| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Speaker: Order. The House has had a very happy knockabout, but I do not recall personalities being in the Queen's speech. Perhaps we can get on and deal with the subject before us.
Mr. Prescott: It is the Government's preference to deal with the substance of policy.
Mr. Michael Heseltine (Henley): On reflection, the Deputy Prime Minister may feel that he was a little unfair to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) in saying that the question that was asked about the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) was irrelevant because he had, in his earlier speech, mentioned the fact that we got rid of the Greater London Council in the early 80s. I was the Secretary of State who--on reflection, I believe wisely--recommended to the Cabinet that we get rid of the GLC. One reason we did so was that the hon. Member for Brent, East was then the leader of the GLC, and he represented an uncontrollable left-wing influence that was damaging to London.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain one simple point? What is the difference between what I did, which was to get rid of the GLC and its leader--now the hon. Member for Brent, East--and what this Labour Government are trying to do, which is to stop the hon. Member for Brent, East becoming London mayor? Is not the only real difference that I succeeded but they will fail?
Madam Speaker:
Order. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to deal with the subject before us. As I said earlier, we have had a nice knockabout, but there is a serious debate before us.
Mr. Prescott:
Thank you, Madam Speaker, but the abolition of the GLC is an important issue because we are restoring London local government. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said that he abolished the GLC because of the personality of its leader, without regard to the wishes of Londoners for an authority. It would have been a lot better to consult the people of London on whether they wanted to get rid of their local government.
Another important issue is particularly relevant to this debate. When the Tory Government took over from the GLC, they failed to find the finance for London Underground. They nationalised it when they took over the GLC and took responsibility for investment. That is why we now have a major problem of £7 billion of
disinvestment in the underground system. That was not a clever move and it was certainly to the disadvantage of London.
One feature of our Bill will be hypothecation. What is the position of the Conservatives on that? They might say that they are not in favour of congestion charging--we shall wait to see how that argument develops--but are they totally against hypothecation, under which any money raised goes directly to improving public transport? We think that that is the right policy. It is a radical departure and a fundamental change in transport financing. We are looking at congestion charging and, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced recently, any money raised by increases in fuel duty above the rate of inflation will go towards improving public transport. That is a welcome new form of finance and it is very different from the Tories approach to transport when they were in government.
Mr. Jenkin:
You are spending less.
Mr. Prescott:
Yes, spending less; it is the same thing. The Tories are obsessed with a market-led solution. They presided over the disintegration of our national bus network and years of underfunding. In contrast, this Government have found more money for the public transport system. That is why we are beginning to see, for the first time, a reversal of the decline in the number of people using buses. We are beginning to get the necessary resources. At the bus summit last week, the industry committed itself to £380 million of investment--equivalent to 8,500 new buses--because, as the industry would tell the Conservatives if they discussed the matter with it, we have given a vote of confidence in the public transport system.
We envisage the industry playing a central role. Evidence of investment and the integration of transport at local level are becoming apparent. All that is encouraged by local authorities working with bus companies in the quality partnerships that came about under the previous Administration. Where that approach is failing, our Bill will provide powers for statutory quality contracts, better road architecture, more information for passengers and better buses, which will improve the bus service.
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to improve the quality of bus services--particularly in my constituency, where Stagecoach services have been branded a disgrace bythe traffic commissioner--is through co-operative competition, which will be promoted by compulsory cross-ticketing? Bus companies should not be able to freeze out a competitor by refusing to cross-ticket and refusing to compete.
Mr. Prescott:
Those are important issues. To get the best out of the bus system, we have to have cross-ticketing and information on through travel. The industry has been pressing us for that. Some companies feel that statutory quality contracts may be one way to achieve improvements, in partnership with local authorities.
The Bill will establish the Strategic Rail Authority. There is unanimous support for that. I read the evidence given by the hon. Member for North Essex to the Transport Sub-Committee. Many questions were raised.
I do not think that he said that he was fundamentally against the idea; he seemed to believe that it was a useful idea, but did not want it to be used in the way in which I might use it. We have to reassure hon. Members about such matters. I have told the House several times that neither the authority nor I want to renationalise the railways, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I think that the right hon. Member for Wokingham quoted the chairman of the shadow authority on that.
The Select Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) gave us a great deal of advice on the Strategic Rail Authority. As a shadow authority, it has already begun to renegotiate the franchises to ensure that in future they guarantee greater investment and new trains and services.
As the Queen's Speech made clear, following the recent tragedy at Paddington the Government will ensure that rail safety is a top priority. I am sure that that is the wish of the whole House. Rail is the safest form of land transport, being 15 times safer than travelling by car, but we are determined to make it safer and to re-establish public confidence. After the Ladbroke Grove tragedy, I set in motion urgent action to achieve a more open, responsive and rigorous safety culture throughout the rail industry. As part of that, I have asked for monthly reports on signals passed at danger, which I shall place in the Libraries of both Houses; the first will be made available this afternoon.
That report gives statistics on SPADs for the past 10 years and splits the figures by month. Annual figures show that the total fell gradually from 1993-94 until an 8 per cent. increase occurred in 1998-99. Monthly figures demonstrate the cyclical nature of the problem, with SPADs tending to peak in October and November when damp conditions can lead to poor braking performance. This October, there were five serious incidents, comprising 7 per cent. of the monthly total. However, this October's total was significantly lower than those of the preceding 10 years. Nevertheless, we cannot be complacent. As Ladbroke Grove demonstrated all too clearly, a single SPAD can result in catastrophe.
In addition to the industry investigating every single SPAD, the Health and Safety Executive will thoroughly investigate more serious SPADs, for example, when a train breaches the safety rules and there is an overlap at signals. That is why at last month's rail summit I sought from the industry a commitment to reduce the number of such SPADs, and why, in its report to be submitted to me on 30 November, I shall expect nothing less than a detailed programme of action, on which I shall report back to the House. I have also asked Sir David Davies to undertake a review of the train protection system. All those important steps will improve safety.
Another recommendation of the Transport Sub-Committee was a proposed Bill to deliver safety improvements in aviation by separating the operation of National Air Traffic Services from safety regulation. The Government will never compromise on safety and the measure will enhance one of the most robust systems of aviation safety regulation in the world. Our preferred option on how to achieve the partnership we want is to secure safety regulation strictly in public hands and to
split the shares as follows: 49 per cent. publicly held, 5 per cent. held by workers, and 46 per cent. in private hands.
We are now openly discussing those deals and also alternative proposals advanced by the trade unions. We shall have a Government-appointed director on the board, a golden share and a veto built into the licence to protect safety in the public interest. Those are matters of concern, but let no one doubt our commitment to safety or try to stir up safety concerns for ideological or industrial ends.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |