| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
European Ground Handling Directives
7. Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what organisations and companies he has consulted with regard to the European ground handling directives; and what representations he has received.[17759]
Sir George Young: My Department consulted extensively within the aviation industry during the negotiation of the European Council directive on ground handling, and will shortly consult again on its implementation into UK law.
Mr. Steen: As, unlike European airports, most British airports have already carried out the spirit and competitive requirement of the directive, will the Secretary of State explain why his officials seem determined to extend the directive and interpret it even further so that the British support services at British airports will have to tender all over again, at enormous cost to them but with no real advantage to the public or the airports? Why cannot we just enforce the directive as it is, as every other European country does?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the directive will bite much harder on European airports than on UK airports because in many European airports there is no competition. Indifferent services are sometimes provided at a high cost whereas within UK airports, especially the larger ones, there is an element of competition. It is therefore in the interests of passengers generally and of the UK ground handling industry that the industry should have access to European airports, and the directive provides that.
As for implementing the directive in the UK, we are not in the business of gold plating directives. Our objective is to implement the directive with the minimum burden on UK industry, and we shall shortly consult industry on the draft regulations. I shall certainly take my hon. Friend's exhortation to heart.
London Underground
8. Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the long-term capital funding requirements of London Underground.[17760]
Sir George Young: The Government have considered very carefully the long-term capital funding requirements of London Underground. That was a key factor behind our decision that privatisation of the underground was the right way forward. I do not believe that any other approach to the funding of London Underground could deliver the same results.
Mr. Congdon: Given the significant investment in London Underground in the past five years, which doubled in real terms compared with the previous five years, and given that much more investment is needed to improve the underground's infrastructure for the benefit of Londoners, does my right hon. Friend agree that it has been shown conclusively that the underground should be privatised? Privatisation will deliver much-improved services to the people of London, and I warmly support that initiative.
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that we have done better than our
predecessors on the level of core investment in London Underground, which is now 50 per cent. more than in the 1980s and 100 per cent. more than in the 1970s. None the less, we want to do even better. Against that background, I introduced proposals for the privatisation of London Underground, with the key element of recycling the proceeds back into the underground to remove the investment backlog within five years of privatisation.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State knows that I am a big supporter of the Jubilee line. What is the funding position of the extension? Will it be open in March next year, as originally planned? If not, when will it open?
Sir George Young: Funding of the Jubilee line extension is not an issue: it has underspent against budget. There is no question of resources being inadequate to secure the completion of the extension. It looks likely that the extension will not open in full in March next year. London Transport hopes to make an announcement shortly about the precise dates.
Road Markings
9. Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicular accidents have been caused by defective road markings in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.[17761]
Mr. Bowis: The information collected by my Department about accident sites and road conditions does not distinguish between road markings and other traffic signs, but only 0.5 per cent. of all reported accidents involve defective road surfaces or signs.
Mr. French: Has my hon. Friend noticed the increase in diagonal hatch marks, the original purpose of which was to improve lane discipline? Has he also noticed that, on certain stretches, the part of the road that has a diagonal hatch mark is considerably wider than the part that has no mark? The motorist sometimes has to drive down a stretch of road that is narrower than is reasonable for a motor car. Will my hon. Friend try to ensure that the use of such excess road markings is curbed?
Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He is right: the purpose of such road hatching is to segregate traffic, discourage overtaking, encourage driver discipline and provide crossing opportunities for pedestrians. However, as he said, it can also lead to vehicles being closer to pedestrians. Great care is required when planning such measures. It is the responsibility of the highway authority concerned. The Department issues guidance, and we shall review that guidance during the coming year. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's points are taken on board.
Rail Investment
10. Mr. Betts: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on investment in the national railway infrastructure.[17762]
Mr. Watts: In the first six months of 1996-97, Railtrack spent an additional £100 million on the renewal
or enhancement of its infrastructure, 25 per cent. more than it spent in the first six months of 1995-96. In its network management statement, published last month, the company announced that it intends to spend an average of more than £4 million a day between 1995 and 2001--some £10 billion in total--on maintaining, renewing and enhancing the rail network.
Mr. Betts: Will the Minister explain to the users of the midland main line what possible benefits they will receive from privatisation, given that Railtrack's plans show no significant investment in that line, although it is one of the slowest and worst-maintained main lines in the country? Does he accept that the franchise operator has told me that there is no provision in the franchise for tilting trains, which is the only other way in which speeds on the line can be significantly increased? Was any thought given during the privatisation process to the interaction between investment in track and investment in rolling stock? It seems that users of the midland main line will get neither under privatisation. Apparently, the only benefit that my constituents will get will be free cups of tea and coffee, and longer times sitting on the trains in which to enjoy them.
Mr. Watts: The main benefits for passengers on the midland main line will be the provision of an extra 22 trains a day, served by new rolling stock which the company has ordered, and the refurbishment of all existing high-speed train sets. Because of the additional services that will operate each day, journeys to Sheffield will be shorter, and because stations will be served by the new rolling stock and the extra 22 services, the high-speed trains will have to make fewer intermediate stops. Moreover, passengers are already benefiting from the "foursight fare", which allows four people to travel anywhere on the network for a flat fare of £29.
Mr. Matthew Banks: Will my hon. Friend continue to put pressure on Railtrack to implement, sooner rather than later, the multi-million-pound plans for upgrading the west coast main line? Does he accept that those of us who use the line regularly expect to experience an altogether higher level of service in the coming years as a result of Mr. Richard Branson's takeover of the line?
Mr. Watts: Railtrack will spend £1.5 billion on the west coast main line, in addition to the £500 million that Virgin Rail will spend on the new tilting rolling stock to reduce journey times on the line. On current plans, the tilting trains and shorter journey times will be introduced from 2002, and there will be further improvements in journey times in subsequent years.
Mr. Bradley: Can we really have any faith in Railtrack's investment plans, given its record to date? Has the Minister seen the findings of the Railway Development Society? According to those findings, because of a lack of investment and for other reasons, private train operators in southern England are running fewer trains than agreed in the minimum service level requirements.
May I ask the Minister again whether the private train operators have broken their franchise agreements? Will they do anything about that? Will the Minister intervene? What protection will he give the public, given that
thousands, if not millions, of pounds of taxpayers' money is still going to the private train operating companies, to ensure that they are given the decent, reliable, efficient service for which they are crying out?
Mr. Watts:
As I said in response to the initial question, Railtrack's expenditure is £100 million, or 25 per cent., up on last year in the first half of the current year. As for the passenger service requirement, on South West Trains there are some minor discrepancies between the PSR and the timetable that was written by, and inherited from, British Rail. Those discrepancies will be corrected when the new timetable is introduced in May or June.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |