| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Transport Links (East Sussex)
20. Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve transport links in East Sussex.[30621]
Mr. Watts: We recognise the case for improving transport links to and along the south coast. Our trunk road programme contains a number of important schemes in East Sussex. We are also supporting improvements to the county council's local road network.
Mr. Waterson: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware of the level of support in my constituency for sensible, necessary and environmentally sensitive schemes, such as the A22 Polegate bypass and the A27? In addition, I assure him that many rail travellers in my constituency are looking forward not only to the benefits of the Thameslink 2000 rail link to Eastbourne, but to the tangible benefits of rail privatisation in our area.
Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend has been extremely eloquent on other occasions in expressing his support and that of his constituents for sensible road improvements and for the tremendous benefits that rail privatisation will bring to rail passengers and freight users.
Rail Privatisation
21. Mr. Faulds: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his assessment of the success of the rail sell-off; and if he will make a statement.[30622]
Sir George Young: The team had a good result.
Mr. Winnick: He was held up on the journey.
Mr. Faulds: Well, for once, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is absolutely right--I am delighted that I am here in time because I was held up. Is the Secretary of State aware that I was held up by British Rail in getting here this afternoon? Is he aware that I waited at Euston station last Thursday to return home to Stratford-upon-Avon by way of Coventry and that there was a 55-minute delay--yet another of the Euston break-ups because of the points system outside Euston? How can he possibly claim that any price paid for those decaying services can be worth it for the suffering of the British people?
Sir George Young: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed the main point. The key question is: which regime will provide the resources that are necessary to improve the quality of service and the reliability of the trains on which he travels? It is our very strong contention that the regime that we have introduced will ensure that in a few years the hon. Gentleman will not be detained in the way that he was today.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents are very encouraged by the rail sell-off and rail franchising? We are looking forward to seeing SouthEastern trains moving rapidly into the private sector, particularly in view of my right hon. Friend's requirement that the provision of new carriages on the Kent coast line through the stations of Meopham and Sole Street in my constituency be a part of the franchise.
Sir George Young: I am sure that many organisations are looking forward to the results of franchising. I hope that the existing trade unions that invested in nationalised industries when we privatised them will also invest in Railtrack in due course.
22. Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the costs of privatisation of the railways.[30624]
Mr. Watts: By the end of 1995-96, total Government privatisation costs are estimated to be some £145 million and some £325 million for British Rail and Railtrack, including some investment in assets or asset management systems. Those costs should be viewed in the context of proceeds in excess of £4 billion and of substantial benefits to rail users as a result of privatisation.
Mr. Skinner: What has the privatisation of the railway system to do with market forces? As I understand it, the Government have always believed that the market forces philosophy would rule. Yet, through the dogma of privatisation, the Government have decided to privatise the railways while calling upon the taxpayer to find about £850 million per year to allow that privatisation to continue. I remind the Minister that one argument is still prevalent in the Labour movement: a Labour Government's best answer would be to take the network back into public ownership without any compensation.
Mr. Watts: I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) has heard her hon. Friend's comments about the policy of any future Labour Government. The fact is that, with seven franchises operating in the private sector, the costs to the taxpayer in the seventh year of those franchises will be less than a third of the grant paid to British Rail to operate those services in the past year. In the hon. Gentleman's area, the competitive bidding process for the midland main line franchise has ensured a winning bid that will require no subsidy from the taxpayer at the end of the franchise period. A completely new fleet of trains will be purchased in order to increase service frequency to Loughborough, Derby and Nottingham. They are the facts.
Private Finance Initiative (Road Building)
23. Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the level of tolls to be charged for the use of roads built under the private finance initiative.[30625]
Mr. Watts: Estimated expenditure on shadow tolls for design, build, finance and operate road schemes is published in the transport report 1996.
Mr. O'Brien: What advice can the Minister give to my constituents on the proposed link between the M1 and A1 in the Rothwell area of Leeds, when shadow tolls will be paid by the Government out of taxpayers' money? Has he any information as to what will be the estimated charges?
Mr. Watts: Not specifically on that route, but the figures set out in the report are £41 million in 1996-97, £97 million in 1997-98 and £123 million in 1998-99.
Chiltern Line
24. Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the future of the Chiltern line.[30626]
Mr. Watts: The franchising director has today announced that M40 Trains Ltd., the management buy-out team, has been selected as preferred bidder for the Chiltern Railway Co. Ltd. franchise.
Mr. Lidington: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement and draw his attention to comments made to me by the managing director of M40 Trains Ltd., who is responsible for operations in Chiltern, that the approach of privatisation had, for the first time, forced railway managers to concentrate their minds on what their passengers actually wanted in the way of a service? Is not that the key message of the advantages of privatisation for fare-paying passengers: the service will be provided ever more in their interests?
Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The total focus of passenger train operating companies is on increasing their business by providing better services for their passengers.
LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
Parliamentary Questions
29. Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will introduce a supervisory body to assess independently the efficacy of parliamentary procedures relating to the answering of questions.[30632]
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have no plans to do so. The efficacy of our procedures falls within the remit of the Procedure Committee.
Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister agree with Sir Richard Scott's suggestion, made a few weeks ago in the annual Blackstone lecture, that a parliamentary watchdog is necessary to ensure that Ministers answer Members of Parliament's questions, which Sir Richard Scott still believes they are not doing on a wide range of questions, including those on arms sales? Is it not time that, if Ministers are not prepared to give answers, someone else ensures that they do?
Mr. Newton: I am aware that a suggestion, I think somewhat similar to that to which the hon. Lady refers, has been made in evidence to the Select Committee on Public Service, but, as someone who would count himself a parliamentarian, I would be wary of any proposal that cuts across what should be, and is, the central line of Ministers' accountability in the House.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I agree profoundly with my right hon. Friend. Ministers are accountable. We do not want any outsider coming in and telling them how they should behave. Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of my constituents come to Question Time, and that they all find it absolutely enthralling and go away with considerably more enthusiasm for the House of Commons?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her doughty support. I always find her contributions enthralling.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Do you mean that?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |