been made but remind him that there is still a great deal to be done. Constituents of mine regularly produce long lists of registration numbers of vehicles which they know to be untaxed. What is even worse is that when they take those lists to the police, they are told that nothing can be done. May I urge my hon. Friend to arrange constructive talks between his Department and the Home Office to ensure that the problem is cracked once and for all?

Mr. Norris: Yes, I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the Home Secretary because his point is very serious. We ought to be clear that evasion represents about 4 per cent. of potential revenue. None the less, it is an affront to all those law-abiding motorists who bother to get their VED, and such conduct is quite inexcusable. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks.

Ms Walley: Why has the Minister not understood that it is a matter not only of tax evasion but of road safety? Is there not a close connection between the number of vehicles, especially heavy goods lorries, that are not only untaxed but unlicensed and the number that are uninsured and illegally operated? Indeed, that connection has been highlighted by the report of the traffic commissioners. When will he introduce powers to confiscate heavy goods

Column 7

vehicles, which are contributing to the cause of accidents? The Minister did not even take that into account in answering the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French).

Mr. Norris: In the midst of all that, there was--I suppose--at least one semi-serious point, which I am happy to address.

Mr. Meacher: How patronising!

Mr. Norris: It is difficult not to be patronising when faced with such inane contributions from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and his hon. Friends. The issue of some heavy goods vehicles not being covered by operators' licensing is very serious. I have undertaken, with the illegal operations working party, to look at the whole issue of confiscation. I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) to the extent that in some cases confiscation may be the only mechanism capable of deterring those for whom the normal framework of the law is clearly irrelevant.

A21

6. Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the plans to upgrade the A21. [30122]

Mr. Watts: Progress is being made. Preparation work is continuing on three schemes to improve the A21. We continue to keep the needs of the route as a whole under review.

Mrs. Lait: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, even though it will not relieve the distress among many communities along the A21. On Thursday evening, while driving through Lamberhurst, I noticed posters saying "Bypass Now". My constituents who work in Tonbridge Wells are concerned about the economic success of that town because of its poor communications, and Hastings has the 43rd highest level of unemployment in the country, largely due to appalling communications. Can my hon. Friend give any idea of how we will finally address the problem of upgrading the A21 to a reasonable standard?

Mr. Watts: I fully recognise the strategic and economic importance of improving the A21. My hon. Friend took the trouble to explain it to me fully when I visited Hastings earlier this year, when I met local business men. The three schemes being taken forward are the section between the Tonbridge bypass and Pembury bypass, the section between Kipping's Cross and Lamberhurst and the Lamberhurst bypass itself. For the section between Kipping's Cross and Lamberhurst, we are also considering whether interim measures can be taken as part of our network enhancement programme.

Travelcards (London)

7. Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy in respect of the introduction of competing travelcards in London. [30124]

Mr. Norris: The existing London travelcard is a rightly popular form of ticketing and we are committed to its continued availability. Future developments in ticketing alongside the existing travelcard will primarily be a matter for the transport operators to pursue.

Column 8

Mr. Corbyn: It is the latter part of the Minister's reply that worries me. Can he confirm now, once and for all, that there will be no establishment of competing travelcards in London, that there will be the maintenance of one travelcard which covers bus, underground and railway operations and that he will tell the rail franchising director that there should be no possibility of introducing any other form of travelcard which limits accessibility to, and interchange between, public transport in London? London's success depends on an integrated transport network and on an overall travelcard to facilitate that.

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman is right. As I said, the travelcard is hugely important. He is also right to say that we would not want for a second to lose it. I hope that he will allow me to say, however, that the idea that we must assume that all ticketing technology is frozen in time is misleading and unhelpful. Stored value ticketing, for example, adds attractive opportunities for London Transport to appeal to people who do not need or want the present travelcard, which is time-limited, but who would like to have stored value in a ticket that they could carry with them to their great convenience. That is the kind of technical development that can sit alongside the travelcard. I say straightforwardly and on the record, because misleading information about the matter is frequently put forward, that we have no plans to water down the present travelcard for we hugely recognise the value that it has for millions of Londoners.

Crossrail

8. Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to lay before the House an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to authorise a public inquiry into the crossrail project. [30125]

Dr. Mawhinney: No firm date for an application under the Transport and Works Act has yet been set.

Mr. Lidington: Given the acknowledgement by the Government, by local authorities along the length of the proposed crossrail route and by organisations such as London First and City Corporation, representing the City of London, that crossrail would bring enormous benefits to London and to the whole of the south-east, may I impress on my right hon. Friend the need for urgency in this project? Has he set a date by which the new review, which he has commissioned, of the feasibility of crossrail should be completed and the report given to him and his Cabinet colleagues?

Dr. Mawhinney: It is a matter of record that my hon. Friend has taken a long, detailed and informed interest in the subject, and I pay tribute to him for that. He will be encouraged to know that the study that I have put in place is being carried out alongside the preparation of the application and I have asked for the study to be made available to me before the end of the year.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the crossrail project, in principle, has cross-party and all-London support? This is not only because 61 of the 66 central London stations would be accessible from a crossrail route, but because the line would run from Heathrow through central London and possibly out to Stansted. Will he confirm that the review that he has commissioned will look at some of the proposals that were not used and that if the Bill procedure proves to be

Column 9

faster than the order procedure under the Transport and Works Act 1992, that procedure would not be entirely disregarded as the way forward?

Dr. Mawhinney: I understand that there is cross-party support for the scheme and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that fact. I believe that he would agree that we need to look carefully but quickly at the changed circumstances to ensure that any crossrail project that comes forward is well founded and well based. That is what we are seeking to do at the moment.

Mrs. Gillan: My right hon. Friend will know how important the crossrail project is to my constituency. Has he had an opportunity to look at the research that has been produced by the Centre for Economics and Business Research, which estimates that the project will create 20,000 long -term jobs and will add £1 billion to the gross national product? Can my right hon. Friend hasten the project, and make sure that it does not remain on paper but becomes a reality?

Dr. Mawhinney: I must be careful in responding to my hon. Friend-- whose points I well understand--because I will have a quasi-judicial role later in the process if crossrail proceeds. I understand the economic importance that is attached to the project. On the other hand, my hon. Friend will recognise that, if and when the project goes forward, it must do so on a solid basis so that we can look forward to crossrail adding the benefit and value that all of us would wish to see.

British Rail

9. Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the European Commissioner for Transport to discuss European subsidies to British Rail. [30126]

Mr. Watts: There is no scheduled meeting to discuss subsidies.

Mr. Evans: Will the Minister confirm that the Government have been forced to repay the millions of pounds that they received from the European Union to implement major improvements in the British Rail network? Does he feel that obtaining money by that method is almost obtaining money by false pretences? Is that not another nail in the coffin of the privatisation of British Rail?

Mr. Watts: No, no and no.

Mr. Tredinnick: If my hon. Friend meets the Commissioner to discuss the subject of subsidies, will he consider the importance of the midland main line to Leicester? Now that the channel tunnel rail link is to go to St. Pancras--extensive and expensive works are to take place there--has not the time come for a greater emphasis on the development of the midland main line, which is vital to all those who live in Leicestershire and beyond?

Mr. Watts: It is, of course, good news for Britain and the areas that have benefited in particular that the railways have obtained grants totalling £150 million during the past 10 years. My hon. Friend is right to say that the railways will still be eligible for such grant aid after privatisation. He will know that the channel tunnel rail link and the west coast main line upgrade are key projects identified by the Christophersen group for priority in funding the

Column 10

under-the-Thames programme. Perhaps consideration will be given in the future to the midland main line, as my hon. Friend suggests.

East London Line

10. Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects London Transport underground services to resume on the East London line. [30127]

Mr. Norris: London Underground has applied for listed building consent to strengthen and waterproof the tunnel carrying the East London line under the Thames between Rotherhithe and Wapping. The timing of the reopening of the line will depend on the progress of the application.

Mr. Dowd: Is it not the case that the decision of the Secretary of State for National Heritage to list the tunnel the day after it was closed for refurbishment has meant that the application for listed building permission has had to be submitted? The Minister will be aware that the East London line is the only tiny connection that the people of south-east London have with the London underground network. Will the Minister--within the limitations of his powers--prevail upon the Secretary of State for the Environment to make the earliest possible decision on the listed building consent for the tunnel, so that those of us in south London can have what little of the underground network that we have restored to us?

Mr. Norris: I am happy to acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's campaign on behalf of his constituents, and the great interest that he has shown in the progress of the East London line. I am keen that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment should be aware that, above all, the East London line is a railway that connects people with jobs and families with families. That should not be forgotten while we discuss the merits and demerits of the listing application.

Cowden Crash Inquiry Recommendations

11. Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funding his Department intends to make available to enable British Rail and Railtrack to carry out the recommendations of the inquiry into the Cowden crash; and what estimate his Department has made of the cost of those recommendations to British Rail and Railtrack. [30128]

Mr. Watts: British Rail and Railtrack are evaluating the inspector's recommendations, some of which require programmes of research.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Since the Secretary of State--along with everything else that he is junking--has announced that he is not interested in progressing with the advanced train protection scheme, and since the inspector said specifically in the report that the installation of such a system would be a minimum requirement in all new trains, how can the Minister seriously come to the Dispatch Box and pretend that the Government are interested in the safety of those who use the railways?

Mr. Watts: On the contrary, my right hon. Friend announced in March that he had accepted in full the advice on ATP from the Health and Safety Executive and that British Rail and Railtrack would put in train further

Column 11

development work on alternatives to ATP, which could deliver some of its benefits. It was also accepted that ATP should be an integral feature of all high-speed lines and that careful consideration should be given to including it in any major resignalling. The hon. Lady is simply wrong.

Mr. Meacher: Further to my hon. Friend's question, when will the Government implement the recommendations of the Cowden inquiry inspector and of the Hidden committee report on the Clapham crash six years before, that, as a minimum, all new high-speed railways should be fitted with some form of ATP? Is he aware that the installation of an ATP system covering the busiest 30 per cent. of the rail network, and thereby 80 per cent. of passenger miles, could have saved dozens of lives in the past five years, at a cost of less than half of what the Government spent in the same period on promoting rail privatisation? When are the Government going to be more interested in promoting rail safety than in partisan dogma?

Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman is as wrong as his hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), both in his figures and his assertions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be receiving a progress report from the Health and Safety Executive on the development work being undertaken into systems to deliver some of the benefits of ATP. As I said in my reply to the hon. Lady's initial question, it is already accepted that advanced train protection will be an integral part of all new high-speed rail links, such as the channel tunnel and the west coast main line upgrade.

Transport Facilities (London)

12. Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve transport facilities in London. [30129]

Mr. Norris: We shall continue to work in partnership with local government and the private sector in delivering the on-going programme of carefully targeted road improvements and traffic management measures, allied to very heavy investment in public transport.

Mr. Banks: One of the things that could be done to improve movement around London would be the greater co-ordination of all road works. Why are bridges still being closed without any apparent co-ordination? Can we have an assurance that, in the event of the Conservative leadership election going to a second round, there will be co-ordination of all road works associated with the installation of new telephone lines by British Telecommunications, so that the whole of Westminster is not turned into a large building site?

Mr. Norris: The trouble is that that question is long on rhetoric and short on specifics. The reality is that there is indeed a group to co- ordinate road works, and bridge works in particular. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that bridges are vital, in the sense that they concentrate traffic into narrow corridors. Whenever there is the prospect of more than one bridge being repaired at any one time, there is an extensive programme of co-ordination.

I recently heard the figure of 30,000 utility diversions in one borough alone mentioned in respect of the huge number of utility adaptations, including cabling and so forth, which are very much in evidence at the moment. I

Column 12

share the hon. Gentleman's frustration, but all the boroughs and the Department take the matter very seriously.

Mr. Brooke: Granted that the reputation of the Department would stand even higher if there were greater stability and predictability for its public expenditure forecasts for London Transport, will my hon. Friend accept the gratitude of some London Members for the fact that the Department has begun to repair the investment deficiencies that occurred when London Transport was under the London county council and the Greater London council?

Next Section

Home Page