| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Crossrail
5. Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of crossrail.[24720]
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): As my right hon. Friend has told the House, crossrail has its place in the sequence of major London projects. The Government are committed to it going ahead as a joint venture with a substantial private sector contribution.
Mr. Gapes: Many people and many organisations in London, including London Pride Partnership, the Corporation of London and the Association of London Government, were bitterly disappointed by the Government's announcement a few weeks ago. As Londoners, we feel that crossrail has been delayed unnecessarily and we hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the Government remain firmly committed to crossrail's implementation at an early date, as it is necessary for our city's economic vitality and for journeys across the city, because it links our main railway stations. May we have that assurance?
Mr. Norris: If Londoners are disappointed, it is probably largely because they have relied on the disinformation about the status of crossrail which has been spread by the Opposition. The reality is that, in London, we are proceeding with the Jubilee line extension which is due to open on 28 March 1998--book your tickets now--and we have already announced that the £650 million Thameslink 2000 scheme will follow thereafter, to be followed by the channel tunnel rail link, which is a scheme of around £2.7 billion. We have made it clear that, from a financial and logistics standpoint, it is right that crossrail should follow those projects. That is prudent and sensible government, something that Londoners understand when they are exposed to it but something that I do not expect Opposition Members to begin to understand.
Mr. Brooke: While I accept the logic of the Government's position, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have prolonged the already considerable blight along the line of rail? Have the Government ventured any consideration of the French method of compensation in such matters which seems, for a disproportionately low investment, greatly to accelerate the conduct of affairs?
Mr. Norris: My right hon. Friend is right in the sense that one regrets any blight on properties necessarily involved in a scheme of such magnitude continuing for one day longer than necessary, especially when the status of the proposals is as it is. I hope that he will accept that I must resist his blandishment to discuss the relative merits of French compensation systems. Certainly, we are keen to ensure that people whose properties are affected by crossrail understand that the Government remain committed to the scheme and will see it happen, but we shall see it happen according to an orderly and sensible timetable that takes account of affordability and of the impact on the streets of London itself.
Ms Short: Is the Minister aware that crossrail provides the equivalent of 28 lanes of road across London, that it is an enormously valuable project, and that recent reports show that perhaps half its funding could be provided by the private sector? Will he now admit what he has not told the House--that the scheme has been delayed deliberately because, if it went ahead and licences were sought, it might endanger the flotation of Railtrack? Does he agree that the enormous damage being done to London, yet again, is part of the destructive consequences of rail privatisation?
Mr. Norris: I suspect that the difference between us is that I do not work with that kind of conspiracy theory constantly in my mind. To any objective observer, it is the most absurd notion one can imagine in relation to the flotation of Railtrack. Crossrail is, of course, a large and important scheme, and we remain committed to it. When planning such investments in public transport infrastructure, the key criterion has to be affordability. As I said, I do not expect the Opposition to understand that, but it is how tough and real decisions are made. It is, and has always been, the case that Railtrack will look at crossrail as a private sector entity to take account of the risks and rewards attendant on it, and will respond accordingly. That is entirely right. In addition, it ensures that the financing of crossrail is properly transparent and offers the best possible deal to taxpayers.
Mr. Norris: I shall ignore what the hon. Lady said from a sedentary position, as that might not be parliamentary, but what I said is patently the case.
Madam Speaker: It could not have been unparliamentary, or I would have stopped the hon. Lady.
Fatal Accidents (Roads)
6. Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the latest figures for fatal accidents on roads in England and Wales.[24721]
The Minister for Transport in London (
Mr. Steve Norris): The provisional figures for 1995 are among the lowest since records began. They show that 3,319 fatal accidents caused 3,665 deaths in Great Britain as a whole.
Mr. Arnold: Nevertheless, my hon. Friend will know that a number of those fatal accidents recently occurred on the stretch of the A2 opposite Gravesend. I thank him for commissioning, in response to my representations, a study of safety on that stretch of road to be carried out by Kent county council, our local highway authority. When can we expect a report?
Mr. Norris: As my hon. Friend says, he advised me of his particular interest in the A2 scheme in Kent. The Highways Agency is discussing the scope of that study with Kent county council, which is our agent. Although the scheme is dependent on funding, we still expect it to go ahead this financial year.
Mr. Miller: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Law Commission on its recent report on involuntary manslaughter in so far as it affects death on the road? When can we expect some primary legislation to bring about the important changes that are needed to deal with that difficult area of law?
Mr. Norris: No, I will not join him in that because I do not think that it would be reasonable to do so before we have a chance to study the report. We acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's genuine interest in the matter. We also accept that penalties across the whole range of traffic offences have their place in discouraging inappropriate behaviour. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have to bear in mind that if unduly severe penalties are related to specific traffic infringements, one of the dangers is that the courts will not press those charges for fear that there might be acquittal. We welcome the report, we shall certainly look at it and we shall come forward with our findings on it in due course.
Freight
7. Mr. Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assistance his Department has given to encourage freight off the roads and on to the railways.[24722]
Sir George Young: By giving rail freight operators the commercial freedom and incentive to win traffic from road, we are ensuring a bright future for that important industry. We have made good progress with the sale of British Rail's freight businesses. We continue to provide targeted support for the industry through track access grants and freight facilities grant.
Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recall his recent visit to my constituency, when he opened the new Government-funded railhead at Buxton Lime Industries, which is the largest quarry in Europe? Does he agree that such a combination of privatisation with Government grants and incentives will make it possible for freight to be transferred off the roads and on to railways? Will he assure my constituents that, wherever possible, it will be
the Government's objective to achieve precisely that, and to stop huge lorries rumbling through small villages that were never intended for such traffic?
Sir George Young: I recall with affection my recent visit to my hon. Friend's constituency. He was good enough to arrange for me to be transported by a steam train and to be greeted by a brass band on my descent. I must say that that is not a reception that I receive in every constituency that I visit. The grant to which my hon. Friend referred is one of the largest ever awarded to a company. It ensures that the town of Buxton is spared 125 lorry movements a day for at least 10 years. Yes, it is indeed the Government's policy to continue to make grants available in suitable circumstances to win traffic off the road and to put it back on the railways.
Mrs. Dunwoody: If the Secretary of State would like to come to Crewe and Nantwich, I could arrange for at least two brass bands to give him a very suitable fanfare, making the right kind of noises. Perhaps he could then explain to my constituents why the Conservative party chairman, having told us all at great length how it was necessary to split the freight system to get competition into the rail system, apparently went to America and handed over vast numbers of assets to a particular American firm, which has insisted that it should have total control? Is that correct, and is it why the Secretary of State received a fanfare when he went to the constituency of the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry)?
Sir George Young: I am interested in the auction that is developing to see who can provide the most brass bands with which to greet the Transport Secretary. On the suggestion concerning my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), the competition was open, it was comprehensive and I have absolute confidence in its propriety. On the gist of the hon. Lady's comments, Trainload Freight was indeed split into three. We then gave the market an opportunity to decide whether it wanted to bid for it in three parts or in its entirety. It was clear from that competition that the market would prefer to buy it in one go. If one takes the view that real competition comes from road rather than rail, there is much to be said for having one well-resourced, effective provider in the rail industry in order to compete effectively with the road industry.
Mr. Congdon: Although new investment in the railways is desirable to build additional freight lines, especially as that removes freight from the road on to the railway, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that any proposals do not do so at the expense of the destruction or blight of many houses, as is likely under the proposal by Central Railways?
Sir George Young: I know how strongly my hon. Friend and other hon. Members feel about the potential impact of the Central Railways Group proposals. He will have seen that I recently refused the application for waivers that was lodged with my Department. The ball is now in the court of the Central Railways Group, which will have to decide whether it will proceed with that proposal.
Ms Short: Does the Secretary of State agree that, given the projections of congestion, we must get more freight
on to rail? We are down to just 6 per cent. now. Does he agree that the opening of the channel tunnel gives us a real opportunity to get more freight on to rail because it can travel much greater distances? Is it not, therefore, a tragedy that track access charges have been set so high, to give a high income stream to Railtrack, that we shall not get that expansion? Will the Secretary of State admit that the pathfinder prospectus makes it clear that the opportunities for an increase in freight on rail are limited and, therefore, that the Government have no expectations that we shall get the expansion that we need?
Sir George Young: I do not think that the hon. Lady does justice to the Government's progress in this matter. We have liberated access to the railways and as a result, two companies, National Power and Direct Rail Services, are now running their own rail freight services under the open access powers in the Railways Act 1993. Since 1979, we have awarded 146 grants with a total value of £100 million at today's prices, securing traffic to rail equivalent to more than 2.5 million lorry journeys per year. I am convinced that, with Wisconsin--an experienced operator, which will bring new ideas, new practices and new successes to rail freight--we shall make further progress in winning traffic back on to the railways and away from the roads.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that only 6 per cent. of freight goes by rail is a crushing indictment of British Rail? Does that not underline the case for privatisation rather than the status quo?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the regime that we are introducing, there is, for the first time, a commercial incentive to win traffic back on to the railways. Wisconsin has that incentive, but that incentive did not, and could never, exist within the nationalised industry. That is why I am confident that the new regime will lead to a reversal of the decline to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |