Home Page

Column 645

House of Commons

Monday 8 March 1993

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]

Oral Answers to Questions

TRANSPORT

West Coast Main Line

1. Mr. Hoyle : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will sponsor a cost-benefit study of proposals to upgrade the west coast main line to accommodate 250 km per hour passenger trains and associated improved freight services.

8. Mr. Martlew : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss investment plans for the west coast main line.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor) : At present, it is for British Rail, as operator of the west coast main line, to bring forward a cost benefit study into its upgrading. BR intends to start the resignalling work in this corporate plan period. Following the establishment of Railtrack in April 1994, this responsibility will pass to that body.

Mr. Hoyle : Would not it be better to ask BR for the proposals instead of the Secretary of State shunting us into the siding of rail privatisation? He must agree that money should be spent immediately on the west coast line in the way that money has been spent on the east coast line, to provide efficient rolling stock, efficient track, efficient signalling and an efficient rail service. Instead of having a charter of complaints--the citizens charter--funds should be made available immediately for rail projects for this vital rail link.

Mr. MacGregor : I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that there has been substantial investment in the east coast main line : some £550 million. There has been substantial investment throughout British Rail. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that investment is currently running at record levels. However, not everything can be done at once. As I have said, in the context of its corporate plan, which will be coming to me fairly soon, BR is currently looking at resignalling work. The hon. Gentleman asked about rolling stock. The Government's contribution remains at record levels, but, inevitably, as a result of the recession, there has been a decline in revenue and British Rail decided that it was not prudent to proceed at this stage with work on the rolling stock, which is likely to cost about £350 million. It is considering its rolling stock strategy and will no doubt present proposals in due course.

Column 646

Mr. Martlew : Over the past decade, the Government have starved the west coast main line of investment. Bearing that in mind, will the Minister ensure that the £150 million that was made available in the autumn statement is spent on that line? It would be a travesty for that money to be spent in any other region, including Network SouthEast. Not only would there be anger in my constituency, but the users of the line from Birmingham all the way up the west coast and including those in Belfast would be angry.

Mr. MacGregor : The £150 million of leasing to which the hon. Gentleman refers is, of course, a major new contribution which the Government have made available to British Rail. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that. We have asked British Rail to confirm by Easter what rolling stock it proposes to lease and for which lines. Is it for British Rail to make the decisions and I have no doubt that it will hear what the hon. Gentleman has said and will take it into account.

Mr. Jopling : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the unreliability of that line causes many people not to use it unless they are absolutely forced to do so? Does he realise that it will be necessary for much money to be spent on the line fairly soon? Is it true that work on signalling will begin this year? Will my right hon. Friend play his part and try to kick some life into the management at the top of British Rail, who do not seem to have got out of their old, bad, complacent habits and who are a contributory factor to the unacceptability of the line?

Mr. MacGregor : I acknowledge that the upgrading of the line is necessary, both in terms of rolling stock and of the infrastructure. I cannot give my right hon. Friend a date : it is for British Rail to come forward with proposals on resignalling. As I said, that is being considered in the context of the corporate plan. The whole purpose of our privatisation proposals is to improve management and prospects, not only on the west coast main line but throughout the system.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : I heartily agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). I assure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we are very proud of the standard of station staff and of their handling of passengers and so on, but we are not satisfied with British Rail management. If British Rail were privatised there would be better investment and a better deal for those who use the line. We are proud of the staff, but we want to be as proud of other parts of the line as we are of Lancaster station.

Mr. MacGregor : As I said earlier, our proposals are intended to improve services to passengers through franchising. It is unlikely that the west coast main line will be among the first, because it was not included in the seven lines that I announced as shadow franchises. I hope that it will follow not long afterwards, so that my hon. Friend can enjoy the benefits to which she looks forward.

Mr. Prescott : Does the Secretary of State accept that all the work has been done and that the cost is known? All that is lacking is political will and Government resources. Is not the right hon. Gentleman concerned that the taxpayers' money invested in the east coast line will be highly attractive to a privatised railway, which will undermine the west coast line? Will the Secretary of State

Column 647

give an assurance that the strategic route from London to Scotland will be on the west coast line and that he will instruct the track authority to see that it is?

Mr. MacGregor : I do not accept that the investment in the east coast main line will have a particular effect on franchising. The terms of the franchise will reflect a number of factors. I recognise that the east coast investment took place ahead of the west coast main line and I recognise the need to upgrade the infrastructure and rolling stock. However, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a lack of political will. Investment is currently at record levels, but we must establish priorities.

Night Flights (Heathrow)

2. Mr. Jessel : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to reach a decision on the number of Heathrow night flights.

Mr. MacGregor : We asked for comments on the proposals to reach us by 30 April. We shall consider all the responses carefully and I hope to announce decisions by the end of June.

Mr. Jessel : As one comment, is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents regard night flights as totally unacceptable and that any increase would make them very angry? They consider that night flights should be stopped entirely, except in emergencies.

Mr. MacGregor : I hope that my hon. Friend recognises the need for some night movements, but I acknowledge the importance of balancing that requirement with the legitimate concerns of local residents. The present regime attempts to do that. If we did not replace it, there would be no restrictions whatever, so it is right that we should be considering what should be done at the end of the year. I know of my hon. Friend's great concerns, which he has already made clear to me. I assure him that the consultation is genuine and that we shall listen to all representations before we take decisions for the future. We have been endeavouring to seek a better system for the future, taking account of new developments-- particularly in aircraft technology.

Mr. Bennett : Does the Secretary of State agree that the most effective way to reduce pressure on Heathrow is to develop regional airports such as Manchester? Will he congratulate Greater Manchester's local authorities on their enterprise and the opening of terminal 2? Will he press British Rail, because it is scandalous that the 40 yd of track needed to link the airport with routes to the south is still not built?

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman's last question was a little remote from the issue of Heathrow night flights. As he knows, we are encouraging regional airports in a variety of ways. There has been a big improvement in regional airport output in recent years--not least at Manchester, which is now a major European airport. I congratulate all involved. I am glad that private sector finance has been involved in that expansion. The right way ahead is to continue the private sector development of regional airports and, wherever possible, privatisation of them, too.

Column 648

Network SouthEast

3. Mr. Bowden : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many Network SouthEast British Rail services improved in 1992.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman) : At the end of 1992, 14 out of 15 Network SouthEast service groups were achieving punctuality performance above the level at which compensation would be paid to season ticket holders. The latest results show all 15 above that level. For the most recent four-weekly reporting period, 13 out of 15 routes performed above their punctuality targets.

Mr. Bowden : Is my hon. Friend aware that commuters in my constituency are fed up with cold, dirty trains? If the Brighton line were franchised, what would be in the contract to ensure that trains ran on time and were warm and clean?

Mr. Freeman : I assure my hon. Friend that the franchise contracts will require not only reliability and punctuality targets, but standards of cleanliness. One great advantage of the franchise contract system is that there will be a specific agreement between the franchising director and the rail operator.

Mr. Denham : Does not the Minister recognise that Network SouthEast services are currently being destroyed? Does he know that, in the past six months, many Hampshire stations have had their Sunday services withdrawn? Does he realise that commuter lines from Southampton to Waterloo are being cut, that the service between Southampton and Eastleigh is being cut by 50 per cent. and that the service between Guildford and Portsmouth is changing from semi-fast to stopping trains?

Why does not the Minister recognise that all that is being done to lower the standard of service to the level at which a franchise operator may be able to come in? None of his assurances will take away the reality for rail travellers--that their services are being destroyed around them.

Mr. Freeman : Their services are not being destroyed. British Rail is sensibly accommodating the drop in demand that has resulted from the recession of the past two years and it has therefore had to reduce the frequency of services. However, new 159 class trains are being introduced on the Waterloo to Exeter lines : that represents a substantial investment by Network SouthEast, with the Government's support.

Special Parking Areas (London)

5. Dr. Twinn : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when local boroughs in London will be able to implement special parking areas.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris) : We aim to have all the necessary regulations and procedural rules in place in time to enable parking enforcement to begin in special parking areas from 1 July this year.

Dr. Twinn : I congratulate my hon. Friend on that welcome news. Does he agree that it is very good news for Londoners as a whole? Parking regulations will now be properly enforced on the basis of local knowledge-- and,

Column 649

I hope, removed when they are not really necessary--all at no cost to council tax payers, provided that they do not park illegally.

Mr. Norris : My hon. Friend is right. The boroughs themselves asked for the parking areas, which will give them more control, enable them to manage their own problems in their own areas and ensure that the resources released will be available for better enforcement on the priority route programme and elsewhere.

British Rail (Investment)

6. Sir Roger Moate : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the levels of investment in British Rail.

Mr. MacGregor : I have received several representations about the levels of investment in British Rail. This year is the highest in real terms since 1960.

Sir Roger Moate : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in contrast, the very worst years for railway investment were in the 1970s, under a Labour Government? Did not a Labour Government close more railway miles than any Conservative Government? Nevertheless, new capital investment is still urgently required for Network SouthEast. When might an order be placed for the new, urgently needed Networker express trains for the Kent coast?

Mr. MacGregor : I take my hon. Friend's point. I note that it is always when Labour is in opposition that it calls for higher investment in British Rail and that it is when the Conservatives are in government that that is achieved.

As my hon. Friend will know, British Rail is now examining our proposal for a £150 million leasing scheme. I cannot say yet what projects it will implement to fulfil the orders, but it is for British Rail to decide whether one of them will be the project for which my hon. Friend has pressed. He will also know that we are carrying out substantial resignalling projects, which, although currently causing disruption, are designed to improve the service in the longer term.

Mr. Simon Hughes : Can the Secretary of State confirm or deny reports--particularly in the weekend press--that crossrail and Thameslink will not go ahead, and that the channel tunnel rail link will end at St. Pancras rather than King's Cross? If he is not prepared to make a statement today, will he make one later this month and will it include a final announcement about the Jubilee line?

Mr. MacGregor : There is no change in our position on the Jubilee line, which I have expressed frequently. The Government have made their full provision of £1.4 billion and are waiting for the administrator to complete his talks with the banks and London Underground. I recently received from British Rail two reports in two stages on the channel tunnel rail link. I received the second very recently and I shall make an announcement when I have considered it. There is no change in our position on crossrail, which was outlined in the public expenditure plans for the next three years. The hon. Gentleman will know that Thameslink is not provided for in those three years.

Mr. Adley : What, expressed as a percentage of rail investment, will be the investment figure two years hence, compared with the figure for the current year? Does my

Column 650

right hon. Friend realistically expect any private sector investment to be made in rail infrastructure in the next decade and is not Railtrack the creation of yet another nationalised industry, which unlike British Rail, will not be answerable to passengers?

Mr. MacGregor : I do not have a calculator in my head, so I cannot give my hon. Friend the precise percentage figures now. High investment continues to be made in British Rail and investment this year is the highest in real terms since 1960. I cannot say exactly how much investment will be made in two years' time, not least because that will depend on revenue, but we expect it to be about £1 billion a year, which is a substantial amount indeed. I do not agree with my hon. Friend about Railtrack. Our proposals will create a more efficient track infrastructure and administration. I very much hope that private investment will be made in track over the next 10 years.

Mrs. Dunwoody : Why is the Minister being so coy about investment in British Rail? He knows very well that, without the amount that has been set aside for the channel tunnel and its infrastructure, investment this year would be very poor. It is clear that investment would drop in the next two years. I am sure that he would like to make it clear to Conservative Members that, far from getting better rail services from franchising, they will lose on every count.

Mr. MacGregor : I disagree totally with the hon. Lady's last point. It is fascinating that she suggests that certain aspects of capital expenditure can be ignored as though they did not need financing. British Rail's capital investment in the channel tunnel is good investment indeed. It is a priority for a priority market and it is therefore right to make that investment. The hon. Lady must acknowledge that that requires money, which cannot be spent twice.

Mr. Dunn : Does my right hon. Friend agree that British Rail's ability to invest will improve as revenue grows? Will he therefore welcome BR's decision to introduce a penalty fares scheme on the Kent link sector of Network SouthEast from 5 April next, which will improve its revenue significantly in the years ahead?

Mr. MacGregor : Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that as revenue improves so do the prospects to increase capital investment over and above the Government's major contribution. As he rightly said, revenue is up as a result of such schemes.

Mr. Wilson : Instead of blustering with bogus statistics, will the Secretary of State confirm the reality that is set out in his own expenditure papers, which shows that investment in the existing railway is already at the lowest level for a decade and that overall investment in British Rail next year will be at its lowest level since nationalisation in 1948? Is that a record of which he is proud? What does he see in a railway? [Interruption.] There is no point is asking the Minister for Public Transport because it is true ; it is at its lowest level since nationalisation in 1948. Is it the west coast main line that justifies that figure, or the cancellation of Thameslink and crossrail and the loss of other major infrastructure projects? Why are the Government continuing to run down the railways in advance of privatisation, particularly

Column 651

on routes such as the west coast main line? We shall be left with the rump of a privatised railway while the rest is left to wither on the vine.

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman manipulates the statistics. He strips out of the figures what does not suit his case. He ignores the fact that substantial investment is being made elsewhere and refers merely to certain areas as lacking investment. Investment is currently running at levels that have not been higher since 1960 and it will continue at a high level next year. Investment in regional railways will mean that by the end of the year nearly 90 per cent. of rolling stock will be less than eight and a half years old, a change caused as a result of investment. Since the mid-1980s, about 2,500 new passenger vehicles and locomotives have been brought into service. More than 900 are on order and will come into service in the next two years. Such massive changes in rolling stock investment have been made possible because of the capital expenditure that British Rail has incurred and to which the Government have made a substantial contribution.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : My right hon. Friend will understand that many people are interested in the future of the existing railway. Stripping out the plans for the channel tunnel means a cut in capital investment from £1,000 million a year to £500 million a year. Will my right hon. Friend argue with his colleagues that, if we want to protect employment, some of the money that might otherwise go in transitional aid to the coal mines should be used for rail capital investment for greater long-term benefit and benefit in terms of jobs?

Mr. MacGregor : I argued the case for British Rail this year and secured £250 million on top of existing plans, in addition to the extra £150 million leasing scheme.

Commuter Fares (Greater London)

9. Mr. Austin-Walker : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received concerning the level of commuter fares in Greater London.

Mr. Norris : My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on this issue from hon. Members and others.

Mr. Austin-Walker : Has the Minister seen the survey by the Association of London Authorities which shows that the highest commuter fares in Europe are in London? Does he accept that deregulation and the Government's privatisation proposals will threaten children's reduced fares and the London travelcard? Is he aware that London Transport has predicted a 20 per cent. increase in fares as a result of the proposed deregulation and privatisation? Will the Minister for Transport in London accept some responsibility for the chaotic state of London's transport and give the House a guarantee that, after deregulation and privatisation, children's reduced fares and the London travelcard will be protected and will remain at least as beneficial as they are at present?

Mr. Norris : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have made it plain that, after deregulation and privatisation, the concessionary fare arrangements funded by the boroughs will continue. Every operator wants the travelcard scheme, but it would be extraordinarily foolish to preserve the present system in aspic as though it were incapable of

Column 652

improvement. It is perfectly obvious that the operators want to keep the concept of intermodal travel and to develop it, which we shall help them to do.

I am grateful for the opportunity to say straight away that the scare stories that have circulated recently about price increases after privatisation and deregulation, on the buses and on the railways, are mere speculation and are being used cynically to frighten people unnecessarily about the prospects for travel in London.

Dame Angela Rumbold : Does my hon. Friend agree that it is high time that we heard the Labour party's ideas--constructive or otherwise--for London commuters? So far we have heard nothing except, as my hon. Friend said, scare stories and scaremongering, which merely serve to upset people trying to work in London and those seeking work in London and do nothing for the recovery of London and commuters generally.

Mr. Norris : I am tempted to agree with my right hon. Friend, but she is not quite right, as I have heard of a policy from the Labour party. I hear that there is a policy of charging virtually nothing for the system but somehow managing to magic the necessary resources out of thin air--as the Opposition resist the idea that either the user or the taxpayer pays. However, my right hon. Friend is right that no constructive opposition to the Government's proposals is emerging from the Oppositon parties.

Mr. Spearing : Does the Minister understand that his words, which are designed to be of assurance, are no such thing? He talked about speculation. Speculation can turn out to be correct. If the railcard, which is so useful to all citizens in London, is to continue as everyone wishes, and if it can be improved as the Minister says, can it be improved within the concept and operation of future privately franchised railways in Network SouthEast? Is the Minister aware that before the first world war the independent underground railways of London came together to form a group so that there could be reasonable operation and lower fares? How can that be compatible with the Minister's proposals for splitting them up again?

Mr. Norris : The hon. Gentleman says that speculation can occasionally turn out to be true, but in my experience over the past 10 years, speculation from the Opposition has more often than not turned out to be absolutely fatuous.

The hon. Gentleman, with his experience of the system, should know that the travelcard has no statutory basis at present. It is an agreement entered into by the operators because they all know that it is a vital way to attract addtional revenue. There is therefore not the slightest reason why private contractors should not want to be in the scheme, and they have told us that they do want to be in it. Indeed, they are developing yet more exciting additions to the basic travelcard concept to increase passenger use of London's transport rather than to reduce it.

Mr. Harry Greenway : Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the extension of the hopper services to many estates in my constituency and around London, to the delight of pensioners and others? Will my hon. Friend also consider the age of the rolling stock on south-eastern services and see whether it can be modernised more

Column 653

quickly? Can there be more rolling stock so that people coming to London every day from Ealing do not have to stand?

Mr. Norris : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point about hopper buses. He could have made the same point about midi buses. All these developments in more flexible bus operation have arisen as a result of privatisation. They are the result not of a planning-led system but of operators seeking to match the availability of transport to the needs of consumers. I take my hon. Friend's point about rolling stock. I will look into the matter and come back to him.

Mr. Tony Banks : I yield to no one in my admiration for the Minister's ability to sell second-hand Rollers, but I believe that his ability to sell a second-rate transport system is somewhat tested here. Will he tell Londoners how it can be fair and right that they should have the most expensive urban transport system in Europe while having to maintain it with the lowest level of subsidy in western europe? Why is that the case? Why does everyone else do it differently?

Mr. Norris : I am not sure that my ability or anyone else's in selling the advantages of London is ever helped by the carping from Opposition Members which is so often devoid of any positive criticism of the system. Such carping is not helpful in any way ; it is in no one's interests. The Government are right to believe that either the taxpayer or the user pays. Operators certainly welcome the fact that they can recover 90 per cent. of their operating costs through the fare box. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his experience of the Greater London council, understands that these days when taxpayers invest in improving the system every pound that they spend goes into improvements rather than merely into subsidising operating costs.

Rail Privatisation

10. Mr. Ian Bruce : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from private operators who may wish to bid for running rail franchises.

Mr. MacGregor : We have received expressions of interest from more than 70 prospective private sector operators and British Rail management bid teams interested in operating franchised passenger services.

Mr. Bruce : My right hon. Friend's answer is in stark contrast with the view of the doom and gloom merchants in the Opposition who seem to suggest that nobody will want to run our rail services. Will my right hon. Friend encourage management buy-outs and franchisees who wish to extend our rail system to more freight and more passengers than are carried by British Rail?

Mr. MacGregor : Yes, certainly we are keen to encourage management- employee teams to bid for franchises in competition with all others who are bidding. We have had more than 20 expressions of interest from management- employee teams. I regard that as an extremely encouraging sign. I know that there is a great deal of interest among them. My hon. Friend is also right to say that we shall encourage passenger franchisees to extend their services as well as to meet the commitments in

Column 654

the contracts. Freight will be different because they will not be bidding for franchises. However, I believe that there is a great deal of interest in our proposals for the freight sector. I am confident that our proposals, combined with my recent announcements about three freight proposals, are the best way to try to achieve a halt in the decline of freight on rail and to bring about a shift from road to rail.

Mr. Olner : The Minister must surely realise that without substantial investment in BR, particularly on signalling and rolling stock, no franchisees who are attracted will do the job correctly. When did the Minister last travel on the west coast line to see just how dilapidated are the track, the signalling and the rolling stock? The Minister must do better, get out of his complacent mood and do something about our railways before they disappear completely.

Mr. MacGregor : There is no complacency. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there has been substantial investment in recent years in very many parts of the country. I have said that it is not possible to do everything at once. For example, very recently a £40 million contract was announced for investment in signalling on the London to Tilbury and Southend line. Investment is taking place on a substantial scale. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there needs to be continuing investment and I believe that our proposals will achieve that.

Mr. Cormack : Has anyone at all expressed interest in taking over the west coast line? What comfort can my right hon. Friend offer my constituents who will soon have longer journeys to London than they have had hitherto? That is a totally unacceptable situation.

Mr. MacGregor : I cannot disclose those bids that are commercially confidential and at this stage, as my hon. Friend will recognise, most of them are. I recognise that there have been marginal differences in the timetable on some aspects of the west coast main line, reflecting to some extent the position in relation to some of the signalling. I have indicated that BR is currently considering that. However, the changes in the timetable are very small indeed.

Mr. Prescott : What is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the subsidies for such franchises in the first and second years? Will he assure the House that the finances for the payment of those subsidies will not come from the £4 billion surplus that he has seen in the British Rail pension fund, as that would constitute the greatest rail robbery in history and would be bitterly opposed in the House?

Mr. MacGregor : I cannot, of course, say what the subsidy will be for the first two years as that will be part of the public expenditure negotiations in the autumn. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that. However, I am glad to respond to the hon. Gentleman's second point. I give him a complete assurance that in no way would we countenance--and certainly in no way would I countenance--the BR pension scheme fund being used for purposes other than for paying BR pensioners. I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance-- [Interruption] Yes, in relation to the total fund. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in trying to stop the mischievous and unwarranted scares that I encountered in Swindon on

Column 655

Friday, when I was very happy to give that assurance to the petitioner there who came to see me about it. Such scares are totally unfair to the pensioners and I hope that they will stop.

Disabled People (Travel)

11. Mr. Duncan-Smith : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department will take to facilitate travel by the disabled in London.

Mr. Norris : My Department's disability unit works closely with the unit for disabled passengers at London Transport in promoting accessible transport services. Dial-a-ride services in London are funded by my Department and administered on our behalf by London Transport. We shall be announcing shortly the funding levels for 1993-94. In addition, there is a requirement for all London taxis to be wheelchair accessible by 1 January 2000.

Mr. Duncan-Smith : My constituents will be grateful for, and reassured by, my hon. Friend's answer. As we so often hear Opposition Members knocking London's record, will my hon. Friend draw a comparison with cities comparable with London and our record in the matter? So that we can see what the Opposition did when they were in power, will he also draw a comparison with what the Greater London council did under Labour control?

Mr. Norris : I think that it is fair to say that while we can and will do more, London offers on balance the best transport service for disabled people of any major city in the world. To emphasise that point, it is partly because by increasing our funding by a further £1.5 million this year we have achieved a real increase of more than 60 per cent. compared with the last year in which the service was funded by the GLC.

Ms. Walley : Is the Minister aware that today is International Women's Day and that many women, especially disabled women, all over the country do not have access to public transport? During the six months of the United Kindom's presidency, why did the Government not take further the European directive on the mobility of disabled workers?

Will the Minister give an assurance that, whatever his proposals for the future of black cabs and private hire vehicles in London, there will be no threat whatever that access to disabled people will be lost? He should bear in mind that there is a real chance that black cabs could well be put out of business if he does not deal with the whole issue properly?

Mr. Norris : The hon. Lady will appreciate that women, especially disabled women, are uppermost in the Department's mind when it considers what steps to take to provide disabled access to transport. As I said, those steps are more advanced in London in terms of buses, access to rail systems and especially taxis and other forms of personal transport than in any other major city in the world. I merely reiterate that the Department requires all London taxis to be fully accessible to the disabled by the year 2000. The hon. Lady should know that some 7,000 taxis are available for disabled people to hire from the

Column 656

street. I am committed to the proposition that we should continue with that policy and have all London taxis accessible to the disabled by the year 2000.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Science Budget

29. Mr. Knapman : To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the size of the science budget 1978-79 ; and what it will be in 1993-94, at comparable prices.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave) : The science budget in 1978-79 was £800 million at 1993-94 prices. The planned expenditure in 1993-94 will be £1,165 million. After taking account of changes in departmental responsibilities, the figures on a comparable basis are £827 million and £1,040 million, which gives a real-terms increase of 25.8 per cent.

Mr. Knapman : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that excellent reply. Can he, in the real-terms increase in the science budget for the coming year, underline the Government's commitment to supporting British science and technology? Is he aware that the Agricultural and Food Research Council will be able to undertake much valuable research work as a result of the settlement?

Mr. Waldegrave : I know that my hon. Friend makes a contribution as a member of the Agricultural and Food Research Council, and that is valuable. I greatly admire the Agricultural and Food Research Council, which has taken difficult decisions recently. It has reorganised its work and is now doing internationally acclaimed work both in basic areas such as molecular biology and applied work such as the work that it has done on bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

Dr. Bray : Does the Chancellor agree with the Agricultural and Food Research Council that the figures for 1994 to 1996 represent a cut in previously planned totals and that that will mean cuts in terms of its programmes?

Mr. Waldegrave : As the hon. Gentleman knows, I published all this advice to meet some of the justified demands for more information on these matters. I do not deny that the previous plans were higher before the recession hit--we should all like to spend more on some of these important programmes--but we got a real-terms increase this year which we are protecting in the years following and which is good against the present background.

Sir Giles Shaw : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the total may be arguable, what is important is the distribution of that money within the sciences and the technological programmes that we want to see continued? Does he expect not only to address that matter in his White Paper but perhaps to indicate whether defence science will be lower and civil sciences will be higher?

Mr. Waldegrave : I agree with the implication of what my hon. Friend said. This year, total civil research and development by the Government has increased faster than the science budget--by about 2 per cent. That represents a proper balance of priorities.

Column 657

Ms. Mowlam : Is it not hypocritical, on International Women's Day, to create a committee to look at discrimination against women scientists at the same time as women civil servants are having their jobs contracted out to the private sector and he is unable to ensure that the benefits of equal opportunities apply to both the public and the private sectors?

Next Section

  Home Page