| Home Page |
Column 747
French Nuclear Testing
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): I beg to ask leave under Standing Order No. 20 to discuss a matter of definite public importance, namely French nuclear testing in the Pacific. You will know, Madam Speaker, that this is a genuine and meant request for a debate, and not posturing or flag -waving. I have sent you a copy of a debate from 2 July 1973, in which I moved the motion on behalf of the official Opposition:
"That this House deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government to make adequate protests to the Government of France for ignoring the decision of the International Court at The Hague on nuclear testing, and supports the two Commonwealth Governments of Australia and New Zealand in their opposition to impending tests in the Pacific."--[ Official Report , 2 July 1973; Vol. 859, c. 47.] I would have preferred this request for an emergency debate to have come from the Opposition Front Bench, rather than from me as a Back-Bench Member.
As the year 2000 approaches, it is desperate that a western European country should, without consultation of any kind, unilaterally impose a potentially catastrophic act on colonial territory on the other side of the world. In the south Pacific, an indigenous people's opinion has been brushed aside, and a hard-won status quo on the most dangerous of all weapons in a dangerous world has been brushed aside with it.
That France may not care about its image abroad is one thing. It is another thing altogether that a country should defy an international moratorium and, by baleful example, encourage others to do so. It is this defiance that makes it so urgent that the House of Commons should make a judgment this very week. As one of the four remaining Labour Members who voted to go into the Common Market with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), I am entitled
Column 748
to say that France's European allies have shamefully underestimated the issue, in contrast to the loud and impotent outrage in Australia, New Zealand and Polynesia.The matter is important. An apologist for France said on the "Today" programme that not one fish would be harmed. That is arrant nonsense. Apart from anything else, those who cause explosions in coral atolls had better be careful what they do. Professor Ghillean Prance, the director of Kew gardens, is only one of the witnesses who says that there is interbreeding between the coral atolls of the entire Pacific area--
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now getting into a debate instead of making an application to me, and his time is up. However, I have listened most carefully to what he has said, and I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.
BILL PRESENTED
Pardon for Soldiers of the Great War
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, supported by Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. John Hume, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Rev. Ian Paisley, Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Alex Salmond, Sir David Steel, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. Paul Flynn, presented a Bill to provide for the granting of pardons to soldiers of the British Empire Forces executed during the Great War of 1914 to 1919 following conviction for offences of cowardice, desertion or attempted desertion, disobedience, quitting post, violence, sleeping at post, throwing away arms or striking a superior officer; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 161.]
Column 749
Points of Order
3.35 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to raise a point of order for the second time, but a Minister who admitted in private having misled the House and misrepresented a Member of the House yesterday, has refused to apologise publicly for an offence committed in public. I say that especially because the BBC allowed the untruth to be repeated on the radio this morning. It was suggested that I had acted dishonourably, so it is important to me that the matter be put right publicly. I ask you, Madam Speaker, as the custodian of Back-Bench interests, to remind the Secretary of State for Wales, who is a comparatively new Member of the House, that he should respect the courtesies of the House and tell the truth.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) knows, I have already written to her on the matter. I received a suggestion yesterday that she would seek to raise a particular matter during Welsh questions. Having looked into the matter, I accept the fact that the suggestion came not from her but from one of her constituents. She is right to expect an apology from me, and I have already given her one. Equally, her constituent was right to expect that she would be in the Chamber to represent his interests. Other constituents throughout Wales were also right to expect their Members of Parliament to be here to represent their interests. Welsh Labour Members have brought nothing but ridicule upon themselves by their failure to be here to do what they are elected to do.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you help me concerning the protocol of giving an apology in the House as the Secretary of State for Wales has just done? Is it appropriate and proper that, having unreservedly apologised, he should then abuse the House by going off into a diatribe about something that has nothing to do with the matter in hand?
Madam Speaker: We must leave that matter where it is at the moment, but I expect apologies in public if some misunderstanding has taken place, as obviously happened in this case. We must leave it there now.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As a member of the Select Committee examining the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, I ask whether you have seen reports in the press today suggesting that Government policy is to be reversed, because Ministers are balking at the notion of increasing public subsidy for Eurorail, which is run by the Prime Minister's friend Lord Parkinson. Those press reports are potentially damaging to the work of the Select Committee. If there is a change in Government policy surely the Secretary of State for Transport should come to the House and explain exactly what the position is.
Madam Speaker: I make no comments on press reports, but of course I expect that whenever there is an
Column 750
important change in Government policy, on whatever issue, a statement should be made from the Dispatch Box so that we are all clear about it.Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On a similar matter reported in the press today, there was a suggestion that the change in Government policy--
Madam Speaker: Order. Ministers may comment on press reports, but since I entered the House more than 20 years ago I have made it a rule, both as a Back Bencher and as Speaker, not to comment on press reports, so the House must not ask me to do that now. If there is a point of order for me as Speaker to deal with I shall deal with it, but I do not want to hear about press reports.
Mr. Simpson: I intended, Madam Speaker, to ask for a statement to be made to the House about whether there is to be a change in Government policy on the imposition of tax on church bells. The House wants to understand whether that is part of a sleaze story about Government bonging or whether another political clanger has been dropped, so we would like to know whether the Secretary of State will make a statement to the House.
Madam Speaker: An amusing comment and a good try, but not really a point of order.
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it really in order that there should be a statement on press reports that are quite false, because on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, we in north-west Kent asked a question and got a clear answer from the Ministers that these press reports are rubbish?
Madam Speaker: That is why I never comment on press reports. I think that that is a very good policy to adopt.
Statutory Instruments, &c.
Madam Speaker: With permission, I will put together the motions on statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
Roads and Bridges (Scotland)
That the Roads (Transitional Powers) (Scotland) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1476) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
Merchant Shipping
That the Fishing Vessels (Certification of Deck Officers and Engineer Officers) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1428) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Merchant Shipping (Certification of Deck and Marine Engineer Officers) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1429) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.--[ Mr. Streeter. ]
Question agreed to.
Column 751
Railway Communities (Job Creation)
3.40 pm
Mr. Hugh Bayley (York): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the creation of alternative job opportunities in communities that have lost a substantial number of railway industry jobs since the passage of the Railways Act 1993; to empower Ministers to provide direct assistance to former railway industry employees seeking alternative employment; to encourage inward investment; to promote new business start-ups in railway communities and to provide new infrastructure for business premises in these communities; and for connected purposes.
I should remind the House that I am sponsored by one of the rail unions, RMT, but I speak today on behalf of many of my constituents in my union and others who are affected by rail privatisation. Later today, on an Opposition motion, the House will debate the merits or otherwise of rail privatisation. I hope that I do not need to tell the House where I stand on that matter. My Bill does not argue for or against privatisation of the railways. It simply acknowledges that the House passed the Railways Act 1993, that the Act is being implemented and that it is causing a significant reduction in employment on the railways. My Bill seeks to reduce the impact on railway workers who have been made redundant and on the economies of railway towns.
There are quite a number of precedents for the Government taking action to replace jobs that have come about as a result of industrial restructuring. In 1984, the Government established British Coal Enterprise Ltd. to bring alternative employment to areas affected by pit closures. Since 1984, British Coal has made 143,300 people redundant. In the same period, British Coal Enterprise Ltd. says that it has created 123,600 new jobs. Some 57,244 jobs have gone to ex-miners, and another 66,000 to other people in mining communities. Similar programmes have been introduced in the steel industry. When British Rail closed its Swindon works in the 1980s, the British Rail board invested £1.3 million in establishing an enterprise agency to bring new jobs to the town. I would not argue for a new agency for the railways if there was no need. Rail privatisation is still in its early stages, but already British Rail has made 13,600 workers redundant and thousands of other jobs have been lost in private sector rail manufacturing industries. In my own constituency, for example, since 1992 there have been 2,300 job losses. In 1992 there were 4,700 jobs. Since then, British Rail has declared 650 redundancies, and the private train builder, ABB, has made all 1,650 of its employees redundant.
Other railway jobs in York are at risk, too. British Rail's York office of the civil engineering design group will be privatised in a matter of weeks. The York office of a BR subsidiary, Signalling Control UK, is also to be privatised this year. So, too, are the two York-based
Column 752
infrastructure maintenance units, and the two York-based British Rail track renewal units. The east coast main line franchise is due to be let at the end of this year or the beginning of next year. York needs help. We have already lost some 2,300 jobs as a result of rail privatisation. York is not an assisted area. We do not qualify for EU regional grants, for instance, under objective 2. On the practicalities of my Bill, since 1984 British Coal Enterprise Ltd. has invested about £165 million. Roughly £100 million of that has gone on economic regeneration in coalfield communities and £65 million on the resettlement of miners in other jobs. In round terms, the 120,000 jobs created by British Coal Enterprise Ltd. have cost £1,350 each. At the present rate of attrition of railway jobs, the railways need to invest £10 million or £15 million a year, assuming that the cost of replacing railway jobs is broadly the same as that of replacing jobs in coalfield communities. It is not a great sum of money compared with the £700 million that railway privatisation has cost already.British Coal Enterprise Ltd. is a subsidiary of British Coal. I suggest that the British Rail board could and should establish a subsidiary, which might be called British Rail Enterprise. Of course, there is a chance that this Bill will not reach the statute book, but there is no reason why the Government cannot act without legislation. There is no statutory basis for British Coal Enterprise Ltd. Rail privatisation has come about as a direct result of Government policy. Large-scale job losses in the railway industry have come about as a direct consequence of rail privatisation. The Government have an obligation to do as they have done in other industries that have been restructured as a result of Government policy, which is to invest in alternative employment in the areas most affected by the Government's rail privatisation policies.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hugh Bayley, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Alan Williams, Mr. Alan Howarth, Mr. Malcolm Wicks, Mr. Alex Carlile and Mr. Keith Hill.
Railway Communities (Job Creation)
Mr. Hugh Bayley accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the creation of alternative job opportunities in communities that have lost a substantial number of railway industry jobs since the passage of the Railways Act 1993; to empower Ministers to provide direct assistance to former railway industry employees seeking alternative employment; to encourage inward investment; to promote new business start-ups in railway communities and to provide new infrastructure for business premises in these communities; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July 1995, and to be printed. [Bill 160.]
Column 753
Opposition Day
[17th Allotted Day]
Rail Network
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have to announce that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
3.47 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): I beg to move,
That this House deplores the impact of the privatisation threat on investment in the rail network and on deteriorating staff morale; and reiterates the need to retain Railtrack as a crucial public service in order to maintain and develop a co-ordinated national transport policy.
This debate is intended as a triple opportunity. First, it is an opportunity for the new Secretary of State, whom I very much welcome to the debate, to state his position on the privatisation of the rail system and on Railtrack in particular. Clearly, the House will want to know whether he shares the enthusiasm and optimism--indeed, the over-optimism--of his predecessors. I note with interest his contribution to a debate on public transport on 23 March 1990, which was introduced by his late colleague Mr. Robert Adley, whose views on privatisation we all recall. The Secretary of State said:
"more people are writing to their Members of Parliament--certainly those in London--complaining about conditions . . . they expect part of the greater wealth that has been created to be diverted to the improvement, modernisation and expansion of public transport in London, the south-east and in other parts of the country."--[ Official Report , 23 March 1990; Vol.169, c.1395.]
In a few moments I shall be able to demonstrate that that simply has not happened. Let us hope that, now that he is in the elevated position of driver in the cab, he may be able to change the way in which British Rail and the rail system are driven.
Secondly, of course, this is an opportunity to help the Labour party off the fence, not just on the subject of strikes, on which they will no doubt want to make a statement, but on the future of the rail network. It is an opportunity to get them on board for a proper policy for the public ownership of the rail network.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the debate is a wonderful opportunity for Back Benchers on both sides of the House to express the concern, frustration and anger that our constituents are expressing to us about the way in which our great rail network is being dismantled before our very eyes.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Blackpool, South): My constituents are annoyed and frustrated about the rail unions, which are determined to wreck their travel arrangements. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about that, or is he an apologist like Labour's Front Benchers?
Mr. Tyler: Of course not. I am sure that hon. Members understand the frustration and anger of the staff in all parts of the rail system who are seeing their industry being dismantled. They are also seeing a huge waste of money which could be invested in better conditions for them, including better pay, as well as in improving the service. However, that is no excuse for taking industrial action and
Column 754
I agree that it is not helpful to the rail system, the rail customers or rail staff to take precipitate action--as, indeed, some other staff have made clear in the past few days. No doubt the spokesmen for the Labour party will wish to dissociate themselves from this industrial action as clearly and precisely as we do.Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind me asking whether it occurs to him that, when negotiations between employers and employees are taking place, the most useless and unhelpful thing that someone can do in the House--especially when he is not party to those negotiations--is to express his views in the terms that the hon. Gentleman has just used?
Mr. Tyler: When the hon. Lady's party was in government, I recall many previous occasions on which Labour Ministers did precisely that. I see no reason not to now.
We believe that a publicly controlled, publicly directed public service is not inherently inefficient. It can be extremely efficient. In particular, I pray in aid the Post Office. As a student of history, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that the Post Office was taken into public ownership by that great radical Charles I in 1635. After the disturbances of the civil war, it was re-established as a public service by Charles II by Act of Parliament in 1660.
There is no inherent reason why a useful public service should not continue to be of very considerable use to the public if it remains publicly controlled. However, what we cannot do with a modern railway system is to play trains with it. At present, our rail network in the British Isles is being disintegrated in a socially, economically and environmentally damaging way. No other country in western Europe would dream of doing that at this juncture because there are great opportunities on offer to an efficient public rail system. If it is to become a wholly private concern, even if regulated, we can look to what has happened in the other former utilities as a guide to what would inevitably happen to the railways.
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham): Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on what British Airways was like--a sheer embarrassment to this country--while it was nationalised? Does he think that it is purely coincidental that, as a privatised entity, it is now considered to be the world's favourite airline?
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman selects but one previous utility. He should consider what ICI says about the cost of electricity. Privatisation does not necessarily result in greater competition or more effective management of a great public service. What is clear about British Rail is that the substantial improvements that were made in the 1970s and 1980s are being put at risk. I know that a number of hon. Members wish to contribute to this short debate, so I should like to make some progress.
Clearly, under the Government's present plans, the franchising director is only partly accountable to the public. Indeed, it is only when there is uproar in the House and among all the parties over issues such as through ticketing, that one is able to influence the way in which the passenger service requirements are implemented. The role of Opraf is not to be a servant of public policy; it simply provides an opportunity for Ministers to pass the buck and put at arm's length their responsibility to the
Column 755
travelling public. No one is confident that standards will be met, let alone improved. Similarly, the price cap is hardly an effective and sensitive influence on the rail system.We recognise that the core of an effective rail network is the track--the infrastructure--and therefore Railtrack. I shall concentrate for a few minutes on the role of Railtrack because I and my colleagues believe that it is the secret to the success of our future public transport system. The core must be publicly controlled and directed, and there must be a guarantee of homogeneity in the whole operation.
Privatisation has placed intolerable burdens on Railtrack. They include the corporate plan, which was due this summer--indeed, now--but which is still not forthcoming, and the timetable for modernisation of the west coast main line and the contract for signalling which are to be in place by the end of the year, which is highly unlikely; and enabling European Passenger Services to operate a public service to Manchester and Scotland through the channel tunnel by 1 January 1996. Again, that is a strain. It is asking the impossible while steps are being taken to create new structures throughout Railtrack and the operating companies.
If Railtrack were in private hands, which would be a fundamental fault because it would split the infrastructure from the management of trains and divide responsibility for their operation among many operators, it would fly in the face of the experience of all other member states in the European Union and, indeed, most other developed countries. Accountability would disappear.
Meanwhile, customers and staff are bewildered and confused by the way in which the system is being carved up. As the House knows, there are already some 100 bits to the jigsaw. The little green book, which some hon. Members may have seen, contains the most amazing array of maps which it is extremely difficult to follow. I had occasion to wish to write a complaint about a delayed train a couple of days ago, and it took several minutes to wade through the document to find out to whom I should complain.
Let us consider Gatwick, which is the means of entry into this country for a large number of visitors. Gatwick Airport Services Ltd. runs the station on a lease from Railtrack but there are five train operators going in and out of the station--Gatwick Express, InterCity Cross Country, Network SouthCentral, Thames Trains and Thameslink. Anyone who has been there recently and shared the experience of some visitors who are unfamiliar with our curious signs and curious language and our curious lack of anyone else's language will have discovered that it is impossible to find the appropriate train. Staff simply do not know what services are being provided by other companies. Hon. Members should test it for themselves--I bet that Ministers have not done so recently, unlike one of my colleagues. The plethora of different information at Gatwick makes it impossible. One enters an apocalyptic world. For example, indicators are non-existent at platform level, and if one goes up to the higher level, one is in danger of missing one's connection. Nobody knows what is happening. With two sets of loudspeakers and conflicting information, it is impossible to know what is going on.
Column 756
Let us consider another example. I have here a note on the railway services serving a particular constituency in the north-west of England which I visited yesterday and this morning-- Littleborough and Saddleworth. The services provided in that constituency are, according to British Rail, partly"a joint venture between Regional Railways North West and Greater Manchester PTE . . . and also between Regional Railways North East and West Yorkshire PTE".
The number of companies is so confusing that even the staff do not know who is responsible for the various services. In the past few days, my colleague in that constituency has conducted a survey of passenger opinion and he was not surprised to find that the huge majority of the travelling public in that area believe that services are getting worse as a result of the threat of privatisation. They do not share others' enthusiasm for that change. That survey revealed that nine out of 10 passengers believe that rail privatisation will cause services to deteriorate still further.
It is not just a question of reliability or punctuality, but, of course, of safety. As has been apparent from last week's report from British Rail and Railtrack's answers to questions put in previous weeks, the disintegration of the rail system is causing a reduction in concern about safety. Sadly, recent examples of that may underline that point.
I have already referred to the low morale of the staff. I am not suggesting that that is the sole reason for the current industrial unrest, but it is an important factor. That sense of frustration is not improved by the swathe of consultants, lawyers, accountants and merchant bankers who are picking over the intended structure of the RT operation.
We believe that the cost so far of privatisation is well in excess of £0.5 billion, about £550 million, and others have suggested today that that cost will increase to £700 million by the end of the year. How much better for that investment to be put into improved rail services-- perhaps the channel tunnel rail link, which is of considerable importance to many hon. Members who represent the south-east, let alone to the future of freight services all over the country. I note that several Conservative Members have nodded in agreement.
As I said earlier, the background to the problem is that in 1992-93, investment in British Rail, excluding channel tunnel investment, stood at just over £1 billion. In the current year, that investment has fallen to £600 million. The danger is that, once that slide becomes even more exaggerated, it will be extremely difficult to make that investment level, let alone increase it.
Like that other monstrosity, the poll tax, rail privatisation will have to be dismantled, but at a great cost to the taxpayer. That will be a disgraceful waste of resources, which should be spent on investment in a better service.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): The hon. Gentleman, who speaks on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, is speaking against rail privatisation in almost an evangelical way. I would like to know when the change took place in the Liberal party's approach to rail privatisation, because some of us were opposed to it in principle long before we came to the House. We all know that the Liberal party was in favour of rail privatisation before the general election. The hon. Gentleman has given the impression that his party has always been against that policy, but when did that change take place? When did the Liberals discover the reality of privatisation?
Column 757
Mr. Tyler: After that diatribe, I am not sure that I should accept the hon. Gentleman's compliment about evangelical fervour. If the hon. Gentleman had attended other debates on transport, he would know only too well that we have always supported the retention of the Railtrack infrastructure.Mr. Tyler: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not understand the difference. If he travelled as often by rail as I do perhaps he would understand it. Railtrack controls the major infrastructure of the system and the Liberal Democrats have always supported it as a public service. If the hon. Gentleman ceases to heckle me, I will repeat that we see an opportunity--
Mr. Skinner: Accept the truth.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish to hear the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) who has the floor, and not others who do not have it.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Liberal Democrats have always welcomed the possibility of private investment in individual services because we believe that such private finance will offer real benefits to those services. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bolsover may like to stay for slightly longer in the debate than he usually does and hear what the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen have to say, because he will find that they support me on that subject.
Mr. Skinner: I was here yesterday; you were missing.
Mr. Tyler: Railtrack is being sold off as an afterthought of the Government. As Christian Wolmar said in The Independent a few days ago, that was
"a sharp--and unannounced--change in policy. Railtrack privatisation did not even figure in the 1992 Conservative manifesto".
I do not know whether it figured in the Secretary of State's election address; perhaps he will tell us later. Mr. Wolmar continued:
"It also ties the Government to the type of rail privatisation . . . which has been widely criticised as unworkable . . . it seems the quick buck has been too much of an attraction--it may be a fatal one."
I suspect that that will not be the case immediately, but in the long run it will undoubtedly be one of the ways in which the public will regard the Government as more interested in private profit than in public service.
Mr. Tyler: There is an argument, which no doubt Conservative Members will suggest is at the root of the issue, that other privatisations have worked, and they may quote examples. Neither assertion is correct.
In the first place, there has been no privatisation of a rail system in the world on that format, and certainly none that has been successful. Indeed, as I said earlier, there is considerable doubt about the effectiveness and the profitability, in terms of the overall public profitability, of the privatisation of many of the other utilities. I quote, for example, the opinion of Mr. Edward Brady of Imperial Chemical Industries in the Financial Times only 10 days ago. He said:
"We are paying . . . £50 million a year for electricity at Runcorn, compared with £30 million in April 1991, before the privatisation".
Tell him that privatisation is a wild success.
Column 758
Similarly, the argument that other countries have taken that route is simply untrue. Ministers may have been deluded by comparisons made by Conservative central office, but unfortunately, Conservative central office remains woefully behind the times until the new incumbent reaches his desk. I hope that no hon. Members will quote the last brief prepared by Conservative central office; it is woefully out of date on all subjects, including the opinions of Opposition parties. No doubt, now that the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) is there, there will be a shake-up. Sweden does operate a rail network with separate track and operators, but both halves are publicly owned and publicly controlled. It is we who should learn the lessons from abroad. At a recent channel tunnel initiative seminar organised by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, Professor Reid of Birkbeck university described how French planning uses private and public utility projects, and he described how 51 per cent. publicly owned Societe Economie Mixtes--forgive my French--operates. It is obviously a good model that we could follow in this country with advantage. We Liberal Democrats have a non-doctrinaire acceptance of mixed public and private investment partnerships. We believe that we should have a non-sectarian interest in seeking secure, well- planned, well-prioritised investment in railways, and we shall have no misgivings about maintaining a 49 per cent. private investment if that is found to be useful in the long term in a publicly owned and publicly controlled Railtrack.However, I do not understand, I do not believe that the House will understand and certainly the travelling public do not understand, where the Labour party stands on that matter. There appear to be varying theses. The gospel according to St. Dunfermline, St. Holborn, St. Oldham and even St. Sedgefield appears to vary day by day. I notice that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has joined us. I am delighted to see him, because I can quote back to him something that he said on BBC Radio 4 on 10 January 1995:
"If you're asking me to set out at this moment in time exactly what we would do, I cannot sensibly give that answer".
I hope that this afternoon he may give that answer, either sensibly or insensibly. I shall return to the Labour party later.
The Tories are obviously split too. Many of them share and have expressed the misgivings of the late Robert Adley, who, as the House will recall, described privatisation as the poll tax on wheels. The enthusiasm for his Conservative successor in Christchurch resulted in a huge Liberal Democrat swing and victory.
Our plans for Railtrack are simple. We want to see the basic railway infrastructure in public hands. Once that statement has been made and once the Labour party come on board, we believe that it is highly unlikely that the Government will be able to pursue, helter-skelter, their present plan to privatise Railtrack by April next year. It will not be an attractive proposition for the City, as there are far better things for the institutions to invest their money in. Why should they take on the liabilities of Railtrack when they can see much more interesting projects in which to invest their money?
The trading value of Railtrack has plummeted since it was first suggested as a privatisation plum. It was originally suggested that it might be £6.5 billion, but now
| Next Section
| Home Page |