| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gary Streeter (Plymouth, Sutton) indicated dissent.
Mr. Heppell: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Initially, the proposals were that 13 stations would be sold off to the private sector and the rest would stay with Railtrack in the public sector. In Committee, we said that that was asset stripping. Individual private companies that took over those stations would be able to sell off the land around stations and make a healthy profit. Now it is worse, because it is possible to asset-strip not just 13 stations, but the lot.
I am worried not only about asset stripping but about the consequences for the future, because I have seen the asset stripping of railway lines before, after Beeching. I shall tell the House what happened. The land that was bought up and used for development blocked off possible future transport links into the city of Nottingham and many other cities across the country. Once land has been built on, one cannot put a railway through it. That is not just asset stripping, but tying up land for the future.
When Conservative Members come to their senses--sorry, I am wrong, because I am fairly sure that they will not. When we have a Labour Government, who decide that we really do want to ensure that the railways expand, with more passengers and more freight, we shall not block off the corridors to allow that expansion by asset-stripping under the present proposals. That is the only way in which Railtrack can raise money. The Government are talking
about the sale of the century. They are to give profits to shareholders who do not even own the shares yet. They will be guaranteed £69 million in the autumn--"Buy your shares and get your profit."
How can anybody tell me that that is a sensible proposition, that taxpayers' money should be given to people in that way? I could understand it in some respects if the Government's dogma worked, and if privatisation allowed them to pull back on the subsidy to be given to the railways, but the reverse is true. One ends up paying more subsidy, but getting a worse service than before.
I shall touch quickly on safety. Earlier, I heard an hon. Member--I think that it was the hon. Member for Worcester, but perhaps it was the hon. Member for Dartford--say that there was no reason--I am getting a signal from the Government Whips. I am not too sure whether I am supposed to take notice of them, but now I am getting a signal from my own Whip.
In Committee, I looked at the brief produced by the Health and Safety Executive. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is right: there were 38 recommendations suggesting ways in which rail safety could not be improved, but could stay at the same level. The recent railway safety case lists 10 actions, many involving substantial cost, which would not make the railways safer but would attempt to make them as safe as they are now.
There is no doubt that the cobweb of confusion that will be created by the new arrangements will lead to more accidents. I am a former railwayman, and, believe me, the "fail-safe" concept was drummed into us. Nowadays I just read the newspapers, but I am certain that the accidents that happen currently did not happen as often in my time. I read about fuel tanks and traction motors dropping off trains; apparently, there are fires on trains and no one can get off because the access has not been worked out. I read about axles snapping. Before that recent instance, when did an axle last snap on a British Rail train? We would have to go back hundreds of years--to the time of Isambard Kingdom Brunel, and the man in a top hat sitting on the footplate. It may seem funny, but I believe that there is something fundamentally and radically wrong with the current safety arrangements.
Mr. Stephen Day (Cheadle):
I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the debate; I was serving on the Select Committee on Social Security.
First, let me deal with certain issues on behalf of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, of which I have the honour to be joint chairman. For about two years the council has had a rail working party, which has made a number of recommendations and observations about rail safety. I am sure that members of that working party, who have a keen interest in--and vast experience of--both the rail industry and the academic aspect of railway matters, would not want me to say anything on their behalf that could be construed as scaremongering.
The advisory council does not take such an approach to rail safety issues; indeed, it takes a responsible and positive approach to transport safety issues in general.
Hon. Members have made some rather over-excited comments about safety. I hope that what I shall say on behalf of the advisory council will not be viewed in that light; I intend to offer some positive suggestions. This is nothing new for the council. It has nothing to do with the fact that we are discussing the privatisation of Railtrack, or with the privatisation of the railways. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, the council has a long history of working with, and campaigning to change the mind of, the Department of Transport.
My hon. Friend the Minister will also know that a number of organisations are currently responsible for safety in the new structure. Each train operating company must submit a safety case to be approved by Railtrack; Railtrack's safety case is approved by the Health and Safety Executive, which includes the railway inspectorate. Although the office of the rail regulator has no safety brief, it can act as independent arbitrator in the event of disputes between Railtrack and train operators. I understand that those arrangements were proposed in an HSE report entitled "Ensuring Safety on Britain's Railways", published in 1993--before the Government's decision to privatise Railtrack.
I want to raise two aspects of safety management, which merit more attention than some of the scaremongering that we heard earlier. The first--about which both the parliamentary advisory council and I are concerned--relates to communication and liaison. The council believes that we must ensure that safety lessons that have been learnt can be easily transferred from one company to another. The previous structure of vertical national ownership had the weakness of inflexibility; the new structure, based on competing units, does not naturally lead to the sharing of knowledge and solutions.
Secondly, much good work has been done on safety in recent years. Both staff and resources have been allocated to improve the safety of both passengers and work force. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider reviewing the 1993 HSE recommendations?
Let me give my own views on the whole question of rail privatisation. I do not deny that I have expressed reservations about aspects of it in the past; indeed, I still think that it would have been better to "regionalise" the railways and sell them as a separate unit. Despite those reservations, however, I will not accept the invitation issued by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
When the House has voted on rail privatisation issues in the past, not only have I stood on my feet to express the view that I have expressed again tonight, I have on occasions voted with the Opposition. Indeed, I remember well supporting the so-called wrecking amendment to allow BR to bid for franchise. That does not alter the fact that, at that stage, the House was debating legislation, amendments were before it and the debate would have had some practical effect. Tonight, we are not dealing with the Opposition trying to bring influence to bear on the Government's policy or their attitude towards the nature of rail privatisation. We have heard not helpful suggestions but hostility to the concept of privatisation in any form. That is where I differ from Opposition Members.
I am also aware that this Opposition debate has nothing to do with the issue itself and is all about something else. It is about trying to persuade Conservative Members such as myself who have expressed reservations in the past to join the Opposition in the Lobby in the hope that they can inflict an embarrassing defeat on the Government that would have no practical effect whatever. I am not going to be tempted.
I have every respect for the Opposition. Indeed, it is their duty on every occasion to try to embarrass the Government. But I am sorry, when I speak on rail privatisation in this Chamber and cast my votes on it, I want them to be cast on the issue. I am not here to help the Opposition do their job in merely trying to embarrass the Government. People in the great wide world should understand the difference between when we debate legislation and when the Opposition are merely trying to play politics with such an important issue. There is no way in which I shall support the Opposition this evening.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |