House of Commons
Monday 15 January 1996
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
TRANSPORT
Lockerbie
1. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to resolve matters relating to his Department concerning the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. [7442]
The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): My Department has thoroughly reviewed the UK national aviation security programme in the light of Lockerbie. Many improvements have resulted. Work continues to develop the security regime further.
Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the Secretary of State a question of which I have given him notice? Seven long years after Lockerbie, has not the time at last arrived for the Government to publish the circumstances in which the then Secretary of State for Transport, Cecil Parkinson, offered in good faith a public inquiry--not, as the Prime Minister would have it, a confidential inquiry--and why Mrs. Thatcher, as she then was, vetoed such an inquiry? Should not the Government also publish details of why the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon)--in equally good faith--told journalists in the Garrick club that the perpetrators of the dreadful crime would be found within weeks? If senior civil servants and current Ministers do not publish something on those events, they might be seen to be part of a wicked cover-up.
Sir George Young: With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) explained the circumstances to the House on 21 March 1989, and I have nothing to add to that.
On the question of which the hon. Gentleman was good enough to give my office notice, when my noble Friend Lord Parkinson indicated to the British relatives in 1989 that he was prepared to consider a confidential inquiry, the question of how best to proceed had not been decided by Ministers. In making their collective decision not to hold such an inquiry, Ministers had to take into account the likelihood that a fatal accident inquiry would be held, and that a criminal investigation was in hand which might ultimately result in court proceedings.
In the event, a fatal accident inquiry was held, as well as three other inquiries. The fatal accident inquiry examined in detail the actions taken by my Department in response to intelligence received before the incident and concluded that they were not unreasonable.
Finally, the criminal investigation was successful in producing sufficient evidence to issue warrants. That evidence clearly represents additional information available to the Government which is not yet in the public domain. It is vital, however, that none of the evidence is revealed before the trial of the two accused, lest that prejudices the outcome.
2. Mr. Hain:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his assessment of the adequacy of local transport provision. [7443]
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris):
We have allocated £830 million to English local authorities for 1996-97. I consider that allocation to be adequate.
Mr. Hain:
Does the Minister acknowledge that Labour local authorities such as York and Edinburgh have successfully pioneered new packaged approaches which address local transport needs? Is it not high time that the Government followed their lead and adopted an integrated, long-term approach to transport instead of the dogma-driven chaos of privatisation and deregulation which have strangled our railways and bus services and turned our roads into travelling car parks?
Mr. Norris:
That would have been an intelligent question were it not 18 months out of date. The packaged approach was developed by the Government and local authorities of all political persuasions enthusiastically support the approach because they see the good sense of it. The hon. Gentleman should know that packaged expenditure has significantly increased this year for precisely the reasons which--belatedly--he has come to realise make such sense.
Dame Peggy Fenner:
Despite transport supplementary grant settlement being provided for the Wainscott northern bypass, Labour and Liberal-controlled Kent county council has delayed the start of the work and delayed issuing tenders. Why on earth did the Department not ring-fence the money so that the council could not indulge in such political chicanery?
Mr. Norris:
We gave by far the largest allocation of the local transport settlement to Kent, which historically receives a large allocation. The order of priority for schemes, however, is a matter for Kent. I regret that my hon. Friend is disappointed with the allocation, but I hope that she will direct her questions on that subject to the county council, which does not appear to have been particularly enthusiastic about defending her constituents' interests.
Mr. Allen:
Does the Minister agree with me that while the issue of transport is important at the national level, most transport measures--such as rapid transit, chicanes, traffic calming, sleeping police men--are delivered at local level and impact at that level? If he agrees with that statement, will he explain to the House, to local authorities and to the local electors why his Department has cut central support to local authority transport schemes by one half in the past three years?
Mr. Norris:
I think that it is up to the hon. Gentleman to specify how much in additional resources he would like to see allocated for transport measures. Once he has decided that, he should have a word with the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and clear that rather aberrant line with him. I fear that the Leader of the Opposition would utterly dismiss such loose talk.
Any responsible Government will receive far more good quality bids for local transport expenditure than are able to be financed. The sooner the hon. Gentleman learns that fact, the better he may be able to perform in his new portfolio.
3. Mr. John Marshall:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects new trains to be introduced on the Northern line. [7444]
Mr. Norris:
I understand that London Underground plans to begin introducing its new, privately financed train service on the Northern line towards the end of this year.
Mr. Marshall:
I welcome the substantial investment in the Golders Green depot, which will improve job opportunities in my constituency, and the £1 billion upgrade on the Northern line, which will improve the quality of life of many of my constituents, but may I ask my hon. Friend whether the slight delay in the introduction of new trains on the Northern line will involve the payment of any compensation by GEC?
Mr. Norris:
I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that as a result of the arrangement which London Underground was able to include under the private finance initiative, late delivery of trains will indeed give rise to compensation. Taxpayers will get some of their money back if the contractor fails to perform. That is in stark contrast with the pre-existing arrangements whereby in publicly owned utilities no compensation was available.
Mr. Corbyn:
Does the Minister realise that travellers on the Northern line have had an appalling service for a long time and that that situation continues? Can he assure the House that there will be no increased cost to London Transport or to Londoners generally as a result of the private financing of the new line? Can he also assure us that the people who will lose their jobs at London Transport if the train maintenance work is given to GEC or other contractors will be compensated, and that the people who are employed will be employed under proper conditions commensurate with those of workers at London Underground?
Mr. Norris:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, historically, the Northern line has not been good enough. It was not good enough through all the years of Labour Governments in the 1960s and 1970s, and it was not good enough under the Conservative Governments interspersed between them.
I am delighted that the £1 billion improvement to the Northern line is now very much under way and that the almost £400 million-worth of new trains procured under the PFI should be introduced towards the end of the year. The detailed conditions of implementing that contract are properly a matter for London Underground, but I know that it is concerned--as the hon. Gentleman quite properly is--to see that sensible arrangements in terms of staff and the use of facilities are made.
4. Mr. Amess:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his plan to privatise the Fenchurch Street line. [7445]
13. Sir Teddy Taylor:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the privatisation of the London-Tilbury-Southend line. [7454]
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts):
The LTS rail franchise was awarded to Enterprise Rail Ltd., the management-employee buy-out team, on
20 December 1995. Enterprise Rail will deliver real quality of service benefits to passengers for less financial support than is currently being paid to British Rail.
Mr. Amess:
Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents could not care less who runs the Fenchurch Street line, except insofar as they want the trains to arrive on time, the fares to be maintained at a reasonable cost and to travel in relative comfort? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the privatisation will result in all of that, and will he take this opportunity to condemn inaccurate statements by Labour and Liberal politicians about the effects of the privatisation of the Fenchurch Street line on the level of services?
Mr. Watts:
My hon. Friend will be pleased to tell his constituents that the new franchise operator has committed itself to the complete replacement of rolling stock on that line and has offered to increase the punctuality standard from the current 88 per cent. to 90 per cent. from
1 October 1996.
Sir Teddy Taylor:
As the privatisation of LTS, which I fully support, is obviously very controversial, will the Minister ensure that the new operators will publish every quarter--perhaps every month--full details of changes, improvements or deterioration in reliability, so that the residents of Southend and other places can see for themselves whether privatisation makes an improvement or makes things worse?
Mr. Watts:
Operators are required to publish details of their performance and, as I have just explained to the House, the performance standards against which their performance will be measured will be much more rigorous than those which apply to the current nationalised operation.
Mr. Mackinlay:
Is not the minimum service requirement for the London-Tilbury-Southend line way below that of existing provision? What guarantees are there that the good intentions of those management people who have secured the franchise will be fulfilled? Is it not a fact that the overwhelming majority of the passengers who use the LTS line do not believe that the arithmetic will add up or that those people who will run that line will be able to maintain the services, let alone comply with the very attractive offer that they are now waving before us? Will the Minister ensure that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is fulfilled--that any backsliding, any deterioration on the commitments that those people have given, will be publicised and will be understood by the fare-paying passengers?
Mr. Watts:
Passengers should stop listening to the hon. Gentleman and simply pay attention to the facts. It is not a matter of good intentions; it is a matter of contract. Enterprise Rail has contracted to maintain at least the existing level of service. There will be an additional off-peak service each hour from Fenchurch Street to Shoeburyness Mondays to Saturdays. There will be a minimum frequency of 15 minutes during the peak hour for key stations. There will be an hourly Sunday service for Rainham, Purfleet, Dagenham and Dagenham Dock stations. Services will stop at Limehouse on Sunday and there will be two new services out of London after 10 pm Mondays to Saturdays.
Mr. Channon:
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important priorities on that line is that there should be new rolling stock? Is it not very welcome that under the new arrangements we are likely to have new rolling stock earlier?
Mr. Watts:
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Enterprise Rail has committed itself to an investment programme including the replacement of the entire fleet with new rolling stock, all to be completed by the year 2002, in addition to station redecoration and refurbishments, improved station security, public address systems and improved ticket issuing.
Mr. Mackinlay:
Where will all the money come from?
Mr. Watts:
From the efficiencies of the private sector.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |