House of Commons Hansard Debates for 13 Jan 1992

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) : I join hon. Members who have paid tribute to the people who work in the tourist industry in Northern Ireland and face considerable adversity in the task that they have to accomplish. It is difficult to mention tourism in Northern Ireland without facing the fact that considerable disadvantages have to be overcome, or at least taken into account. They stem, of course, from the security situation in Northern Ireland or, perhaps more accurately, the perception of that situation by those who are outside the Province.

If I was presented with a tourist brochure from Beirut or Yugoslavia or some other war-torn part of the world, it would take a fairly good salesman to convince me that I should take my family to such a place for my next summer holiday. The media have placed Northern Ireland in that

Column 777

bracket, and it is against that backcloth that the tourist board and those involved in the tourist industry in Northern Ireland have to carry out their work.

When I approach the subject of tourism, the first aspect I have to question is the strategy and direction of the Northern Ireland tourist board. In 1989, the Government published a brochure entitled "A view of the future : Tourism in Northern Ireland". It outlined a strategy which would have called people like me defeatists because we recognised that, because of the terrorist campaign, there was overwhelming difficulty in selling Northern Ireland as a tourist venue.

The brochure suggested that the vigorous campaign to bring the holiday visitor to Northern Ireland would continue. I do not think that the statistics outlined by the Minister in the debate or others that have been made available subsequent to the publication of the brochure showed that that strategy had succeeded. It is the wrong strategy, because this is not the time to concentrate on that end of the tourist market.

I do not say that we should give it up. There must still be a vigorous effort to attract tourists to Northern Ireland, but the overall effort of the Northern Ireland tourist board should be directed at bringing back the business man and his family, because, by and large, people who come to Northern Ireland and see it for themselves see that it is not as it is painted by the media and they are prepared to return to the Province. It would be much more productive to go to those who come regularly to the Province and encourage them to bring their families for holidays. The tourist board should concentrate on the obvious specialist holidays, such as genealogical tours, with to a view to increasing the number of holidaymakers, particularly from North America.

The other important tourist is the home visitor, if that is not a contradiction in terms. There is an obvious understanding by people who live in Northern Ireland of the security situation, and they know where it is quite safe to go. The people of Northern Ireland should be given great encouragement to spend a holiday at home at least once every other year and to take their holidays in Northern Ireland. Grants should be given to the operators of tourist facilities throughout the Province to encourage local people.

I join colleagues across the Floor of the House in their protest about the means by which we have to deal with orders such as this, which are on important subjects that require a great deal more time in debate than we have been afforded tonight. Furthermore, many reasoned amendments to this order could have been tabled, and I am sure that we should have managed to convince the Minister that he should accept them. I am sure that he does not believe that his orders are so perfect that they are like the laws of the Medes and Persians and should not and cannot be changed.

I shall deal first with the definition of a tourist amenity. I rather suspect that there is an overriding opinion within the Northern Ireland tourist board that a tourist amenity is only something that the Almighty made. The people of Northern Ireland have a lot more than most people in other parts of the world to thank the Almighty for, in terms of the beauty and scenery of their country, but a tourist amenity goes much further than that.

Column 778

Recreation provision is an important tourist amenity. If one wants to bring families to Northern Ireland, one has to be aware that young people will not be content simply to go to the glens of Antrim, the Antrim coast, the causeway, or the Mournes, although all that is attractive and they could do some fishing around the constituency of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe).

There are recreational facilities all around the Province that should be sold better by the Northern Ireland tourist board, although it seldom notices them. It should recognise the important part that some of our recreational facilities play in bringing tourists to Northern Ireland, by which I mean bringing them exclusively to such facilities.

The Minister will know that I am closely connected with the recreational facility of Dundonald international ice bowl and its leisure park. Every week, people come from the rest of the world to take part in competitive games--ice hockey teams, ice skaters and bowling teams. When the full-scale park eventually reaches fruition, even more people will be attracted to even wider facilities. Leisure facilities play an important role, but one that is not properly recognised by the Northern Ireland tourist board.

Several hon. Members have already spoken about the local government aspect. The Minister is making available a wealth of money to the Northern Ireland tourist board and to tourism in Northern Ireland. However, does he recognise that local government makes a singular contribution to tourism, and that it should have as much right as any other organisation to receive money from public funds aimed at tourist ventures? Like the hon. Member for Antrim, South, I notice that district councils are expected to consult the tourist board before embarking on the building of a tourist amenity. Therefore, will the Minister follow me as I go through the order looking for definitions?

The early part of the order defines "tourist amenity" as "an amenity, facility or service provided primarily for tourists". It defines a "tourist" as

"a visitor to Northern Ireland, a person spending his holiday in Northern Ireland or a person travelling for pleasure within Northern Ireland".

Under those definitions, Dundonald international ice bowl would be a tourist amenity. Indeed, it would be a tourist amenity on the basis that it received 50 per cent. of its funding from the tourist grant of the EEC.

I hope that the Minister will make it clear--I do not want there to be doubt down the line--that we are talking only about consultation. I hope that permission is not required from the Northern Ireland tourist board. After consultation has taken place, will a local authority face a limitation on the sum that it can spend on what it deems to be a leisure or tourist provision? Will a fiscal constraint be placed on a local council at that stage?

The hon. Member for Antrim, South, who I think was involved in local government, will recognise that there has not been a very full relationship between the local authorities and the tourist board. I would not want to put it as high as a strained relationship. As the tourist board saw such a small role for district councils, the councils ended up having their own tourist-based organisation. Given that relationship, the Minister has an excellent opportunity to try to bring together the various interests that are fighting the battle to bring tourists to Northern Ireland. That can be done by having a definite role for

Column 779

local authorities within the board and by providing places for the authorities as of right on the board of the tourist board. It seems that there are certain circumstances in which the tourist board can make a grant or a loan, for example, to encourage tourist provision for Northern Ireland. The order suggests that the tourist board could become involved in matters relating to the tourist industry. It seems to suggest that the board could become almost commercial. I wonder what restraints the Minister might have in mind to place upon the board in the exercise of its functions by associating itself with various tourist interests in Northern Ireland.

I give the Minister every encouragement in his task of attracting tourists to Northern Ireland. Some of us have had an unhappy view of the tourist board, especially when it thought it pertinent that the red hand of Ulster should be removed from its emblem to be replaced by a distorted shamrock. That showed, perhaps, the way that the tourist board was thinking. I considered that a retrograde step. The board should not involve itself in politics in the way it has. I encourage the Minister to take up the task of raising tourism to a higher level. I suggest that he concentrates on the areas of tourism in which, in the present security circumstances, it is more realistic to seek to increase business.

11.19 pm

Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down) : By now, the Minister will be aware that, in general terms, the order is welcomed on both sides of the House, but that we are grossly dissatisfied that we have not been given an opportunity to improve it and to remedy its deficiencies by amendments. The order has many flaws and many matters that require explanation, but it would be impossible to touch on them in any detail tonight. Nevertheless, we welcome the fact that, after four decades, since 1948, we now have a consolidated order--I had better not call it a Bill--bringing these matters together. We hope that it will streamline the administration of tourism in Northern Ireland and that the duality of decision making--the duality of activity between the Northern Ireland tourist board and the Department of Economic Development tourism division--will now be removed.

I hope that that will happen, but I question a rather sinister little sentence in article 5, which states that the Department of Finance and Personnel will issue to the board

"(a) directions of a general or specific nature as to the exercise by the Board of its functions".

I hope that there will be minimal interference and that the advantages of streamlining finance, personnel and decision making will be brought about by the order.

Like other hon. Members, I deplore the fact that the large pool of expertise and professionalism in local government has not been harnessed and utilised through the order. Indeed, article 4(3) says that the board should "establish machinery for consulting", and it is a great pity that the Minister did not outline the shape of the consultation, how it will be implemented and who will be involved. Perhaps he will do so when he replies, or later through correspondence. The article refers to outside bodies, but it does not refer to local government. There is an enormous pool of experience and know-how in local government that has not been tapped. That is a serious omission.

Column 780

I hope that the financing figure that the Minister quoted tonight--an increase of £6.7 million to more than£10 million--will mean a real increase, and is not simply the sum arrived at by adding the money spent by the tourist board and that spent by the tourism division of the Department of Economic Development. It must be a real increase in money going into the market place, as it were, for tourist promotions.

The greater the flexibility in the allocation of that funding through grant aid to the various facets that would encourage amenity and accommodation production, the better--and that should be the aim of the board. There is a preoccupation--if the House will forgive the pun--with accommodation in the order, in that more than half the articles deal with registration, expansion and all that pertains to grading of accommodation

The board is to undertake a new and sweeping activity. It is noticeable that the legislation which applies to the remainder of Great Britain has not been implemented. I hope that Northern Ireland is not to be the guinea pig, and I hope that this will be a fruitful exercise. We all agree that tourists are entitled to know the quality and standard of service for which they are paying. A sensitive approach is required, however, because there are various levels in any tourist market. I hope that there will not be a theoretical and useless application of standards, because the accommodation will have to address very diverse markets, from the family in the guest house to five-star hotels. I hope that the fees charged will be reasonable and acceptable, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Antrim, (Mr. Forsythe).

Omitted from the list of overnight stopping places in the order are caravan sites, youth hostels and activity centres, which all provide accommodation. I hope that the order will be extended to cover them. Indeed, it could go one step further. In many parts of Northern Ireland, there are festivals in which the local community participates and private homes are used to provide one-off overnight accommodation. I trust that they will not be expected to register. One aspect deliberately omitted from the order is the inspection and registration of catering facilities. As one who has obviously enjoyed tourist facilities in recent times, I take the view--as do many others--that good accommodation and good food are the two bastions of an enjoyable holiday. It appears that accommodation is to be registered, but that no importance is to be attached to the quality of food. It is important, at least in some voluntary way, to offer some assessment to tourists of the quality of food that they may expect at a particular establishment, and thus appeal to them through their stomachs. Having said that, I was interested to note that the new draft order for local government also specifically excludes the inspection of catering establishments by health inspectors.

I echo the sentiments already expressed about board membership. It is a great tragedy that it does not include any tourism professionals. While not wishing to cast any aspersions on those appointed to the board, I note that four of them are from marketing-oriented firms. A great opportunity has been missed to benefit from the wealth of experience that local government can offer. The Minister rather pre-empted tonight's debate, to the extent that nine of the board's members were appointed on 25 July 1991, irrespective of tonight's debate.

I draw the Minister's attention to the necessity for rural regeneration. Farm diversification is important to

Column 781

Northern Ireland's rural regeneration, and will serve as the linchpin of tourist development. I refer, for instance, to the use of the farmhouse as a guest house. The board must take a sensible approach to that dimension.

I thank the Minister and the tourist board for undertaking a study of the whole South Down area, including the districts of Down, Newry, and Armagh. Such a trans-district council study is required, because specific district councils are too small. That study will highlight one of the most scenic parts of Ireland--the mountains of Mourne, allied to St. Patrick's country. With reference to the comments made by the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder), we have enough Roman/Welsh/English evangelists, and were quite happy with the one that we had in 432. Perhaps one of South Down's great tourist attractions is the ancestral home of the Earl of Kilmorey. However, I will leave that subject for another night.

I have a number of brief questions to ask the Minister. Will the board inform local government of the consequences of the details of registration? Will the fee really relate to the market? Will there be clarification in respect of farmhouses and private houses? Will accommodation grants be made directly available to develop that sector, and will there be full co- operation with Bord Failte promotions, publicity, and scheme sharing? Finally, will the tourist board share with local government responsibility for fully developing employment in Northern Ireland's tourist industry?

11.29 pm

Mr. Needham : We have had a fairly wide-ranging debate, involving no fewer thant 73 questions of detail. That goes some way towards proving a point on which we all agree--that the Order in Council system is not the best way to conduct these matters. That, however, is a matter for Opposition Members to decide in the talks to which they have referred : they can decide how they wish to reach an agreed change in the current procedure.

I shall try, in the limited time available, to answer the points that have been made. If I cannot do so now, I will write to hon. Members in full. If they then wish to discuss their points with me, I shall, as always, be only too delighted to see them for that purpose, rather than discussing any of the other political matters that may be mentioned in the papers.

I thank the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) for his kind comments. I join him in congratulating Commissioner Millan on the way in which he has supported Northern Ireland whenever we have visited him to talk about the application for grant from the EC. Some £30 million is now being made available by the EC up to 1993-94, plus an additional £7 million under "Interreg", which will go both north and south. Some £100 million will be spent on tourism over the next five years. That is an enormous sum being spent on what I consider to be an important way of promoting Northen Ireland's economy. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is going to take his holiday on the Ballyconnell canal. Perhaps while he is there he can explain to the few he meets who may wish to join his party why they will not be able to do so.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the fall-off in visitors from the United States. There is no such fall-off ; indeed,

Column 782

this year there has been a modest increase in the number of visitors from North America. Northern Ireland is the only region in the British Isles to have achieved such a result, and I feel that we should congratulate everyone in Northern Ireland who managed to make such a success of it.

District councils have a crucial role to play in the development of tourism in Northern Ireland. They already have an enormously successful record. We need only see the history park of Gortin, or visit Kinnego bay, Castle Archdale or Enniskillen--and a whole range of facilities that many of us have visited with our families--to observe the professionalism and competence exercised by district councils. They may raise as much money as they wish for such tourist measures--here I should also mention the Triad scheme in Armagh--in the knowledge that grants will be available from the EC, the International Fund for Ireland or even the tourist board. The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) talked about the bad media. I think that he was being modest in using such language. He was extremely eloquent about the history of Northern Ireland ; perhaps only Finn McCool would have been upset, as he was not given a mention. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are changing the law on litter : we are tightening it up. I believe that one way in which we can improve litter collection is to examine the organisation that local government currently applies.

The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) suggested that the tourist board was a quango. Like its English, Scottish and Welsh counterparts, it is ; the point is that we are setting up a board which, whatever the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) may say, is staffed by people eminently qualified to undertake the job of planning, structuring and seeing through a tourist strategy for Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for South Down said that four marketing people were involved. We need marketing people when it comes to selling Northern Ireland, but the chairman of the board has a long professional background of providing the highest grade of tourist amenities.

The hon. Members for Antrim, South is quite right that the head of Department is the permanent secretary. Under the relevant legislation, that has always been the case. However, the Minister does not just stand quietly by--in a "Yes, Minister" scenario--waiting for the permanent secretary to tell him what to do. The phraseology to which the hon. Gentleman referred is used in planning legislation also. The Department's responsibility is the Minister's responsibility.

Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside) : Does my hon. Friend agree that, if each of the 1,300 public houses in Northern Ireland were to provide two bedrooms, the amount of accommodation for tourists could be almost doubled ? Might it not therefore be prudent to include in the Northern Ireland tourist board a representative of the retail licensed trade ? That vital part of the tourist industry ought to be properly represented.

Mr. Needham : I take my hon. Friend's point. Mr. Lavery, who is on the Northern Ireland tourist board, runs the Guinness operation in Northern Ireland, so he has some interest in these matters. The point that I want to make goes to the crux of points that were made by the hon. Member for Antrim, South

Column 783

and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)--whether councils should have a right to representation on the board. I do not accept that they should, although that does not necessarily mean that there should not be a councillor on the board. There is no reason why there should not be, provided that his concern is what is best for Northern Ireland as a whole. In my view, councillors must concern themselves more with the ever-increasing number of amenities being developed in their areas. As I have said already, some councils have done extremely well, but many could do better. I believe that over the years the number of amenities throughout Northern Ireland will increase. It is up to the councillors and their officials to ensure success in that field.

The Northern Ireland tourist board should be as independent of Government as possible. Its job is to bring together an overall tourist strategy for Northern Ireland--a strategy whereby provision is not duplicated unnecessarily, financial priorities are set, and money is put into schemes to which everybody can subscribe.

The hon. Member for South Down said that, unfortunately, not enough attention was paid to consultation machinery and how it would work. That is something that will have to evolve. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East that the process had not always been as good as it might have been, but that does not mean that it will not improve. I do not want to put ropes around those involved in the consultative process by telling them that they have to do things in one particular way or another. As I have said, the first meeting in February 1991 was very successful. I do not want to define matters too tightly.

What is a tourist amenity? I should prefer to leave that to be worked out by the board. Of course, a tourist amenity should be primarily for tourist development. I have no wish to shackle local authorities in the development of facilities, which may have a large tourist element or a not-so-large tourist element. I want to see those thousand flowers bloom.

I do not agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East that we should not have a strategy for the promotion of tourism in Northern Ireland. From the surveys that have been carried out, we know that a large number of people want to come to Northern Ireland and to see a positive image of the Province. Those who have visited the Province love it and want to come back. This order gives us the means to make that possible, to set the standards and to provide the certification and registration facilities. It pumps in the money, and it gives everyone a role in the achievement of the objective. This is a very important means of increasing employment in Northern Ireland, improving the image of the Province, and making sure that its beautiful countryside and excellent facilities are made available to a greater number of people.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved ,

That the draft Tourism (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 5 December, be approved.

Column 784

Metrolink (Greater Manchester)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Boswell.]

11.39 pm

Sir Fergus Montgomery (Altrincham and Sale) : I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate on an issue that is causing great concern to many of my constituents. I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Under- Secretary of State for Transport will hear a rather sorry story.

On 1 November 1991, notices appeared in local papers to say that the direct rail service between Altrincham and Manchester would cease from Christmas eve until the middle of April 1992, when the metrolink would take over. The estimated period of closure from Christmas eve until April 17 is considered by many people in my constituency to be too long, especially as it had been announced initially that the changeover period would be only two to three weeks. Because I was concerned about that, I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport. I received a reply from him on 27 November in which he said :

"I am aware of the delays mentioned by your constituent, which I understand are due to late delivery of rolling stock as well as engineering adjustments to ensure adequate clearance along the line. I understand however that the Passenger Transport Executive are confident"--

I emphasise the word "confident"--

"that the new timetable for the opening of the project will be met. The Bury to Victoria line will open in February, the city centre section in March and the Altrincham to Piccadilly section in April." So much for his confidence : I am told that today at a press conference it was announced that the opening had been delayed even further.

During the interval, when there are no trains on the direct route from Altrincham to Manchester Piccadilly, people are being asked to use a replacement bus service. No doubt, some people will decide that they will go to their place of work in Manchester by car. Many commuters in my constituency travel from Altrincham to Manchester for work. Whether they go by bus or by car, it will mean more traffic on roads which are already overcrowded. Going by bus will add considerably to the length of time that will be spent travelling, which is not an especially attractive proposition for many people. Throughout the argument, the one ray of hope was the Chester to Manchester railway, which would still be operating. That railway goes from Chester to Hale, Altrincham. The service would make a call at Navigation Road, go across to Stockport and on to Manchester. I had hoped that at peak times that service could be increased or, if that were not possible, at least trains with a higher passenger capacity could be provided.

To push things along, I wrote to Sir Bob Reid, the chairman of British Rail, on 16 December 1991. I thought that I wrote quite a reasonable letter, because I said :

"I am very concerned about the fact that the Metrolink in my area is running behind schedule. All trains on the commuter service from Manchester to Altrincham will cease on Christmas Eve and the Metrolink is not due to start until mid-April at the earliest. I shudder to think of the consequences with all that extra traffic on the roads.

I am told that there are going to be meetings this week and I am wondering if British Rail could perhaps run more trains through peak hours on the Chester to Manchester Piccadilly service ? These trains would halt at Hale, Altrincham, Navigation Road, and then go straight across to Stockport and Manchester. This at least would be of great help for many of the people in the area and take some cars off the road.

Column 785

There is a degree of urgency here and I should be most grateful if you could let me know whether this is feasible." That was on 16 December. I got a quick reply, dated 18 December, from Keith Hill, the parliamentary relations assistant, who said :

"The Chairman has asked me to thank you for your letter of the 16 December. A reply will be sent to you as soon as possible." Lo and behold, this morning I got that reply. It was a copy of a letter sent to the chief executive of Trafford council on 19 December which said :

"Many thanks for your letter of 16 December."

So the chief executive of Trafford council wrote on exactly the same day that I wrote to the chairman of British Rail. The letter went on to say :

"The Manchester-Sale-Altrincham railway line is operated by British Rail in our role as contractor to Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive, who are responsible for both policy and funding.

Greater Manchester PTE have asked us to cease operations on this route on 24 December to allow the new operator, Greater Manchester Metro Limited, to carry out conversion works. I note your concern about the length of time which these works will take, but am unable to comment as this is a matter for Greater Manchester Metro Limited. The Manchester-Stockport-Altrincham- Hale route is also operated by us as a contractor on behalf of Greater Manchester PTE. Discussions have taken place between ourselves and Greater Manchester PTE in respect of the possibility of provision of extra services and/or capacity on this route, but I have to advise you that Greater Manchester PTE have decided that they are unable to fund such extra provision.

I trust this answers the points you have raised."

In his covering letter, Sir Bob Reid said :

"I am sure you will agree that this is self-explanatory and there is nothing I can usefully add, other than to say that Metrolink plan to run replacement buses in advance of their new train services." It is strange that, having received an acknowledgment on 18 December, I had to wait until this morning for a reply from Sir Bob Reid, which was a copy of a letter dated 19 December 1991 that had been sent to Trafford council. It took four weeks to send me a copy of a letter written three days after my original letter. That does not reek of efficiency in British Rail.

I am concerned about the end of that letter and the PTE's decision not to fund extra train services but instead to rely entirely on a replacement bus service. I am sure that whoever made the decision is not a commuter in my constituency who must travel to work in Manchester every day. I wonder why the travelling public in my area were not considered or asked for their opinions before a decision was made. If only there had been more forethought, some of the inconvenience could have been avoided.

I still maintain that increased use of the Chester to Manchester route would have avoided some of the congestion that we are now experiencing. I agree that that route does not offer too much comfort to my constituents, who use the stations between Altrincham and Manchester Piccadilly. I feared that buses would fill up in the Altrincham area, which would have made things intolerable for people who wanted to board at intermediary points. More people using the Chester to Altrincham and Manchester line would have allowed more space on the replacement bus service, but somewhere along the line somebody in authority decided otherwise.

Column 786

Another snag for people using the replacement bus service is that buses terminate not at Piccadilly station but at Chatham street in Machester. I have asked a number of my constituents who are regular travellers for their comments. The letters that I have received make interesting reading. There have been continual comments about the difficulties for people who need to get to Piccadilly station to journey to other parts of the country.

A constituent told me of a friend who took her mother to Piccadilly station so that her mother could return to Halifax. They used the bus service because there was no train service and were alarmed to end up not at Piccadilly station but down a pokey back street well away from the station. It is believed that that stop will cause considerable hardship to elderly and disabled people in the area. If we have a spell of bad weather in the next few weeks, my constituents will suffer much more inconvenience.

The length of time taken to make the journey by bus will make the working day much longer and will cause difficulty at places of employment, with people arriving late through no fault of their own. A lady in my constituency, part of a one-parent family, says that by using the train service before Christmas she could arrange to put her child in a nursery school, get the train to Manchester, do her job, catch a train back and at the end of the working day be fairly certain of the time she could collect her child from the nursery school.

That has all disappeared. The lady tells me that she has tried the Chester to Manchester route and that the trains are extremely crowded, with standing room only at peak hours. Another constituent told me that, on 6 January, last Monday, the 8.15 am train from Altrincham had about 170 people standing in addition to the 150 who were seated. He believed that to be well in excess of the maximum recommended loads. He echoes the point of so many travellers in asking why no extra carriages have been provided on the Chester to Manchester route. I hope that my hon. Friend can take that up with British Rail. My constituent also poses the pertinent question why the passenger transport executive asked the transport users consultative committee to collect objections and report back to it, when it appears to have ignored every recommendation.

If urgent action is not taken, more people will use their own cars, causing even more congestion on the roads. One man told me that he has decided to use his car because the journey takes so long by bus. He has found three other people to take the other seats in his car and they share the cost of parking, which apparently makes it cheaper than any form of public transport. When metrolink finally functions, people like those four are likely to decide that, instead of using it, they will continue travelling in a car together and sharing the costs. With the long delay in metrolink reopening, there is a danger that other passengers will take the same action.

As my hon. Freind may have guessed, I am unhappy--that is an understatement --about the situation. Those responsible for metrolink must listen to the legitimate complaints of the travelling public. Once the conversion period is over, many potential passengers may have made other arrangements, as have the four people whom I mentioned. Metrolink will have to think carefully about fare levels and I hope that they will be no higher than the existing fares. I hope that, in the immediate future, metrolink will monitor the situation to find out the main difficulties

Column 787

facing people trying to get into the city of Manchester and that it will alleviate some of the inconvenience caused. Even at this late stage, I hope that metrolink talks to British Rail, in the hope of strengthening the Altrincham-Stockport-Manchester route. If more of the trains called at Navigation Road after the Altrincham stop, at the very least the situation would be improved, with more and more people using the route and easing the congestion for other passengers along the line.

I hope that tonight my hon. Friend can assure me that the situation will be monitored and that, if the PTE finds that action is needed, urgent action will be taken to alleviate as much hardship and inconvenience as possible for my constituents.

11.53 pm

Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) for allowing me a brief intervention in this debate.

My constituents welcome metrolink, but they are disappointed that the original start date in November has now been postponed to February or March. They want it quickly because it will undoubtedly improve the links through my constituency into Manchester where many go for business, leisure and work.

A couple of lessons about the construction of the link through Bury can be learnt. The Minister should take note of them and pass them on to the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive. First, the times of construction are important. Many of my constituents have houses backing on to the line and they were caused a great deal of inconvenience by construction going on until very late at night. Those of us who have or have had young families know the difficulties that that can cause. In future, when such lines are constructed, we should try to limit construction to times that will not cause such disturbance.

Secondly, it is important to heed the lesson about the alternative transport that should be provided. When the rail link to Manchester from Bury was discontinued during construction, alternative bus services were provided for rail link users. That was a satisfactory arrangement, but the bus service was not additional to existing services, which were merely re- routed.

Many of my constituents, particularly those in Prestwich, lost services that they had used hitherto. Many were elderly and they suddenly discovered that the bus service that they had used to get them into Prestwich and to parts of Manchester was no longer available. They suffered a great deal as a result. I pay tribute to their fortitude and I pay particular tribute to Mrs. Rachel Lawton, who has been vigorous in the defence of those passengers. Sadly, the passenger transport executive has not made proper alternative arrangements and my constituents have been caused a great deal of hardship this winter. I hope that that hardship is coming to an end. As a result of those lessons, I hope that, in the future, others will not have to suffer similar problems.

11.56 pm

The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLouglin) : I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) and for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) on starting the new season of Adjournment debates. I know that my hon. Friend the

Column 788

Member for Altrincham and Sale has taken a keen interest in this matter on behalf of his constituents, which he has often pursued with my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Before I respond in detail to the points that my hon. Friend has raised, I should like to say something about the Manchester metrolink scheme.

Most people recognise that the light railway scheme, which is nearing completion, will mark a major improvement in Manchester's transport infrastructure. First, it will replace existing British Rail services from Bury and Altrincham with a fast, modern and comfortable light rail system. The British Rail stock being used along those lines needed replacement, and I am sure that passengers will be more than happy with the modern, light rail vehicles which are to come into service soon.

Secondly, the system will, in addition, link those two services to the heart of the city centre via a new street--running section, with seven new stations. Access to the city centre, and between the north and south of the city, will be greatly improved. That is likely to play a part in encouraging motorists to travel by metrolink rather than by car, so reducing congestion and pollution. However, I noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale said in this respect and I shall deal with it later.

Thirdly, the system will provide a direct link to BR's main line station at Piccadilly when that section opens in June, which will be of great benefit to many travellers. Fourthly, the system will be accessible to mobility- impaired people, whereas the existing services are not. All the railway stations are being upgraded, with ramps and lifts provided to allow mobility-impaired people to have access to the vehicles. In the street- running section through the city centre, profiled platforms will enable the vehicles to be accessible. Those features will help not only mobility- impaired people but also those with prams, luggage or heavy shopping.

This £135 million project has required a great deal of preparation and effort on the part of all concerned--principally Greater Manchester passenger transport authority and executive, and the Greater Manchester Metro Ltd., which won the contract to design, build and operate the system. The project could not have gone ahead without the substantial grant of £53 million provided by the Government.

I know from my visit to the light rail exhibition in Manchester last November that the system has attracted wide interest and attention, not just in this country, and is likely to attract visitors to the city in the months and years ahead, as well as being of great benefit to local residents.

I have gone into the advantages of the system in some detail because it is essential to be aware of those when considering delays to the system's opening, so that those delays can be put into their proper context. I have a great deal of sympathy with the position of some of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, which he has so eloquently described, and also with some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South on construction. There are lessons to be learned. Light rail schemes are being promoted throughout the country and I hope that we can learn from some of the points he made, because construction can be annoying and irritating for people if it is done at the wrong time of day. I shall ensure that other people's attention is drawn to that point. It is not surprising that, with a project on this scale with so many new features, unforseen problems can arise, and

Next Section

Home Page