| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Highway Maintenance
4. Mr. Ian Stewart (Eccles): What response he has received from local government to his proposals on highway maintenance. [138938]
8. Mr. Ivan Henderson (Harwich): What plans he has to deal with the repair backlog on roads. [138942]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Local government has welcomed the significant increases in resources nationally for capital expenditure on local road maintenance. As set out in "Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan", we are committed to providing sufficient funds to tackle the backlog of expenditure--estimated at £9 billion--on carriageway, footway, bridge and street lighting maintenance in the next 10 years.
Mr. Stewart: That statement will be welcomed by my constituents in Eccles. Does it mean that local government in Salford and Greater Manchester will not have to continue the daft practice of building much-needed road calming measures on roads that are full of potholes and craters? My hon. Friend mentioned street lighting. Will he assure me that the improvement in street lighting will benefit the people of my constituency, particularly the elderly, as it will improve security and safety?
Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the warm welcome that he gave to our announcement on roads maintenance. He will be aware that the previous Conservative Government left our local roads in their worst state of maintenance since records began. To restore the backlog in roads maintenance, we are providing over the next 10 years an extra £9 billion, which is 41 per cent. above current funding. In the same period, we shall also clear the appalling backlog in street lighting. Next year alone in Eccles and Salford, road maintenance funding will increase by no less than 87 per cent. The end of potholes is in sight for the people of Eccles and Salford, and, in due course, they will be able to see their well maintained roads.
Mr. Henderson: May I tell my hon. Friend the Minister how welcome the massive increase in road funding is to Essex? By 2003, it will treble to £15 million the amount given to Essex. I hope that my constituents in the villages of Parkeston and Jaywick will benefit from the increases, which should help them with the poor roads and street lighting left by the Conservative party. Has my hon. Friend received any feedback from Essex county council on that good news for Essex?
Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is right; the increase is excellent news for Essex. I am bound, however, to refer to a news release published on the day of the announcement. It appears on Conservative central office notepaper and was written by the leader of Essex council, a certain Lord Hanningfield. It is headed "Too little, too late". The noble Lord went on to say:
- This isn't new money at all.
-
That contrasts with the same day's news release from his cabinet member for transportation, Councillor Ron Williams. That document is headed "Major boost for road maintenance". Councillor Williams went on to say:
This is really good news for Essex. We must now look carefully at how we can invest this large settlement in the most cost-effective way to ensure greatest benefits are achieved.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire): That was great knockabout stuff from the Minister. I am most grateful to him for repeating a press release written by one of his Labour stooges. [Hon. Members: "He is a Tory."] He may call himself a Tory; nevertheless my point remains.
Will the Minister explain whether we are talking about new money from central Government, or supplementary credit approval, which will mean that local government, rather than central Government, has to incur debt?
Mr. Hill: Borrowing approvals are the standard means by which the Government fund local authority capital spending. The costs of repayment and interest on the borrowing are funded through the revenue support grant settlement. Using borrowing approvals gives authorities more flexibility in using their resources. Indeed, they have been seeking such flexibility. I suppose that that is why the approvals were introduced by the previous Government.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury): Will the Minister comment on the ruling in another place that local authorities will not be required to grit their roads this winter? That could have a major effect on my constituents. My area contains the Winsford rock salt mine, the country's sole supplier of rock salt for gritting roads, so jobs could be at stake there. In addition, the ruling raises many serious issues about cutting corners and putting lives at risk.
Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. We are aware of the judgment to which he referred, and we are studying its implications carefully. We hope to make an announcement in due course.
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge): Does my hon. Friend have any plans to return to local authorities powers to co-ordinate the disruption caused by utilities? In Cambridge there has been complete gridlock during the past few weeks, as every major road into the city has been dug up by a different utility.
Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend makes an extremely serious point that is universally understood. Street works are a problem in all our cities throughout the country. First, my hon. Friend will be aware that the New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991 allows local authorities to charge utilities for overstaying in street works. We hope to introduce regulations to implement that shortly.
Secondly, my hon. Friend will know also that the Transport Bill contains provisions for lane rental, which is widely supported. We have said that we will hold those
provisions as reserve powers for the time being, but if co-ordination of street works by utilities does not improve, those powers may be invoked in due course.Rail Service Disruption
5. Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): If he will make a statement on recent disruption to rail services. [138939]
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Following meetings with the Strategic Rail Authority, myself and the Prime Minister, the industry promised a steady improvement in rail services as part of the national track recovery plan. At the most recent meeting, yesterday afternoon, Railtrack told us that it had checked two thirds of the entire track length--about 14,000 miles--including all known sites suffering from gauge corner cracking.
Railtrack has rerailed more than a third of the track identified for rerailing--that is about 110 miles. It has managed to remove 260 speed restrictions and raised the speed limit from 20 mph to 40 mph on another 139 miles. My right hon. Friend and I restated the need to return the network to normal as soon as possible, get a robust Christmas timetable in place, improve information for passengers and provide greater clarity on compensation for daily and weekly passengers. I am sure that the House will agree that all that must be carried out at the proper level of safety.
Mr. Fabricant: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that helpful and full answer. He will no doubt have heard of the incident last night in which a journey from London to Nottingham, which should have taken two hours, took nine. A trainload of passengers stayed in the train overnight, in darkness and without any heating. That event, of course, is not unique. Has he made any calculations about the number of people who previously travelled by rail, but who now travel by road? Does he agree with his Department's own statistics, which show that the number of fatalities on the roads is 12 times as high as the number on the railways? What is his assessment of the number of additional fatalities on the roads that will result from the disruption?
Mr. Prescott: The whole House is concerned about the time that journeys can take, including the incident that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The House wants the railways to return to normal operations on safe railway lines. Hon. Members will be aware from our statements that it is necessary properly to check faults on our railway system. We are doing that as fast as we can, and we are talking to the industry about whether it can be done any faster while maintaining a safe and proper operation.
Clearly, a lot more people are travelling by car, and congestion will obviously increase--we can already see that happening. I have made no estimate of the increase in death rates, but I shall examine our figures and send an estimate to the hon. Gentleman. In terms of casualties and deaths, we know that railways are safer than roads, but we must keep our eye on the ball and try to improve the railway system.
Dr. David Clark (South Shields): As my right hon. Friend is aware, the days leading up to Christmas are among the busiest on the railways. What discussions is he
having with the rail authorities about establishing contingency plans to meet those needs at this very busy time?
Mr. Prescott: We have been making it clear to the industry for a couple of weeks that we want a sustainable Christmas timetable. Longer journeys are clearly involved because speed restrictions are placed on lines and because it takes some time for the necessary repair work to be completed. Most passengers do not mind longer journeys, although they would prefer shorter ones, but they want to know reliable times for setting off and arriving. That is what we are trying to provide. We are also talking to the industry about a timetable for the Christmas services, which will be announced shortly.
Mr. Don Foster (Bath): Further to the answer given to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that the nine-hour train journey from London to Nottingham provides yet more evidence of the Government's failure to get to grips with the chaos that was caused by the Tory privatisation of our railways? Does not that set alarm bells ringing for the right hon. Gentleman over his continued dogmatic plans to privatise other parts of our transport services, especially National Air Traffic Services? Will he agree to withdraw those plans to show his commitment to a safe transport service?
Mr. Prescott: I think we shall be debating that later.
Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle): In the context of the present chaos on the railways, which is due mainly to the Conservatives' privatisation, may I point out that it now takes seven hours to travel from my constituency to London? It used to take my father the same time to drive a steam train on that line. Will my right hon. Friend consider proposals to bring Railtrack into public ownership?
Mr. Prescott: As I have said, I am of course concerned about the length of journeys, but I have explained why I consider it necessary to carry out a thorough investigation of the track, and to invest in safe railway lines. We hope to have completed the investigation by the end of this year, or at least by the beginning of next year.
As my hon. Friend is well aware, the Government agreed at the outset not to renationalise rail. Our argument, which I have deployed in the House, was that providing £6 billion of compensation was not the right way of using public resources at that time. If we consider the possibility now, we must envisage two years of negotiations in the House. Moreover, I do not think that a renationalisation Bill is the people's first priority. They want a safe, operational railway with proper accountability. That is embodied in the Transport Bill--which we shall debate this afternoon--with the Strategic Rail Authority and other measures allowing us to exercise the necessary controls. It is a pity that the Tories and the Liberals have opposed those measures.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex): Does not the present crisis on the railway demonstrate that railway disruption is a daily crisis for hundreds of thousands of passengers, and, indeed, for the tens of thousands of staff who bear the brunt of passengers' daily complaints?
Let me point out to the Deputy Prime Minister that the railway was not handed over to him in a state of crisis. But does it not behove all politicians to apologise for the decades of under-investment, and to apologise for the way in which the railway has been handled in recent years? Is it not--[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members not to shout at the hon. Gentleman while he is speaking.
Mr. Jenkin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Is it not the responsibility of Ministers now to work with the rail industry, and to help to pull it together in an atmosphere of co-operation? No industry can survive the political assault that the Secretary of State has mounted on this industry year in, year out since coming to office.
May I also ask whether, having got rid of one chief executive of Railtrack, the right hon. Gentleman will now stop briefing against the new one?
Mr. Prescott: I think the whole House is aware, from constituents' reports and from their own experience, that travelling by rail is terrible at present. We can only hope to improve that. We apologise to the staff who are working hard to return the system to normal--we admire their efforts--and we apologise to the passengers who are suffering.
I cannot accept, however, that the rail industry was passed to us in a good state. By whatever means we measure the crisis, if we are talking about resources and investment we must conclude that the real problem with Railtrack--this is why we are spending so much time investigating the track--is the lack of investment during two decades of Tory Government.
As for the question of whether enough accountability and control existed under the last Administration, I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that it did not. I understood him to say that the fragmentation of the industry was wrong, and that the privatisation had proved to be wrong. Now he is trying to tell us that his party passed to us a railway in a good state.
We have said that we do not want to renationalise the railway. We are introducing a Strategic Rail Authority in legislation that was opposed by the Opposition when it first came to the House of Commons, and also in the House of Lords. The extra powers that we are providing to ensure that we have a proper organisation and can prevent fragmentation, and the £60 billion investment in the railway, are beyond anything that was thought up during two decades of Tory Government.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |