| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.9 pm
Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester): I begin by declaring a lack of interest and an interest. As to the former, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) complained that the Government all too rarely allocate time to debate transport issues in general and railway issues in particular. The hon. Lady should cast her mind back to the various Supply days on the subject of rail privatisation during the course of this Parliament. Consistently in those debates, more Conservative than Labour Members have attended, and Conservative Members have expressed more passion about and interest in the railways. At one stage today, not one Labour Back-Bencher was in the Chamber except the individual who was speaking. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. The Opposition's lack of real interest in the railways should be registered.
I cast an anxious eye over the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who makes a special point of picking up on hon. Members' interests. I declare my own. I have interests in organisations outside the House, but as far as I am aware, none of them has any link with railways. I advise one transport interest, the Chamber of Shipping, and I am extremely proud of that link. I also have shares in the Severn Valley Railway, which give me two third-class tickets each year.
I have shares in Eurotunnel, which I should probably have sold--but some false romantic attachment to the concept of the tunnel meant that I kept them. I used them for the first time for my free tickets to use the shuttle at the Easter weekend. Next time, I speak in the House, I will have shares in Railtrack to declare.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate(Ms Jackson) tried to get off the hook in respect of the accusation that she had failed to declare her interests when speaking in the debate. It is worth recalling that nine members of Labour's shadow Cabinet are sponsored by transport trade unions.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate told the House, in an ingenious piece of sophistry, that such support is no longer sponsorship because moneys are paid to constituency Labour parties rather than to Labour Members as individuals. I do not see the distinction. As I read the rules of the House, if a constituency association or party receives more than £500 from any outside body because of an individual hon. Member's candidature, he or she is obliged to declare it. That declaration must be made in exactly the same way as any other interest.
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham):
Is it true also that the Hastings agreement, from which many Opposition Members benefit, pays up to 80 per cent. of election expenses--which can be a sum of up to £3,000 or £4,000? As there are only two legal entities in an election, the agent and the candidate, does that not mean that they receive vast sums of money that are not specified in their declarations?
Mr. Luff:
Sensing the mood of the Chair, I will not respond to that comment--except to say that I agree.
I welcome the debate as a good opportunity to get across the truth about the benefits of rail privatisation in general, and of the privatisation of Railtrack in particular. I shall quote several sources to prove the growing tide of realisation that the change will bring real benefits to the
travelling public. There is an increasing belief in the value of rail privatisation and that the Government will achieve their objective of getting the bulk of the railways into private ownership or management before the next general election, and increasing disbelief in Labour's ability to deliver or develop any credible rail policy. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North must answer that charge when he winds up.
I read the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in amazement. It states that the flotation of Railtrack will
Do not the Opposition understand that the history of the railway system is that investment in it has been put second, often for reasonable reasons, to all the other many calls on the public purse, and that privatisation will exactly reverse that situation, allowing Railtrack, train operating companies and rolling stock companies to make the investment they deem commercially necessary--and to plan long-term for the first time since nationalisation?
I read with joy the confident words in the Government's amendment, which refers to
That is the truth about privatisation, and we must confidently trumpet that truth.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) spoke at great length, and about as slowly as some west coast main line trains have to go because of the engineering work needed on that line. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that privatisation will achieve only some kind of delayed status quo. He could not be more badly wrong.
As to the so-called fragmentation of the railways in preparation for privatisation, I see no such fragmentation. The network has been reduced to units that are more responsible to customers, which is a good thing. Lord Hanson is busy splitting up his conglomerate, to make it more responsive. He recognises that it is not necessarily a good thing to have a large company trying to do too many things in too many different spheres.
I have the highest regard for the members of the individual management teams that serve my constituency--particularly Roger Macdonald of Thames and Brian Scott of Great Western. Thames has not been privatised yet, but the bids are in, and I believe that the franchise is due to be awarded in November. The increased responsiveness of Thames to the travelling public in preparation for that change is a joy to behold. Some status quo.
I quote from the Evesham Journal of 4 April:
Under the old nationalised, monolithic British Rail that Labour is so keen to protect, we were told for years that it was impossible to run Sunday morning trains, for all kinds of reasons to do with the expense of employing signalling staff on Sunday on what is, sadly, a rather under-invested line in terms of signalling infrastructure.
Now Thames is providing that service, to the great benefit of the travelling public and of tourism in the Vale of Evesham and Worcester.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock):
I have been listening carefully to some of the hon. Gentleman's claptrap, and it occurs to me to ask him how he can utter such remarks now when he put his name to a Transport Select Committee report produced under the late Robert Adley that came out profoundly and unequivocally against the crackpot method of privatisation chosen by the Government. What has changed since the hon. Gentleman, as a new Member of Parliament, put his signature to that thoroughly researched report? Is it promotion?
Mr. Luff:
I was foolish to give way to an hon. Member who has not been present for the debate but who made an opportunist intervention to prove to his constituents that he was representing their interests.
The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. I put my name not to the report by the late Robert Adley but to a different report produced under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West(Mr. Channon). If the hon. Member for Thurrock(Mr. Mackinlay) will read the succession of speeches that I have made in the Chamber on the issue, he will see that my support for rail privatisation has been unshaken.
Mr. Luff:
I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he made a cheap slur against me the last time we debated rail privatisation. I do not feel inclined to give way to him again.
There are other changes for good on the railway that serves my county and constituency. They include improved timetables and better marketing, because there is for the first time an incentive to increase the number of passengers. There was no such incentive in the cosy old world of nationalised British Rail. The passenger service requirement for Thames currently out for consultation looks extremely encouraging.
As for Great Western, I share the joy that the spirit of Isambard Kingdom Brunel is being resurrected in my part of the country. The staff of Great Western share that pleasure. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, responding to the shadow Cabinet spokesperson, mentioned the share offer being made by Great Western to its staff. I am delighted to tell my right hon. Friend that 60 per cent. of Great Western's staff have put up their own money to buy shares in their train company.
The offer is one third over-subscribed. That means that 51 per cent. of that company is now in the ownership of the management or the employees. Those are the real stakeholders of the modern railway that we are building in this country.
Mr. Wilson:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Luff:
No. I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that, after last time, the answer is no.
"lead to short term profits being put before long term investment."
"a golden opportunity for the railways to gain access to the private finance necessary for investment."
"It's all change on Sunday's trains.
Sunday morning trains are to be restored to the Cotswold Line from Easter Sunday, April 7.
Three extra trains each way between Worcester, Oxford and London will be introduced in a two-month earlier start to the summer Sunday timetable.
And more services are planned for the main summer timetable which will be launched in June."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |