| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Brian Mawhinney: I agree that there is little value in revisiting what we did, but I am concerned by the hon. Lady's statement that rail privatisation was a disaster. Given the huge surge of investment, some of which has already been delivered and the rest of which will be delivered over the next few years, and given the huge increase in the number of passengers--bearing in mind the fact that for the previous 40 years, under nationalisation, it had gone down year after year--is not her judgment a little harsh?
Mrs. Dunwoody: My judgment when it comes to men is frequently disastrous, but when it comes to transport I am rather better. I believe that rail privatisation was a disaster, and I use the word advisedly. Frankly, under privatisation, a very old system that was disastrously run down was not improved but made even worse. It is only the pressures brought to bear by--believe me--the customers that have begun to change the situation.
Of course it is true that there are many more people riding on the railways, but it is also true that the interim years when we did not commission any new trains, buy any new rolling stock, plan any new lines or keep the existing lines up to standard proved truly disastrous.
Those factors have resulted in trains providing unacceptable levels of service to passengers, and we are only now beginning to see the companies--after all this time--buying new rolling stock and improving the lot of the passenger.I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I do not address such delightful issues as congestion charges or what might happen in 2015, because what matters to me is the day-to-day running of the railways. Above all, safety is still high on the list of issues about which we should worry. We listen every day to the evidence being given by those who were in the appalling train crash in which so many people died. Many of the faults involved arose out of direct negligence by the company--investment had not been made, training standards had been allowed to fall and rolling stock had become run down. All those faults, which we have set out in detail, were contributory factors to that dreadful crash, including even the training of drivers and the lack of proper concern about the teaching of safety procedures to senior conductors.
My simple plea to my hon. Friend the Minister tonight is that we are waiting for the safety company that Railtrack is supposed to have set up. I know that an announcement was made yesterday and I welcome that, because the chairman, Sir David Davies, is a remarkable man and will be a great asset. However, the company should have been set up some months ago. If Railtrack's licence requires modification, that should have been considered and changed. We do not need to hear from Railtrack about a wish list of billions of pounds to be spent on projects that it will frankly never achieve unless the taxpayer coughs up. It asks for many millions of pounds on spurious grounds, when it should have been bringing forward workable plans for the new railways safety company. By now, that company should have been staffed and given a budget. Railtrack should have come forward with criticisms of the existing facilities and with the ways in which the existing working practices were deficient. None of that has happened.
I blame the management of Railtrack, of whom we have heard much in the past months. It is also part of the Government's responsibility to lean on Railtrack in a way that has not happened in the past. Railtrack's management knows that if it is to produce a high-quality railway, it must talk about the money that it intends to put in immediately. We do not need a 20-year plan that is entirely dependent on the taxpayer. Railtrack must admit unequivocally that it does not have the state-of-the-art safety measures that will save us from such a disaster in the future, and it should say how it intends to change that situation.
Mr. Quinn: Does my hon. Friend share my real concern about the upgrade of the west coast main line, because Railtrack, its contractors and project managers are now having to recruit technical expertise from the Indian sub-continent? Is not that a symbol of what has happened to our railway industry's manufacturing base? Expertise has been lost and we have not replaced it with future investment.
Mrs. Dunwoody: It is a marvellous irony that we, who built most of the Indian railways and supplied the
engineers and expertise, are now--100 or 150 years later--having to go back and ask for assistance. I am glad that the Indian railway system is capable. When I look at some of our trains, I wonder whether we will end up riding on their roofs, as people in India do; I hope not.Some rail companies, worried about their franchise, come forward with the most wonderful plans and wish lists. Others, such as Railtrack, do not appear to deal with immediate or short-term problems but only say that they hope that things might be different in 20 years' time. That is not acceptable and it will not do.
Recently, members of Railtrack staff were criticised in the tabloids for what was reported as some sort of drunken folly. Whether the story was true or not I do not know, but Railtrack managers made a clear statement that they expected people to be sacked over the incident. That is terrifying. Many people in Railtrack need to be shifted because of what happened to 31 people outside Paddington station. If that does not happen, we have got our priorities totally wrong.
People who try to put the responsibility solely on the Government should remember that the private rail companies received their franchises in return for the promises that they made. Those promises were not simply general ideas; they were contractual responsibilities. If those companies do not fulfil those contractual obligations, no one will believe a word they say when they come forward for the new franchises. No matter how many glossy colour brochures are published by those companies, their plans will be examined in great detail.
I hope that the Minister will answer some questions from me this evening. When will the rail safety company become operational? What will its responsibilities be? How many staff will it have, and how big will its budget be? Who will take the decisions?
If railway safety is left in the hands of those who contributed to the Paddington disaster, the House will be guilty of complacency. In that case, it should consider where its true priorities lie.
8.52 pm
Mr. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I trust her judgment on transport, although hon. Members on the Government Front Bench may not always be so certain. We welcome this important debate. I am happy to speak to the Liberal Democrat motion and against the motion tabled by the Conservative motion.
From what we have heard it is clear that the Government are failing in their transport policy. They came to office pledging to reduce the overall level of traffic on our roads. That pledge has been broken.
The Government came to office planning to save the London underground. That pledge has been broken: London underground has not been saved, but a bill for at least £60 million in consultancy fees has been run up--with no guarantee that the public-private partnership will go ahead. The public sector comparator could still find the PPP financially unacceptable.
The Government came to office promising that our air is not for sale--another transport pledge that has been broken.
However, even though the Government's record is one of delay, cancellation and the occasional U-turn, I can only admire the brazen opportunism and astounding collective amnesia exhibited by the Conservative party in tabling the motion before the House. Conservative Members seem to be suffering under a delusion that three years in opposition absolves them of responsibility for decisions before year zero of the new Labour regime. I am happy to remind them of their record on transport.
It was the Conservatives who introduced the fuel duty escalator. It was the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who said, as we have heard already:
- Any critic of the Government's tax plans who claims also to support the international agreement to curb carbon dioxide emissions will be sailing dangerously near to hypocrisy.
It was the Conservatives who first investigated the use of additional charges for road use in cities. In 1994, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said:
- I do not expect to have people dancing in the streets in delight at the concept of road pricing but if you look at the environmental problems, you can see the impetus behind the policy and the necessity.
- I believe the key is not to build lots more roads but to make more intelligent use of the ones we have.
- I take the view that you cannot pander to traffic growth.
After years of failed transport policies, during which the Conservatives were convinced that building more roads would solve congestion, they at last began to realise that that was not possible. They began to realise that the continued growth of road traffic was unsustainable. Even they noticed that motor vehicle traffic increased every year, according to the House of Commons Library, by a total of 75 per cent. They began to realise that despite the biggest road-building programme since the Romans, the condition of Britain's roads had deteriorated to the worst on record. They began to realise that with no alternative strategy, there would be no hope of keeping to internationally binding Kyoto agreements to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
That insight, acquired during 18 years of government, was, regrettably, jettisoned within a matter of months of being in opposition in favour of a transport policy that is about soundbites and spin. It must have been dreamt up at a joyriders' convention. The Conservatives want to take us back 20 years in terms of transport policy, in a desperate attempt to shore up their support. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, was right to attack the Conservatives recently for constantly proposing policies that they rejected in office. Their transport policy is just another example.
The Conservatives say that they will publish a balance of account showing what the Government raise in transport taxes and how it is spent. That may be fine, but
the Conservatives never did it in 18 years of government. The Conservatives say that they will improve road maintenance. That is all well and good but, again, after 18 years of Conservative government, the roads were in the worst condition on record.The Conservatives say that they will save the tube through privatisation, but forget that they never did so when in office. In fact, they created a maintenance backlog of £1.2 billion. Right hon. and hon. Members do not have to take my word for it. The hon. Member for North Essex said in the House:
- We did not do enough for the tube--I would be the first to acknowledge that--[Official Report, 27 January 1999; Vol. 324, c. 436.]
The Conservatives do not say how any of their proposals can be achieved; they certainly do not say how they will pay for them. They say that they will talk up the railway and encourage investment. That must be how they will pay for their promises. That is the size of their strategy for investment in the railway service that they privatised.
As part of their fair deal for the motorist--or their joyriders' charter--the Conservatives propose allowing motorists to turn left on a red light, provided that it is safe to do so, to ease traffic flow. They will also be doing away with those irritating traffic-calming impediments. What is fair to the motorist will be fatal for the pedestrian.
It is clear to Liberal Democrats that, regrettably, the Government have so far failed to honour their pledge to develop an integrated transport policy so as to fight congestion and pollution. They promised to reduce traffic overall--so far they have failed. They no longer even aim to reduce traffic; they accept that the number of vehicles on our roads will continue to rise and that the amount of traffic will continue to increase.
In contrast, we are clear about the fact that traffic reduction is crucial to help us to meet our carbon dioxide emission targets. It is also crucial for business.
The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) referred to the costs of congestion charging schemes. That is a valid point, but he did not refer to the costs of congestion itself. The CBI estimates that it will cost industry about £20 billion a year--not an inconsequential sum.
Traffic reduction is also crucial in the reduction of death on our roads and of death and ill health caused by air pollution. The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to the obvious costs associated with that problem.
To sell off National Air Traffic Services in the face of opposition from pilots, air traffic controllers and more than 100 Labour Back Benchers is unnecessary.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |