| Previous Section | Home Page |
Madam Deputy Speaker: I must make it clear to the House that it is incumbent upon each individual Member to decide whether it is necessary to declare such an interest. If an hon Member so decides, he must, of course, declare that interest.
Mr. Hill: I declare an interest in my south London commuter constituents, who are profoundly fearful of the consequences of rail privatisation, for reasons that I am about to spell out in yet further detail.
What of the other proclaimed benefits of privatisation to the rail passenger? The Government's most recent and desperate effort to paper over the cracks of rail privatisation has been the franchising director's commitment to cap fares at the level of inflation over the period of the initial franchise agreement. So far, so good. That is, on the face of it, good news for the captive commuters of London and the south-east, who have suffered fare increases well in excess of the rate of inflation for too long.
Unfortunately, all is not as it first appears. The wrinkles are already showing through the rouge. Individual fares may increase above or below the target range, provided the weighted average remains within it. That depends critically on the basket of fares being truly representative, which it will not be if below-average increases are concentrated on tickets which are, in practice, rarely sold. We must monitor that development very carefully indeed.
Mr. Spearing: I understood that that average was weighted according to the actual volume of transactions, as I believe is the case with the retail prices index. Is my hon. Friend saying that the average is not truly weighted in terms of expenditure?
Mr. Hill: I understand that the average is extracted from a basket of fares over a period. In that context, it is certainly possible--unless we are extremely careful--that the overall average will not be representative of the true level of fare increases. The key leisure fares for my south London constituents--the one-day travelcard and the cheap day return--are specifically exempted from regulation by the franchising director. The key fare for my constituents, and for most of the constituents in London and the south-east, is the period travelcard. That card, which is indispensable to most London commuters, appears also to be exempted
Column 769
if London Transport and the franchisees can reach an agreement on its price. The temptation to collusion to fix a price for the travelcard at any level they want is obvious. So where is the benefit in that?From an analysis of the franchising director's "Passenger Rail Industry Overview", which set out the details for the first three franchises, we know four things. First, there will be no protection for existing child fare reductions. Secondly, provision at stations of timetables showing all the services that call there will be required only
"as far as is practicable".
Thirdly, operators will be free to use any type of rolling stock that they like. Fourthly, if VAT were to be levied on public transport, the franchising director would reimburse franchisees, with no provision for passing the relief on to passengers. Again, where is the benefit for rail passengers in all that?
Finally, there are the two jewels in the crown of the announcement by the former Secretary of State on passenger service requirements. The first was his commitment on overcrowding. On 7 February, he said:
"Because the passenger service requirement specifies maximum load factors for peak services, they"--
that is, commuters--
"will receive a guarantee that the operator will have to put on extra trains if demand for services increases, instead of simply cramming more people into existing trains."
However, from the franchising director's detailed guidelines, we now know that peak period overcrowding limits will be based on timetabled services rather than on the services that are actually run. In other words, the operator can run as many short-formed trains as he likes, and can even cancel as many as he likes. Provided that the trains are on the timetable, he will be deemed to be achieving his loading targets.
The detailed guidelines also tell us that, in any case, overcrowding limits are set at a level lower than that currently achieved by most sectors of Network SouthEast. Contrary to the previous Secretary of State's firm expectations, there is no incentive whatever in the guidelines for franchisees to put on extra trains. What benefit does rail privatisation bring there? In his speech on 7 February, the former Secretary of State also said:
"Our plans for the railways offer something new for passengers; they offer guarantees. For the first time there will be an absolute guarantee of service levels."---[ Official Report , 7 February 1995; Vol. 254, c 210, 211.]
But in his guidelines issued in early June, the franchising director said of himself and the franchisee:
"Either party may propose a change to the passenger service requirement at any time during the course of the franchise". If that can be done at any time, there is no guarantee. What is the point of a guarantee if it can be changed at any time?
Many of the Government's promises on rail privatisation, including guaranteed service levels and reduced rush hour overcrowding, are now seen to be worthless. Rail privatisation is a fraud and a shambles. What is more, it is a more expensive fraud and shambles. If the Government had an ounce of common sense or decency, they would scrap the whole daft lot of it.
Column 770
4.53 pmMr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton): I have a sneaking suspicion that we have just been listening to the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers' brief, or part of it. It would have been a little more honest of the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) if he had confessed to being sponsored by that union and to being a long-term member of it.
This is a Liberal day of debate on railways, which are clearly the flavour of the month for that party. I am sure that all my hon. Friends found it interesting to see 12 Liberal Democrat Members in the Chamber at one point, which must be something of a record. Even the leader of the party popped in for a moment or two, although he did not stay to confess to his Perth speech, which was mentioned by the Minister.
It is good that the Liberals have raised the subject of the railways, because clearly the Labour party will not make much of a contribution. I am not sure whether Labour Members have all dashed off, as their Welsh colleagues did yesterday, or whether they are drinking tea somewhere in London.
I have noticed that, in various parts of London, Liberals are now indulging in a fair bit of scaremongering about rail privatisation. I have even seen one or two of the famous questionnaires that they hand out. Out of seven questions, I counted six leading questions that would never have been allowed in a court of law. There were questions such as, "Do you believe that rail privatisation will be a disaster for the railways?" What is one supposed to say?
One questionnaire claimed that £700 million was being spent on legal fees for railway privatisation, and then asked, "Do you think that that money should have been spent somewhere else, such as on the railways?" How is one supposed to answer that? The Liberals always get the answer "yes" from the people they so regularly canvass on the railway stations of London and elsewhere.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) may say that this is a central office research department plant, but what fascinates me about the Liberals is the fact that the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Isle of Wight welcomed the privatisation of rail services there. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) told me that. He has heard that from the Liberal council there, and read it in the local paper. So what is so wrong with rail privatisation according to the hon. Member for North Cornwall and his 11 colleagues, who are not speaking for the Isle of Wight this afternoon? Mr. Tyler rose --
Mr. Tracey: Does the hon. Gentleman want to put the record straight or to twist it a bit more?
Mr. Tyler: I warned the hon. Gentleman not to use out-of-date Conservative research department briefs. If he had attended several previous debates, he would have heard his extraordinary statement repeated again and again, and specifically answered each time by my hon. Friends. We support the privatisation of individual services. I went to the Isle of Wight and specifically supported the initiative there, so why does the hon. Gentleman go on about it? The only possible reason is that, unfortunately, the new chairman of Conservative central office has not yet torn up those outdated briefs.
Mr. Tracey: I can easily say in response to the hon. Gentleman that all my hon. Friends and I support the
Column 771
privatisation of every single railway service in this country. As I shall explain, that seems to be working rather well.Liberals are anti-privatisation--and anti-car too. They do not like too many cars on the road, or any cars that burn petrol and cause fumes, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has told us many times. The Liberals also oppose road building, except when the bypass in question happens to be in a part of the world where they control the council, or hold one of the seats. It is not long since we heard about a little fracas concerning a bypass in Berkshire that the Liberals as a party support, although they often say the opposite.
Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham): Is not another example of Liberal hypocrisy the way in which they tell environmentalists how much they favour a carbon tax to cut noxious emissions, yet tell pensioners that they do not approve of VAT on gas and electricity?
Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those of us who have ever had much to do with the Liberal Democrats, especially in the south of England, know only too well that there is often a slight shift of policy between one street and the next, or even between one front door and the next. If neighbours are not at their door at the same moment, it is convenient to tell a different story.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman, uncharacteristically, is almost in danger of sounding embittered. As he is talking about different policies, will he say which ones he supported in the privacy of the ballot box last week? Did he vote for the Prime Minister--the least worst option, as the Minister for Transport in London described the victory--or did he vote for the alternative Conservative policies?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot see how that can be relevant to the debate.
Mr. Tracey: I am grateful for your lesson on that, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman had been watching the television last Tuesday night, he would have discovered how I voted, because most of the British nation seemed to do so.
My hon. Friends and I are seeking to show that there are elements of hypocrisy in the Liberal party and in its motion. I fear that, because of its hang-up about rail privatisation, it is seriously misleading the public and, indeed, my constituents. Some Liberal Democrat councillors in the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames have been claiming that railway lines will close because of privatisation. That has been consistently and categorically denied by the managers of South West Trains, the franchising company in the area. Indeed, the passenger service requirement, which has been imposed by the franchising director, shows that there is now scope for an excessive number of trains compared to what we have at the moment.
I very much welcome the development of the franchising director and the PSRs, because it means that my constituents, and everybody else's, will for the first time have guarantees on services, whereas, as we all know only too well, in the heady old days British Rail could change services without telling anybody, without apologising and without doing anything to assist the travelling public.
Column 772
Mr. Keith Hill: I have in front of me the guidelines for the first three franchisees, in which the franchising director says quite explicitly:"Either party may propose a change to the passenger service requirement at any time during the course of the franchise." Where is the guarantee in that?
Mr. Tracey: The point is that either party may propose a change. That does not mean that the franchising director will accept the change. [Laughter.] We can listen to the hypocritical laughter from Opposition Members, who are such great friends of the old British Rail, but, as I said earlier, it regularly changed services; it cut services, and very often it did not have the courtesy to tell the travelling public. That situation will not exist in future. I believe that there is a guarantee.
The Liberal Democrats, who at grass roots level are scaremongering about passenger services, are making residents and everyone else sick and tired of it all.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for generously giving way a second time. He should not rely on out-of-date Conservative central office briefs but do a bit more homework, because those of us from Scotland, who have been ahead in terms of the impact of privatisation, can assure him that the categorical, and no doubt sincere, ministerial assurances that were given about service provision were completely undermined by pre-emptive decisions based on subsidy, which is within the remit of the franchising director. I fear that the guarantees that the hon. Gentleman thinks he has are not worth the paper that they are not actually written on.
Mr. Tracey: I have a great affection for the hon. Gentleman. He, of course, represents a Scottish constituency; I represent a London constituency. I have had my guarantees from South West Trains, the franchising company running the trains on those lines.
I do not want to delay the House much longer, but I must share with it my experience of what is happening where Railtrack and South West Trains operate. I have, for a long time, been asking for refurbishment of Surbiton station, which is in my constituency and which is well known to commuters in south-west London and Surrey, because it is heavily used and was quite clearly in need of it. The greatest success that I had in three or four years was simply to get the clock there working again, which nevertheless was a great success to constituents who rely on it to tell the time. Now, as a result of Railtrack and South West Trains being in operation, £750,000 is being spent on refurbishment of the station. I very much welcome that; I do not believe that anybody can carp about that.
Secondly, on one of my lines, we have had a considerable problem with vandalism, and, indeed, with threats to passengers travelling alone. South West Trains put considerable investment into closed circuit television and into anti-vandal measures on the station concerned in response to the complaints of local residents, including the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who sits opposite in rather a different role.
Railtrack is investing £27 million in signalling and track work on the main line between Wimbledon, running through my constituency, and Woking. I have had discussions with Railtrack's managers, who now say that they are quite convinced that they have far more
Column 773
flexibility and freedom to invest in the necessary infrastructure improvements than they ever had when they worked under the control of British Rail.We have had the successful privatisations of British Telecom, British Airways, the British Airports Authority, the freight companies, Sealink and so on--the successes that we all know so well. That is what we are aiming to achieve with British Rail and the privatisation of the railway companies.
For too long, British Rail was a music hall joke in this country--something that would not have changed if the Labour party had been in power for the past few years. The Government are making progress and we shall continue to do so.
5.8 pm
Mr. Henry McLeish (Fife, Central): I welcome the new Secretary of State for Transport to his challenging position, and in his absence might I suggest that his first main challenge is to dump privatisation of the railways? It is alleged that he is on the centre left of the Conservative party and that he is interested in transport. He could do nothing better for the nation than to scrap what is now becoming a farce and a fiasco throughout the length and breadth of Britain. I suspect that his predecessor, who has moved on to the chairmanship of the party, will have the profound disappointment of being chairman for two years with the party in government and then for five years with it in opposition. What an ordeal for anyone to have to suffer for the next seven years. Crucially, the Government will not accept that they are tearing the heart out of the railways. In the past 18 months, issue after issue has shown that they are not achieving any of their privatisation objectives but are destroying much of the morale, the network and initiative that have been built up in the past 30 or 40 years. It seems ludicrous that the Conservative party will not accept that policy, not personalities, lies at the heart of their deep unpopularity.
The Prime Minister involved himself in a vote of confidence and started off by saying that there were a few nutters in his party of whom he had to take care. After 12 days, he had managed to firm them up to 30 per cent. of the parliamentary Conservative party opposing him--a real achievement. [Hon. Members:-- "What has this to do with the railways?"] It is relevant to the policy issues that are facing the country. If the Opposition have some patience, the relevance will sink in even with them--
Mr. Simon Burns (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): We are the Government, not the Opposition.
Mr. McLeish: If I want to practise for the future, it is not incumbent on the Whip to intervene.
In the reshuffle, the new Secretary of State for Transport was brought in and we welcome that change, but the nation is not interested in shuffling heads on the deck of the Tory Titanic. The problem is the crucial policy issues in which it is immersed. Conservative Members may laugh, as the Government Whip is, but we will have the final laugh within 22 months.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: My constituents are already laughing at the pleasure and comfort of travelling in the brand new Networker rolling stock with which the Government have provided British Rail.
Mr. McLeish: I admire the bravery of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold). Anyone who voted
Column 774
for the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) deserves some credit. His intervention was not predicated on the fact that he is a consultant for Thomas Cook Group Ltd.Mr. McLeish: According to the Register of Members' Interests, the hon. Gentleman is a consultant to Thomas Cook Group Ltd. If my hon. Friends can be challenged on their contributions, it is right for the House to appreciate that an interest may be involved.
Mr. Arnold: For the hon. Gentleman's information, I am not a consultant to Thomas Cook. I worked for the company for a number of years and carried out a consultancy for it not so long ago, but I am not at present a consultant.
Mr. McLeish: You may want to give us some guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the Register of Members' Interests dated 31 January 1995, it states Thomas Cook--
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. As I have explained to the House before, it is incumbent on a Member to declare an interest, if there is one, but matters change. My recollection is that an interest must be recorded in the register within a month. Clearly there will be changes whenever the book is published.
Mr. McLeish: I am grateful for that clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker. Until about six months ago, the hon. Member for Gravesham was a consultant to Thomas Cook Ltd., but I will move on. It is important to identify the key issues. Despite the contributions of Conservative Members, they will not accept that privatisation is deeply damaging to the fabric of the rail network. We constantly hear this nonsense about rail privatisation being the same as any other privatisation. Was British Airways chopped into 95 pieces and sold off? Of course not. Even if one were prejudiced and ideologically committed enough to privatise British Rail, one could not have picked a more monumentally stupid way to undertake the process.
That is the essential difference between the Government's arguments about this privatisation as compared to previous privatisations. They talk about integration but what a sick joke that is as regards the 95 pieces that the Government are trying to pretend would be a comprehensive and integrated national rail network.
On the timetable for privatisation, as the legislation was enacted in November 1993, why has not one of the 25 franchises been sold off? Who is dragging their feet? Is it the Front-Bench conspirators who are against what the Government are doing? Does the hon. Member for Gravesham want to intervene now? The Government have a target of selling off 51 per cent. by April 1996. Does any Conservative Member think that that can be achieved? I would like to be persuaded. Clearly, the timetable is in disarray, and it is creating tremendous problems for the railways.
The second issue is cost. My hon. Friends have mentioned the serious costs involved. The amount has been estimated at £500 million, £1 billion or more, but the real point is the opportunity that we are losing by squandering taxpayers' money on this futile exercise. Of course, no one mentions the fact that the public service
Column 775
obligation grant was virtually doubled in a year, not to provide extra services or any extra investment but simply to fatten up Railtrack and the rolling stock leasing companies for sale. My hon. Friends are right to point out that, if privatisation goes ahead, in 1997-98 a privatised Railtrack will be £600 million to £700 million more expensive every year as far as one can see into the future. Will any Conservative Member defend that--a privatisation that costs the taxpayers an extra £600 million to £700 million? I do not see Conservative Members queuing up to intervene. Why not? This is a taxpayers' issue. Are we not always being lectured by the Government that we must be prudent with the nation's taxes and finances? I do not think we will get any volunteers to argue for the sheer lunacy of that policy.Investment is the basis for this debate. Why is 30 per cent. of rolling stock more than 30 years old? Is that not a criterion on which one would base an investment decision? Not at all. Conservative Back Benchers are now quiet. The argument has hit home. Of course we need investment. Why should people have to endure 30-year-old coaches in the south-east and throughout the network? Modern coaches do not prevent accidents, but one's chances of survival and the chances of minimising threats to passengers will be that much better in a coach that was constructed last year than in one constructed 30 years ago. Investment is crucial for safety, and the Government are running away from their responsibilities.
We have also heard much about the west coast main line. A tragedy is unfolding because the Government promised that that would be a prestigious flagship project costing £1 billion. What are we getting now? We are getting apologies, because all that they are going to spend is £18 million on restructuring the signalling system. Words escape me, but the word "scandal" comes to mind. Are the Government merely breaking their promises, or is a link that would take people from the north of Scotland through the centre of England and on to Europe being abandoned? That is what is happening. Despite the protestations and the fine words from Railtrack chairman Bob Horton and from Ministers, the fact is that £18 million is becoming a substitute for a £1 billion project that is disappearing into the mists of time.
Why are everyone's energies tied up in this most useless of privatisation exercises? Constituencies on the west coast main line want improved passenger safety and quality in our train network. What they cannot stomach is the fact that the Tories are reneging on a promise to reconstruct the line, and the taxpayer is paying hand over fist towards this monumentally stupid exercise. It is difficult to understand how the Government could get it so wrong. Is it because they are dominated by prejudice and ideological extremism, or did they genuinely think that smashing a railway into 95 pieces and starving it of investment was the way forward? Those points must be on the consciences of Conservative Members.
The final point about the state of disarray of the railways concerns freight. The battle for freight is about the survival of the rail freight industry. It is not about building on an industry which is doing spectacularly well--it would be wrong to suggest that--but about working on an industry that has potential. What did the Government do? They created an artificial internal market
Column 776
and turned the rail freight industry into three companies. When will Ministers appreciate that the battle for freight is not within the railways but between rail and road? [ Interruption. ] I hear an hon. Gentleman say, "Of course it is," from a sedentary position. I should like that constructive comment to be passed on to Ministers. The capacity of Ministers to pursue dogma through internal market competition is nothing to do with the real battle. They should think again about the three companies. [Hon. Members:-- "That has nothing to do with it."] It has everything to do with it. The situation is clear. The Government, like us, are surely committed to creating a better environment beyond the year 2000. One small way in which they can contribute to that is to shift road freight on to the railways.The key issue should be the competition that we should be generating between rail and road. The Government are not doing that. [Interruption.] Whether the hon. Member for Gravesham likes it or not, he might like to take a more active interest in the issue by persuading Ministers that the real struggle concerns the environment and competition between road and rail, not internal competition within the railways, which is absolute nonsense and merely reinforces the prejudices of Conservative Members and does nothing for the industrial economy in Britain.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that, through all the years of nationalised railways, there has been a steady shift--not least by the Post Office--from rail to road freight? Why could not British Rail compete effectively under nationalisation? Surely a number of British Rail franchisees competing to pick up business are highly likely to get it, because they will have the private enterprise ethic to guide them to be successful, to get business and thereby to profit from it.
Mr. McLeish: The realities of the railway do not reinforce the hon. Gentleman's points. It is clear that there has been a decline in respect of both passengers and freight in the usage of rail. No one disputes that.
The Government's answer to problems always involves prejudice and ideological extremism. Their every utterance is about nationalisation and bad management of the national rail network. That is indicative of one of the reasons why the country is in the state that it is. For 16 years, it has been public bad, private good. The hon. Member for Gravesham can sit back in his seat and relax but when confronted with reality at the next general election the smile will be wiped off his face.
Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman talked of the state that the country is in. This country is now the leading economy in Europe, with profitable and successful businesses; it is not the sick man of Europe that the Labour party left in 1979.
Mr. McLeish: I am encouraged by the hon. Gentleman's anger. His intervention bears no relationship to the reality in Britain or to reality for our European Union partners. His comment was important. I hope that it will be well circulated to his constituents. It is clear that this whole process is in a state of disarray. I welcomed the new Secretary of State for Transport. His main challenge is to persuade a number of his colleagues in the Cabinet that the whole process should be dumped.
Column 777
I want to finish on two points that sum up this fiasco. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) will deal with the issue of sleeper services to Scotland. The Government and the British Railways Board were dragged into the courts in Scotland to be exposed for what they had shown to Scots--utter contempt for their rail network. They thought that, through stealth and the incompetence of the director of franchising, Mr. Roger Salmon, they could close services under the guise of consultation on a draft passenger service requirement. They were found out. Is it not a disgrace that railway policy is now going to be partly dictated in the courts of England and Scotland? That is a fiasco and the Government know it.The second issue is trans-European networks. It is an important issue for Britain because it involves integrating the major routes in Britain with those in Europe. It is absolutely right that that should be done. What did Ministers do when they went to Brussels? They sabotaged the proposals. We find that the European Union is giving no priority to schemes. It has thrown out environmental impact assessments and of course no cash is being provided by the European Union for such developments.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: That is appalling rubbish.
Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman says that that is appalling rubbish, but I put that comment on record. The hon. Gentleman, as part of his education and to gain the knowledge that he clearly lacks, should read the Council of Ministers, report from the Cannes summit, from which he will clearly see that I am correct.
Mr. Tyler: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he proposed to conclude in a minute. Before he does so, could he comment on this statement by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair): "I am not going to spray around commitments as to what we are going to do when the Government carries through its proposals, if it carries them through. I am not going to get into a situation where I am declaring that the Labour Government is going to commit sums of money to renationalisation".
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not sit down without telling us precisely how his party stands and whether he is prepared to give a commitment, alongside ours, to retain Railtrack in the public interest.
Mr. McLeish: The essential difference between us and the Liberal Democrats is that we will form the next Government. As a consequence, we have to take the issues seriously. There is a great contradiction in the hon. Gentleman's contribution. In one breath he says that we do not know what the nature of the sale will be or even whether it will be sold. Will it be 51 per cent. that is sold? What will be the nature of the Government's involvement? It is wise and prudent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to say that. There is no point in a party that will take over Government in less than 20 months making specific financial commitments on any issue that affects every Department.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the Government have been going across to Brussels and somehow obstructing environmental statements on European infrastructure projects. Surely he knows that an
Column 778
environmental statement was produced and published on the channel tunnel rail link last November. Has he not read it?Mr. McLeish: I can dismiss that comment by pointing out that anybody who voted for the right hon. Member for Wokingham is not in a position to speak about Europe in a positive manner.
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I do not want to intrude on private grief, but before the hon. Gentleman sits down I would be interested to hear his reply to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I admit that it is an unlikely eventuality but it might help us to know whether the hon. Gentleman is prepared to go down the rash and extraordinary road that the hon. Member for North Cornwall is prepared to go down and announce now that he is prepared to take Railtrack back into public ownership, for there is no doubt that it will by then be in the private sector. Will Labour take back into public ownership the train operating companies which will by then be in the private sector?
It would help the House to know, given the interest of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) in sleeper services, what subsidy the hon. Gentleman believes it is appropriate for the Government to inject into such services. A figure--some real commitment and not just waffle--on such matters would be extraordinarily helpful.
Mr. McLeish: It is invigorating from our point of view to be put in the position of a Government--we have the Liberals on the one hand and the Minister on the other. To be fair, the Minister should be congratulated because he survived a remarkable-- [Hon. Members:-- "Here we go."] I think that the Minister would like to hear what I have to say. I speak to him outside the Chamber, although I do not know whether that helps his career. However, despite his remarkable comments about the Prime Minister-- [Hon. Members:-- "They were an endorsement."] They were an endorsement, in a way. In any event, the Minister is back in the transport team--he is a survivor.
However, it would be ludicrous for me to rise to the bait and to get involved in the tension between the Conservative and Liberal parties. At the next election, two parties will be fighting for their political skins-- the Conservatives and the Liberals. The natural tension and enmity between them is something to behold.
Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington): The hon. Gentleman is like a little worm wriggling.
Mr. McLeish: I hope that Hansard caught that, as it is quite an enlightened comment from the hon. Gentleman, who is not known for such comments.
The point is that the Labour party will form the next Government and the Conservatives will be in opposition. We shall have the policies not only to put the country back on its feet but to put the railways back together.
After a series of interventions, I must conclude my remarks by dealing with the trans-European networks.
Mr. Norris rose --
| Next Section
| Home Page |