House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 Apr 1996 (pt 28)

Mr. Wilson: On the question of who is going to pay, will my hon. Friend join me in rejecting the idea that the Forth rail bridge, which has been maintained as railway property for generations, should become a monument to be financed, not by the railway authorities but by some organisation responsible for historic buildings and monuments, which is another idea that has been floated by Railtrack?

Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to be too personal, but my wife is a member of the Ancient Monuments Board and the Royal Fine Art Commission, which will certainly not have the resources. They do think that it is their job to finance out of their limited funds work that could be extremely expensive.

It has to be made clear to prospective purchasers of Railtrack that the organisation has the obligation of spending a great deal of money--we are not talking

17 Apr 1996 : Column 741

peanuts--on the bridge over the next five years. That ought to be made clear in any prospectus. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North that I hope that it will be made very clear that the financial obligation for the Forth bridge should be included in any prospectus put to prospective shareholders.

I do not want to abuse the time of the House, but I must draw the Minister's attention to the following recommendations. Recommendation 99 states:

"The condition survey revealed a significant deterioration in the paint coating on the bridge. A more satisfactory protective coating system to the traditional paint needs to be developed and the protection restored as part of a planned maintenance strategy."

Has Railtrack--and Bob Horton in particular--accepted that there will be a planned maintenance strategy such as that envisaged by the HSE?

When the Secretary of State courteously gave way, I raised recommendation 100, so we can take that as read and in Hansard. Recommendation 101 concerns the principal roller bearings. I am told by engineers--I think that the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) will bear this out--that the bearings are crucial in the life of the whole structure. The HSE recommendation states:

"The principal roller bearings at the north and south portals do not appear to be functioning as intended and there is some evidence of past damage and repair. The structural analysis indicates that this does not at present affect the integrity of the structure. Further consideration needs to be given as to how these bearings are actually functioning and how they may be restored to an acceptable condition. HSE recommends that a system for monitoring the movements of all bearings should be instituted."

Is that going to be Railtrack's responsibility? Some Railtrack personnel have told me that the bearings have not been functioning for some time and so it is a historic obligation that should be taken on using Scottish Office funds. I asked the Scottish Office if it had the money to do the work and it said that it was not in its budget. Who is responsible for the bearings?

Recommendation 102 continues:

"Although the knuckle pin bearings at the 'fixed' ends of the suspended spans are not correctly aligned to the structure by modern design, the structural analysis indicates that this does not compromise the structural integrity of the bridge. The 'rocking posts' at the 'free ends' of the suspended spans appear to be capable of functioning but no means of lubrication was observed. Further consideration needs to be given to what action is required to ensure the continued acceptable operation of these bearings."

I do not suggest that it is the business of the Secretary of State to go out with a lubricating can or to be personally responsible for the lubrication of a particular bridge, but it is fair to ask Ministers how that work is to be done and whether they are prepared to ensure that it is.

Recommendation 103 states:

"The bearings at the base of the skewbacks appear to be seized. Analysis has demonstrated that this lack of movement has no significance with regard to the structural integrity of the bridge."

But, recommendation 104 continues:

"The lubrication system of the bearings on the approach viaducts does not appear to be functioning and further consideration of this aspect is necessary."

I am told by other engineers that, in terms of the long-term life of the bridge, the position and functioning of the bearings along the lines that the builders intended has been somewhat underestimated by the HSE inspectors and that that ought to be considered.

17 Apr 1996 : Column 742

Recommendation 105 states:

"Cracks identified in the rail troughs should be repaired in the near future. The integrity of the previous repairs should be investigated. Any repairs and the repositioning of the longitudinal timbers over the transoms should be undertaken as part of a planned maintenance strategy. Similarly the tears in the deck plates need to be repaired."

Again it is the same question: who will finance the repairs? I hope that the Minister will say at 9.30 tonight that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and his colleagues need have no worries that Railtrack is undertaking the total financial responsibility of the HSE report.

In the hours that the Minister has between now and making his closing remarks, I hope that he will take the opportunity to get on to Railtrack, which has been well appraised of the problem, and ask Bob Horton, or whomsoever, what they are prepared to undertake. I think that the House of Commons is entitled to know the future of what is not only a vital link to the north of Scotland but the greatest monument to British, European or world engineering of the 19th century.

I thank hon. Members for their courtesy in hearing me.

5.10 pm

Sir David Madel (South-West Bedfordshire): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow(Mr. Dalyell). Later in my speech I should like to say something about safety on the railways, although not so much in relation to the topics that he mentioned.

Railway privatisation, as has been said by hon. Members, has been the most difficult and complicated privatisation ever undertaken, although it has been one of the smallest. Rail travel affects many people's lives daily, but, in view of the furious political controversy over privatisation, it is bound to be some time before the public can judge whether they think that it has been a success.

The Government have quite understandably drawn attention to the fact that they will save money in the short and long terms, not only because of the sale but because of the declining subsidies that they will have to pay.

As a start, I suggest that the public would strongly support the proposal that the money that is saved should be recycled back into other parts of the transport system. I am in no sense advocating more motorways or the endless widening of existing ones. We have known for some time that there is virtually no new road-building programme planned for London.

The current situation, however, leaves one aspect of transport policy still requiring urgent attention. If the House will excuse me for a few seconds, I shall of course refer to the bypasses that are vitally required round so many of our towns.

Transport Ministers, who have listened to me very patiently over the years, will understand why I shall take this opportunity to make a short, sharp further plea to get started on Dunstable's bypass. I know that it cannot be started overnight, but the sooner we at least start the pre-public inquiry conference and then the public inquiry into that bypass, the sooner morale in the town will be lifted--not least because of the current acute local economic difficulties that are much tied up with our transport system.

I should also like to raise briefly another local matter, which is of direct relevance to Railtrack. I hope that Railtrack, once floated, will want to expand its asset base

17 Apr 1996 : Column 743

by re-opening disused railway lines and generating business and profits from them. We have such a disused line in my constituency, between Dunstable and Luton, with track and rails already there and a powerful local campaign in place to get it re-opened.

Re-opening the line will of course cost a bit of money, and I agree that it cannot be accomplished overnight. I hope, however, that Railtrack will do an early feasibility study on the value of opening that railway so that people in Bedfordshire can know whether it has any plans or desire to make use of that existing infrastructure. I cannot think of a more environmentally friendly way in which to try to solve some of our problems in Bedfordshire than to get this railway line re-opened and used.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, I should like to say something about rail safety and the west coast main line modernisation. There has of course been much talk about how Railtrack will steadily improve its financial performance and build up its profits. There has also been much talk about cost cutting and the potential for cost cutting, which has inevitably led to fears about safety. Those fears must be allayed. In the chapter on work force safety, on page 10, the "Railway Group Safety Plan 1996-97", which was published by Railtrack, states:

"Organisations new to the railway also work at the trackside and the management of the arrangements to manage such contracts will be key to sustaining the improvement in trackside safety that has been achieved."

That sentence is self-explanatory, because it refers to new companies in the railway business that will get new contracts to improve and modernise the track. As the companies are obviously very new to the business--otherwise the document would not mention that they are--it is vital that the Health and Safety Executive becomes involved with them at a very early stage to ensure that safety rules are drawn up, which are new to those companies because they have never engaged on railway work before.