| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Channel Tunnel and Midlands Rail Link
8. Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the proposal of Central Railway for a new rail link between the channel tunnel and the midlands. [13025]
Mr. Watts: My right hon. Friend has received a large number of representations about the Central Railway project.
Mr. Lidington: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the anger and frustration among large numbers of my constituents at the continuing refusal of Central Railway to make clear either the likely environmental impact of its proposals or the possible effect they will have on existing passenger rail services? Can he impress on the company that it must either take seriously its obligation under statute to public consultation, and to provide details soon of its proposals, or withdraw the proposals completely and relieve my constituents of the blight that is afflicting them?
Mr. Watts: No application has been made so far. If the company proceeds with its intention of making an application, it will be required to include an environmental assessment in the deposited information. The guidance about Transport and Works Act 1992 applications stresses the importance of proper consultation with local authorities and other affected bodies.
Mr. Grocott: Should not talk of new rail links on old routes remind the Minister and the Government of a salutary lesson? Just 30 years ago, the vandalism of the
Beeching era and its obsession with so-called market forces resulted in the closure of many lines that would have provided priceless means of communication today. Will the Minister give an assurance that, whatever happens to the privatisation of British Rail, no significant route miles will be closed? Will he also assure us that routes of lines that have been closed recently will be protected? As sure as eggs is eggs, one day they will be needed again.
Mr. Watts: I recall that the Beeching approach was a policy continued by the Labour Government of 1964 to 1970, who closed more route miles in that one period of office than any other Government have done.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Given the uncertainty that Central Railway appears to have shown in regard to the exact route of the line--for instance, having stirred up residents of South Nutfield in my constituency by telling them that the line would go through their village, it subsequently discovered that it would not--will my hon. Friend look askance at any future applications from Central Railway for waivers, and bear in mind the need to produce detailed and adequate maps so that local authorities and other local people who are affected can have a proper look?
Mr. Watts: I assure my hon. Friend that, if any application for a waiver is made, details will be placed in the Library of the House. We shall also consult the local authorities that would be affected about the adequacy of the information to be supplied.
West Coast Main Line
9. Mr. Olner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which organisations he has met to devise through ticketing provisions on the west coast main line between various operators. [13026]
Mr. Watts: None. That is a matter for train operators, who must comply with the approved through ticketing arrangements under the terms of their passenger train operators' licence as granted by the Rail Regulator.
Mr. Olner: The Minister's answer will disappoint many commuters in my constituency of Nuneaton. My local railway station is served by trains from Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow and Holyhead; if there is no through ticketing agreement between the various operators, all the stations on the route are likely to be closed. Will the Minister undertake to get involved to ensure that the network and my constituents are protected?
Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman's constituents should not be disappointed. The licence condition is that train operators should maintain the current service at the 1,300 stations that are capable of issuing through tickets. The regulator will permit variations from that only if he is satisfied that a higher, not a lower, standard of service will result. The hon. Gentleman's constituents should be reassured: through ticketing can only become better on the privatised railway than it was on the so-called publicly owned and publicly accountable railway.
Mr. Mans: Now that the Opposition transport spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), has made it clear that she prefers nationalised railways and wants those that have been moved into the private sector moved back as soon as possible, will my hon. Friend ensure that the west coast main line moves into the private sector as soon as possible, so that, at the next general election, people can see the benefits of privatisation as they are already seeing the benefits of the Stagecoach service to Weymouth?
Mr. Watts: We intend to bring forward the franchise for the west coast main line in the course of this year.
Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister share the Prime Minister's surprising view that fraud involving hundreds of thousands of pounds represents no more than misbehaviour which should not be allowed to stand in the way of the privatisation dogma? Does he recognise that problems with through ticketing are part and parcel of the same problem that gives rise to fraud by one operator against the others--the fragmentation of the railway network? Will he join the Rail Regulator in at least apologising for the near collapse of the national rail inquiry system? Fraud, the collapse of the information system and the near collapse of through ticketing are all the results of fragmentation. Which of the three does the Minister defend?
Mr. Watts: I note that the hon. Gentleman adds a good few noughts on to the end of any figures that have been quoted as the possible cost of the irregularity on the London-Tilbury-Southend line, which was discovered very rapidly as a result of the routine procedures that were put in place for the privatised structure.
Mr. Watts: The hon. Lady shakes her head. She continues to mislead the public in her interviews, when she knows very well that what she has said is not true.
Ms Short: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I take points of order after questions.
Ms Short: Is it in order for the Minister to say that what I said was not true?
Madam Speaker: The Minister is responsible for his own comments in the House, as we all are.
Mr. Watts: I was referring to the hon. Lady speaking through the broadcast media. What I have said is true and fair comment.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) speaks of fragmentation, but even he should understand that the network, in the ownership and operation of Railtrack, remains integrated. Fragmentation, in the way in which he uses the term, means nothing more than the provision of services by a number of dedicated train operating companies.
River Thames Working Group
10. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times the River Thames working group has met in the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement on its work. [13027]
12. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the latest programme of initiatives to recommence a riverbus service on the Thames. [13029]
Mr. Norris: The River Thames working group has met once in the last 12 months, on 11 July, to consider progress on the recommendations contained in its report published in December 1994 and it will meet again this week on 15 February. My hon. Friend will know that the group was set up to examine the potential for developing freight and passenger traffic on the river.
I continue to support the idea of a riverbus service on the Thames. My Department, as I said in an earlier answer, has sponsored the preparation of a study by London First, with KPMG, on the potential for new passenger services. I look forward to the results of that study being published.
Sir Michael Neubert:
Does my hon. Friend accept that, with the minutes ticking away to the millennium, the unique opportunity of establishing a central London river service as a permanent monument and lasting benefit for Londoners becomes daily more pressing? Will he undertake, as a matter of urgency, to bring together the best of the proposals made to him, including the distinctive ideas put to him by the Transport on Water working party with the aim of achieving a river component of a through ticket travelcard transport system for Greater London in good time for the next century?
Mr. Norris:
I certainly undertake to consider carefully the proposals that the London First study produces, and to seek to find whatever agreement is possible between its report and that which the Transport on Water working party, of which my hon. Friend is a senior representative, has submitted to us. I will not repeat the caveats that I have already suggested must exist in respect of such a service. My hon. Friend speaks of integration into the travelcard system; if he were to talk of integration on the same fare basis that exists for buses and the underground, it might be a different proposition from the idea of incorporating the service into the travelcard system. On that latter front, I know that Peter Ford, the chairman of London Transport, has shown a willingness to consider ways in which we could, perhaps through that mechanism, achieve much wider awareness of riverbus services.
Mr. Simon Hughes:
Further to both the earlier questions on this subject, now that the London First report has been published, we have all the research that we need. We have three catamarans, owned by P and O, idling in St. Katharine's dock ready to do the job. Can the Minister--I put this as a serious proposition, because there is huge interest in the issue--collect together the authors of the report, the Port of London authority, the National Rivers Authority, London Regional Transport and interested hon. Members from the locks at one end down to the estuary at the other, to find out whether he
Mr. Norris:
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's continued interest in this subject. He will acknowledge that I am keen that we should produce concrete proposals to build on the work of the studies. I have accepted that if that requires the involvement of my Department, or, indeed, other sources, it is a proposition that I would be prepared to consider. We have all been seeking to ensure that there should be a service that is, ostensibly at least, viable at the operating level. If that can be established--the early work seems to show that it can--I believe that we have the ground on which we might be able to build.
Mr. Robathan:
My hon. Friend will know that the River Thames does not flow close to Leicestershire, but he and I share much the same attitude to the scheme for river transport. Will he confirm that, when he produces proposals, he will study closely the question of enabling legislation, particularly in relation to piers? With the last scheme, if one caught a boat at Chelsea Harbour, the next stop was Charing Cross. That was a ludicrous situation, because invariably one had to use some other form of transport. Will my hon. Friend look into that closely?
Mr. Norris:
My hon. Friend puts his finger on the major weakness of previous schemes, which is that they have had to rely entirely on sufficient stopping-off points linking with the public transport infrastructure. In other words, one has to have a system which takes people where they want to go. The transport on water study, and KPMG, for London First, identified the number of locations that it will be necessary to consider. It is not appropriate to elaborate at this point, but my hon. Friend is right in his observation.
Miss Hoey:
Does the Minister agree that thousands of people are frustrated every day as they sit in traffic jams and watch an empty M11 wind its way through London? Further to the question of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), does the Minister agree that we also need a change in planning so that, if planning permission is to be given, any major office development along the river must include the building of a pier?
Mr. Norris:
As to the first half of the hon. Lady's question, I am not sure that I agree, because all the studies show that the river is a very inefficient mechanism for conventional commuting--it does not go in a straight line, it has a 7 m rise and fall, and there are many technical difficulties with establishing such a service. There is, however, a market for a service using the river, particularly building on its tourism potential, which could be valuable for London, Londoners and jobs in the capital.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |