| Home Page |
Column 1
T H EP A R L I A M E N T A R Y D E B A T E S
OFFICIAL REPORT
IN THE FOURTH SESSION OF THE FIFTIETH PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
[WHICH OPENED 25 JUNE 1987]
FORTIETH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF
HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II
SIXTH SERIES VOLUME 192
THIRTEENTH VOLUME OF SESSION 1990-91
House of Commons
Monday 3 June 1991
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[ Mr. Speaker-- in the Chair ]
Death of a Member
Mr. Speaker : I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Eric Samuel Heffer, esquire, the Member for Liverpool, Walton, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.
Oral Answers to Questions
TRANSPORT
Railway Construction, Scotland
1. Mr. Wray : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to avoid damage to Scottish industry and people resulting from delay in the construction of direct railway lines between Scotland and the continent for its goods and passengers.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind) : The electrification of the east coast main line and the upgrading of routes between London and the channel tunnel will give Scotland excellent rail communications with the continent when the tunnel opens. British Rail's planned upgrading of the west coast main line would, in due course, further strengthen those links.
Column 2
Mr. Wray : I cannot believe that the Minister gave that reply. Trains from London to Lille travel at 100 mph, yet those from London to Paris and from Glasgow to Paris travel at 65 mph. We want a TGV line from Glasgow to Paris. London is the only British city with a direct link to the continent. We should follow the example of the French, who are willing to spend £20 billion to increase the speed of the TGV train from 186 mph to 250 mph.
Mr. Rifkind : I must remind the hon. Gentleman that, apart from France, the United Kingdom has more high-speed trains than any country in the world. The electrification of the east coast main line from London to Edinburgh will be the largest single electrification or other railway project that British Rail has undertaken, and it will make a big contribution to improving the quality of travelling for the travelling public.
Mr. Gerald Bowden : When my right hon. and learned Friend considers direct links between Scotland and all parts of the United Kingdom and continental Europe will he take into account the benefits of using a route through Stratford in east London, which would avoid the bottleneck of central London and would provide fast traffic straight through for freight and passengers?
Mr. Rifkind : As my hon. Friend may know, the recommendations that British Rail put to me recently for a high-speed link from the channel tunnel to London involved consideration of several routes, including the option that he suggested.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing : As the Secretary of State is aware that only 23 per cent. of rail lines in Scotland are electrified, will he accept the strength of argument for electrification north of the central belt, especially as so many of our industries in the north-east and north of Scotland are export led?
Mr. Rifkind : As the hon. Lady probably knows, I was pleased to be present last Thursday at the opening of the electrified InterCity line between Edinburgh and Glasgow. She will be aware that British Rail is holding discussions
Column 3
with local authorities to see whether non- commercial benefits would flow from the electrification of northern routes.London Underground
2. Mr. Harry Greenway : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much of London Underground's rolling stock in percentage terms has been brought into use in the past 12 months ; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman) : In the past year the public have not yet seen the benefits of the re-equipment programme. The first of the 85 new Central line trains will enter passenger service next spring and the first of the refurbished trains for the Bakerloo, Victoria, Circle and Hammersmith and City lines will enter service this July. Contracts have been let for more than two fifths of London Underground's trains to be replaced or completely modernised.
Mr. Greenway : I thank my hon. Friend for his support in getting the escalator at Greenford station back in action after it had been out of action for no fewer than seven months and for his admirable visit to Greenford.
Mr. Snape : That is another point in the polls.
Mr. Greenway : I thank the hon. Gentleman.
May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the anticipated report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on London Underground? Press reports say that it shows that much more money will be needed for infrastructure, such as new signalling, drains, gullies and track. He will receive strong support from Conservative Members in his battles with the Treasury to get that money, which London needs.
Mr. Freeman : I am grateful to my hon. Friend's comments on my visit to Greenford. I am sure that he will be the first on the telephone if the escalator is not working at the station. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry must decide when to publish the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Investment in the underground, excluding the Jubilee line and the east-west crossrail, is around £400 million per annum. There is certainly justification for increasing that amount. During the coming public expenditure round, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will seriously consider what needs to be done.
Miss Hoey : The Minister may have helped the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) with his escalator problem, so would he like to visit Stockwell and Oval stations on the Northern line, where half the escalators have been out of action for a long time? Is it right that it should take a minimum of 16 weeks to fix an escalator? Would the hon. Gentleman like to give my area the prompt attention that he gave Ealing?
Mr. Freeman : I should be delighted to do that and to visit both stations. As the hon. Lady knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is a rail enthusiast and, in addition to travelling regularly on British Rail trains, he recently visited stations on the Northern line. I shall get in touch with the hon. Lady and we shall fix a date on which I shall visit those two stations.
Column 4
Mr. Prescott : Does the Minister accept the description given by the chairman of London Transport that the underground is an appalling shambles and at least £10 billion is needed to produce acceptable standards? Does the hon. Gentleman accept the rumour that the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission makes it clear that there are inadequate finances for the London underground? If so, will the hon. Gentleman make a statement to the House before the summer so that we can offer some hope to those suffering misery on the London underground?
Mr. Freeman : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will doubtless shortly publish the MMC's report on London Underground, and the hon. Gentleman should wait and read that document. The chairman of London Transport referred to a period going back many decades, during which there were both Labour and Conservative Governments.
Mr. Prescott : Is the chairman's statement true?
Mr. Freeman : There is no question but that the existing underground --setting on one side the mega-projects--is receiving substantial investment, but it needs more.
Canning Town (Railway)
3. Mr. Leighton : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has received for development of a new railway station at Canning Town.
Mr. Freeman : My right hon. and learned Friend has received a proposal from London Underground Ltd. for a station at Canning Town, which is included in the Bill for the Jubilee line extension which is currently before the House.
Mr. Leighton : Is the Minister aware of the sense of grievance in the east end of London because, compared with central and western London, we are often palmed off with what is second best and second rate, and that is threatening to happen again with the new station at Canning Town? I was told today that stations to the west on the Jubilee line are being designed by a firm of architects of international repute whereas stations to the east have been subcontracted out to a firm that no one has ever heard of. Is that true? Will the hon. Gentleman write to me about it? Finally--
Mr. Speaker : Order. One question, please.
Mr. Leighton : Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the design of Canning Town station is inferior? The hon. Gentleman was told that the cost of a decent, high-quality station would be an extra £40 million, whereas the Select Committee on Transport discovered that it would cost only an extra £8 million. Will the hon. Gentleman review the position with a view to giving us a decent station for the new railway line in the east end of London?
Mr. Freeman : Proceedings on the Jubilee line continue. My information is that the type of station that the hon. Gentleman and Newham want would cost an extra £7 million, which at the moment cannot be justified by the extra revenue that it would be likely to generate. It would involve putting the Northern line interchange at the same location as the docklands light railway and Jubilee line interchanges. The hon. Gentleman said that his area gets
Column 5
second best. Not only is the docklands light railway being upgraded, but the Jubilee line extension to Stratford is a massive investment in, commitment to and support for the east end of London.Mr. Spearing : Does the Minister recall his visit to Canning Town station and to my constituents when he and I walked the tracks together? Is he aware of the importance of the interchange between the docklands light railway on the docklands north bank and the Jubilee line on the south bank? The lines cross at Canning Town, as does the north London link, which he mentioned. Why should we have a second-class station there, where interchanging will be difficult? Does not a second-class station imply that the Government think that the inhabitants of Canning Town and the Beckton docklands area are second-class citizens?
Mr. Freeman : I remember my visit to Canning Town station with the hon. Gentleman. It seemed that the interchange between the docklands light railway and the Jubilee line at Canning Town was satisfactory and was in no sense a second-class station. I shall write to him and to his colleague, the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), about the architect who is designing the station. It is true that passengers will have to pass through a tunnel to get to the north London line interchange, but to have all three lines intersecting with interconnecting platforms would cost an extra £7 million. At this stage, at least, the hon. Gentleman advances no justification for spending that extra money.
Dartford (Bridge)
4. Mr. Dunn : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the name of the bridge currently under construction over the Thames at Dartford ; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope) : No decision has yet been taken on a name for the new bridge.
Mr. Dunn : My hon. Friend will appreciate my disappointment with his answer. Will he confirm that the bridge will be named after neither Dartford nor Thurrock? Will he also pay tribute to all the men and women who have worked so hard to make the bridge a reality in north-west Kent?
Mr. Chope : I am happy to pay tribute to all the people who have worked on the construction of the bridge and to those who have been lobbying for it to be given one name or another. My hon. Friend is speculating and I could not possibly confirm or deny what he is saying.
Mr. Peter Bottomley : Does my hon. Friend accept that the one person to be neutral was the Chairman of the parliamentary Committee which sat for many weeks to discuss the matter and that, in tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), who has now gone into the silence of the Whips Office, perhaps the bridge should be called Sydney's bridge?
Mr. Chope : That is a novel suggestion which will be taken into account in the coming weeks.
Column 6
British Rail (Customer Service)
5. Mr. Ian Taylor : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to bring forward proposals which would compensate British Rail passengers for poor standards of customer service.
Mr. Rifkind : We are actively pursuing, in co-operation with British Rail, a number of ways in which a higher quality of service can be encouraged and rewarded. As part of this process, we are examining how the interests of passengers can be promoted and protected.
Mr. Taylor : I am grateful to the Secretary of State and heartily welcome his enthusiasm for rail transport. Will he share the misery of commuters from my constituency who suffer from the lack of announcements by British Rail, delays, a complete lack of punctuality and of facilities at stations and from problems of overcrowding caused because trains are not of the right length? They face all those problems, yet, as season ticket holders, they receive no compensation except through the minor and almost secret system of ex gratia payments which British Rail has introduced under the counter. Will he put the matter in the public domain and force British Rail to provide compensation to passengers if they suffer from the inadequacies of the current level of service and if British Rail simply fails to perform?
Mr. Rifkind : As my hon. Friend rightly says, there is an ex gratia payments scheme currently operated by British Rail, which last year paid out about £2.5 million to passengers who suffered from various inconveniences. My hon. Friend is right to refer to the need to consider extending facilities for passengers who have been gravely inconvenienced, not simply on the railways but in other areas. They are matters that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said would be the subject of the citizens' charter proposals which are being considered.
Mr. Fearn : Is the Minister aware that if compensation were allocated, British Rail, on its present standing, would lose about £270 million? If so, would not it also be true that the people of Kent and East Anglia would no longer have to pay rail fares?
Mr. Rifkind : The hon. Gentleman should not assume that press speculation is necessarily valid. Clearly, the level of compensation paid would depend on the criteria for entitlement to it, which are still to be considered. France is often given as an example of a country where compensation is paid to passengers. However, if one examines that idea in detail, one finds that TGV passengers receive compensation only if the train is more than three hours late. Therefore, the sums involved tend to be rather small.
Mr. Moate : Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Kent commuters in particular are entitled to a better standard of service and that the greatest improvement could be secured if he would approve soon the investment in the new Networker Express programme for the Kent coast? Do his new-found expressions of enthusiasm for rail investment include an early announcement of the 741 Networker Express programme for the Kent coast?
Mr. Rifkind : I can tell my hon. Friend that there are various ways in which Kent railway services have been
Column 7
improved in the recent past and, no doubt, will be improved in the weeks and months to come. I cannot make a specific announcement today on the project to which my hon. Friend referred. However, I appreciate the importance attached by Kent commuters to improvement of that service.Mr. Prescott : May I refer the Secretary of State, in his considerations of ideas for the citizens' charter, to his copy of "Moving Britain into the 1990s", which details the things that need to be done? That would continue the plagiarism of Labour's policies. Will he seriously consider repealing the conditions of carriage for British Rail, bringing in a detailed pricing policy for British Rail, assessing whether the Government have given sufficient financial resources to British Rail to enable it to meet the standards that he wishes to impose on it, and setting up an independent regulatory body to ensure that such standards are confirmed and carried out?
Mr. Rifkind : Those tempted by Labour's proposals for railways for the next Parliament will wish to reflect on what the previous Labour Government did. They will recall that investment in the railways fell each year between 1975 and 1979. They will be reminded that there was a net closure of railway lines--more railway lines closed than were opened during the period of the last Labour Government--whereas in the past 12 years, there has been a net increase in the rail network. They will also applaud the fact that under this Conservative Government no fewer than 163 railway stations have either been opened or reopened since 1979.
Ports Industry
6. Mr. Viggers : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the level of efficiency of the ports industry.
The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin) : There has been a marked increase in productivity at many ports since the abolition of the dock labour scheme, with increased scope for investment. I expect further advances as a result of the privatisation of leading trust ports under the Ports Bill which is now before Parliament.
Mr. Viggers : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that since the abolition of the national dock labour scheme there have been dramatic improvements in efficiency and productivity in the docks? That must have substantially benefited our export trade. Bearing in mind that some people regarded the national dock labour scheme as the jewel in the crown of the special relationship between the Labour party and the trade union movement, has my hon. Friend had many demands for the reintroduction of the national dock labour scheme?
Mr. McLoughlin : We have had no demands from the industry or from the people who work in the docks, although I understand that the Opposition are considering whether they should reimpose such a scheme, which would only damage the port industry.
Mr. John D. Taylor : Why do the Government support the European Community's proposals to downgrade the port of Stranraer, not to proceed with making the railway line in western Scotland more efficient, and to divert cross-Irish sea transport to Fishguard?
Column 8
Mr. McLoughlin : My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made a speech about the importance that the Government attach to freight and to attempting to move freight by rail. I will ensure that the right hon. Gentleman receives a full reply about Northern Ireland ports.
Ms. Walley : Why does there continue to be so little reference to the role of ports and shipping in an integrated transport infrastructure? Why do the Government measure everything in terms of efficiency rather than dovetailing our ports into the transport policy that we should have? Does the Minister accept that the trust ports already compete with the private sector? Why has he forced through reserve powers to sell off trust ports? Is not the Government's treatment of trust ports proof that neither the nation's health nor its transport is safe in their hands?
Mr. McLoughlin : What we have just heard from the Opposition is that they will pay no attention to efficiency but will be concerned only with bureaucratic planning of transport. We do not feel that that is the most appropriate way in which to develop transport policy. We shall concentrate on efficiency because we believe that that will bring greater opportunities to our ports industry. It has been pointed out that the powers for privatisation are reserve powers and will be used only after consultation with the ports. We believe that the trust ports will be far better served in the private sector. Indeed, a number of ports eagerly await the passage of the Bill so that they can move into the private sector.
Channel Tunnel
7. Ms. Ruddock : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement on the preferred route for the new channel tunnel rail link between London and the North Downs.
8. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on British Rail's proposals for a high-speed rail link through south-east London and Kent.
Mr. Rifkind : We are considering British Rail's report and recommendations for the rail link carefully. It is too early to say when decisions may be announced.
Ms. Ruddock : Is it not remarkable that in his recent speech of enlightenment, supposedly signalling his conversion to rail, the Secretary of State devoted but a single sentence to the passenger rail link from the channel tunnel? Is that because he is deeply embarrassed about this long- running fiasco? Will he accept from me that he cannot delay further, that he should clearly announce that he has abandoned any consideration of a route through south London and that he will do the decent thing and look for an alternative that links Stratford and King's Cross?
Mr. Rifkind : As the recommendations from British Rail landed on my desk only a couple of weeks ago, it would have been remarkable if I had given them more than one sentence of consideration in a speech made last week. It is precisely because we wish to consider all the implications,
Column 9
including the points raised by the hon. Lady, that it will take a little time to come to a judgment and a conclusion. That is what we are doing at present.Mr. Arnold : My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that my constituents in north-west Kent have had to put up with three years of blight, as four of the routes under consideration cross my constituency. Is he also aware that even more than a rapid decision, we want a right decision which properly takes into account the environmental considerations, because in north-west Kent we have nothing to gain in transport terms and a large amount to lose in terms of our environment?
Mr. Rifkind : My hon. Friend is correct to emphasise the importance of the environmental implications for Kent of whatever decision is reached. British Rail itself has said that if it is given approval to go ahead, its next step will be to consider a full environmental assessment of whatever turns out to be the preferred route.
Mr. Tony Banks : Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State is trying to work out a route that somehow avoids every marginal Conservative constituency in south-east London? Does he intend to make an announcement before the summer recess or is he hanging on for an election? If he is, we could be waiting an awfully long time for that decision.
Mr. Rifkind : I am touched by the hon. Gentleman's concern. However, he will appreciate that when a report that is 12 inches thick has been presented, he would be the first to criticise if we leapt to conclusions on it. We shall reach a decision and announce it when we have considered British Rail's recommendations and given them the proper attention that they require.
Mr. Barry Field : Will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure the House that when he considers the route through south London, he will do nothing to exacerbate the practice at Lymington of British Rail trains leaving just before the ferry docks from the Isle of Wight rather than just after, as that is a continual irritation to my constituents?
Mr. Speaker : Order. Is that towards the North Downs?
Mr. Rifkind : I am not certain whether that is towards the North Downs, Mr. Speaker, but we shall certainly draw to the attention of British Rail what appears to be a lack of co-ordination in the service available.
Mr. Simon Hughes : Before making his decision would not the Secretary of State be well advised to put out for consultation whatever recommendation he has received from British Rail? He will well remember that when his predecessor received the last report and an announcement was made to the public, there was a huge outcry, including from his own colleagues? Are not the route, and the need to pay for the environmental consequences of whichever route is chosen, matters on which consultation is needed and on which wise and careful decisions must be made--not least, if I may say so respectfully, for the sake of the Secretary of State's colleagues, who risk a great deal if he makes the wrong decision?
Mr. Rifkind : The principle of what the hon. Gentleman says cannot be questioned, and nor would I seek to do so. The important point, which I made a few moments ago, is that British Rail is not asking for a final decision at this
Column 10
stage. It seeks approval to go ahead with a full environmental assessment of its preferred route. That will, indeed, involve a substantial degree of public consultation to take into account the points raised by not only the hon. Gentleman but my hon. Friends.Passenger Safety
9. Mr. Bowis : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been carried out by or on behalf of his Department on the advisability of segregating drivers and passengers from vehicles (a) transported by ship or hovercraft and (b) transported by rail.
Mr. Freeman : For the channel tunnel car-carrying shuttles the plan is that drivers and passengers should stay in or very close to their cars. Eurotunnel believes that this procedure will be safe and the speediest way of unloading cars. The independent Anglo-French safety authority has said that it is satisfied with this system in principle, but that it wants further research to continue.
Mr. Bowis : Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main reasons why occupants are separated from their vehicles on passenger ferries is the danger of the occasional spontaneous combustion of a vehicle? Does he therefore understand the concern about what would happen should that occur when passengers are inside their vehicles in enclosed carriages on a train in the channel tunnel? Can he assure us that research has been undertaken that will set people's minds at rest? Will he ensure that such research is published so that the public can be satisfied?
Mr. Freeman : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I assure him that research will continue and I will ensure that the House is informed of its conclusions before the channel tunnel service opens. The difference between cars being parked on the lower deck of a ferry and on the car-carrying shuttles going through the channel tunnel is that the cars on the shuttle will be in containers in which no more than five cars can be parked on any one deck. To that extent, the risk of fire is contained.
I understand my hon. Friend's concern and I will ensure that the results of the research are published.
Mr. Pike : Does the Minister recognise the growing concern, especially among families with young children, that there will be dangers in travelling through the channel tunnel in trains and in being confined to compartments, particularly if delays occur in the tunnel? Is it not time for serious consideration to be given to that and for alternative proposals to be forthcoming?
Mr. Freeman : I am sure that Eurotunnel will consider whatever sensible and practical alternatives are available. Recently, I had the pleasure and privilege of travelling through the channel tunnel--I think that I was the first Minister, either French or British, to do so. The journey took four and a half hours on one of the construction trains, but it will take around 30 minutes for the shuttles to travel between Folkestone and Calais underneath the channel. Passengers will be able to get out of their cars and travel from one vehicle to the next, but they will not be able to travel the entire length of the train. It remains to be seen whether passengers are prepared to accept this, but the Government firmly believe that the channel tunnel service will be a success.
Column 11
Mr. Wolfson : When my hon. Friend publishes the results of the research will he include comparisons with the European experience of long-tunnel train travel where people remain, with safety, in their vehicles?Mr. Freeman : Yes, I am sure that we shall do so. Those on the Opposition Front Bench have been pressing my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on the rail link. I am sure that the House will realise that as and when a rail link is built the amount of travel in tunnels--under the channel, through the north and south Downs and under the metropolis--will be considerable, whatever route is chosen. The experience of rail passengers travelling through long tunnels, especially in Japan, will be relevant.
A Bus Strategy for London"
10. Mr. Cohen : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses he has received to his consultation paper entitled, "A Bus Strategy for London".
Mr. Freeman : We are continuing to receive official responses to our consultation paper "A Bus Strategy for London" and to date more than 200 have been received. I am not sure whether we have received one from the hon. Gentleman. The Government believe that a deregulated rather than centrally planned bus service in London will encourage more and varied services, so offering the best chance of increasing bus patronage.
Mr. Cohen : Does the Minister admit that he is riding along with deregulation in the bus strategy? When it has been adopted outside London, has not that meant 16 per cent. fewer buses? That would be a disaster for traffic in London. It might mean more buses in the rush hour but fewer, or perhaps none, off peak. Would not the quality of the bus fleet go down? Would not concessionary fares for pensioners and the travel card be placed at risk or be referred to the Office of Fair Trading? Does not that show that the Government are unsafe to steer London buses?
| Next Section
| Home Page |