House of Commons
Monday 27 November 1995
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
TRANSPORT
Newbury Bypass
1. Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the likely starting date for the construction of the Newbury bypass. [643]
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): Tenders will be invited for the main works contract on Friday 1 December. We aim to start the main works as soon as possible in 1996. We have already carried out all the necessary demolition of buildings on the route and clearance of the rest of the site will take place before the main works begin. Construction should then be completed within two years.
Mr. Martin: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on keeping the scheme in the roads programme during a difficult public expenditure round. He knows how important the road is for those who live and work in Newbury and all points south, including Portsmouth, as a connection with the midlands and the north. Will the Minister ensure that what he has said today is well publicised, as there has been considerable trouble making by the Liberals, who have been doubting the Government's intention to proceed with the scheme?
Mr. Watts: Trouble making by Liberals or anyone else is much to be deplored. The former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), announced in July that the road would go ahead. My right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State made the same announcement in October. I do not know how many times we need to say so, but go ahead it will.
West Coast Main Line
2. Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passengers used the west coast main line in 1994. [644]
Mr. Watts: I understand that some 11 million passenger journeys were made on InterCity West Coast services during the financial year 1994-95.
Mr. Evans: That is an excellent figure, but does my hon. Friend agree that it would improve greatly if we invested the sums necessary to upgrade the west coast main line as quickly as possible? It is important strategically to the United Kingdom for manufacturing and tourism and for places such as Manchester which
wish to attract the Commonwealth games and, one hopes, make a successful bid for the Olympic games in future. Can my hon. Friend say exactly when the west coast main line will be upgraded, as the speed with which that happens is important for those of us who live in the area?
Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of that key line. The contract for the development of the new state-of-the-art signalling system is on line to be let by Railtrack early next year. Next year, Railtrack also intends to let contracts for the main infrastructure works to the track and power supplies.
Mr. Olner: Surely the Minister realises that the past two years of dithering, during which money has been promised but not spent, has meant that many of those 11 million passengers arrived late or had their services cancelled. When will he take action to get the promised money in place?
Mr. Watts: Railtrack continues to spend substantial money on the west coast main line every year. As I have just explained to the House, the key to the upgrade project is the development of the new signalling system. It has been put out to tender, there has been enormous interest from the private sector in developing a new system under the private finance initiative and the contracts will be let early next year. The contracts for the main upgrading work will also start to be let in the course of next year.
Mr. Gill: Is my hon. Friend prepared to analyse the 11 million passengers to discern how many of them join the west coast main line at Birmingham international or Wolverhampton because of the withdrawal of the inter-city line to Shrewsbury? In his future deliberations, will he consider extending electrification from Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury so that my constituents in that county town can be served by an inter-city electrified service?
Mr. Watts: I do not have at my fingertips the information that my hon. Friend requires, but I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of Railtrack.
Rail Privatisation
3. Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his proposals for the privatisation of the rail industry. [645]
The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): Our proposals are to improve the efficiency of the railways by transferring the British Rail businesses into the private sector. The rolling stock leasing companies--Roscos--and some of the other businesses have been sold, the first franchises are on course to be awarded next month and we are on course to privatise Railtrack in the spring of 1996.
Mr. Janner: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the decision of Mr. Justice Brooke in the case brought by the Save our Railways group against passenger rail franchising, in which the judge granted a judicial review? Does he propose to respect the decision of the High Court and to postpone franchising while the review takes place, or will he once again do what the Government do so often, which is simply attack the judge because he disagrees with the judge's decision?
Sir George Young: As the hon. and learned Gentleman may know, the Government were not a party to the
decision--it was against the franchising director of the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising. As a barrister, he will understand that the court has done no more than decide that there is a case which should be considered in more detail. The decision does not affect the franchising process, which is going well, and the first franchises are due to be awarded before the end of the year. It is business as usual. We are confident that Opraf has a strong case and that the court will recognise that.
Mr. Waller: I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that the best basis on which to judge privatisation is the quality of service to customers. Does he also agree that the rolling stock companies are now thinking of developing innovative new trains that would make use of information technology to provide the very best service, comparable with that currently enjoyed by airline passengers?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The rolling stock companies, now in private sector hands, have an appetite for investment and access to the necessary funds. I am confident that, as with all previous privatisations, investment will increase after privatisation and be higher than it would have been had BR remained in the public sector.
Mr. Chidgey: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that not all the track access charges have been fully expended by Railtrack on the repair and renewal of the rail infrastructure? Will he call for a report from the Rail Regulator, setting out what actions should be taken to deal with the matter, before the proposals for the privatisation of Railtrack are completed?
Sir George Young: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the Rail Regulator, John Swift, has all the powers that he needs to ensure that the provision made for track access charges under the Railtrack regime is spent on that purpose.
Mr. Robathan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, before the war and before rail nationalisation in 1947, there were about 15 railway stations in my constituency, yet under a nationalised British Rail all those stations were closed, although one--but only one--has now been reopened? Does he agree that it is extraordinary that people should now try to defend British Rail, whose history has been one of decay, closure and inefficiency, and which has been the butt of endless jokes for the past 48 years?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am confident that under a privatised railway we will reverse the decline in the use of the railways over the past 40 to 50 years. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that, since 1979, 224 stations have been opened or reopened--a record that knocks into a cocked hat the record of the Labour party when it was in government.
Ms Short: The minimum conditions laid down for the initial franchises to run rail services do not meet the requirements of the Government's own legislation-- which is that they be based on the timetable operated by British Rail immediately prior to franchising. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that on many inter-city services there have been cuts of a third or more and that, in the case of the Gatwick express, services are to be slashed from every 15 minutes to every 30 minutes, with no requirement that there be any trains after 8 o'clock?
The right hon. Gentleman should not wait for the courts to force him to comply with his own legislation; instead, he should halt the privatisation process and not restore it unless and until he can provide services under privatisation that are at least as good as current services.
Sir George Young:
It is for the judge, not me, to decide the response to the hon. Lady's first question. However, I said in my earlier reply that Opraf was putting forward the case with vigour.
On the hon. Lady's substantive point, I wonder whether she has read the Transport Select Committee's report-- which was unanimous--which says about the very issue that she raised:
Sir George Young:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He may have seen with some astonishment the statement by a shadow transport spokesman that a Labour Government would confiscate a franchise even if the franchisee were providing a better service to the passengers at a lower cost to the taxpayers. That is the absurd dogma presented by the Labour party. It is also the case that the Labour party opposes privatisation but, when an industry is successfully privatised, Labour-controlled local authorities then invest in the privatised industries and share in those industries' growth and success.
"We agree that franchisees must be allowed some flexibility in the provision of services and in operational matters. We also have no objection in principle to the omission of profitable services from PSRs, since it will be in franchisees' interests to provide them."
Mr. Congdon:
Given that British Rail is hardly an example of a well-run organisation that puts the interests of its customers first, does my right hon. Friend agree that much can and will be gained by its privatisation? Does he also agree that the Opposition Members who opposed the privatisation of British Airways are also among those who are opposed to the privatisation of British Rail? Is it not the case that they were wrong then and that they are wrong now?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |