| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.27 pm
Mr. Michael Moore (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): It is a great privilege to follow the righthon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), who rightly focused most of his comments on the part privatisation proposals for National Air Traffic Services. I shall return to that theme later.
There has been a great deal of puff in recent days and weeks about 10-year visions and the great future for transport. The House is glad finally to be tackling serious legislation on transport. As other hon. Members have said, this is the first Transport Bill this Parliament, and many would argue that it is long overdue.
The House faces a huge task in considering the Bill. It has four major sections, some of which the Liberal Democrats will support, although we believe that the Bill has pulled its punches in certain respects, and that the proposals for NATS are seriously misguided. For that reason, we shall vote against Second Reading.
Across the country--no matter which part of the United Kingdom we represent--everyone is conscious of transport problems. They are part of people's everyday lives, whether they are stuck in traffic jams, sitting in clapped-out rail carriages, waiting for buses or connections or hanging around at airports. The problems of congestion, crumbling or failed infrastructure, inadequate services and lack of integration face every transport user every day, whether they use public or private transport.
Ultimately, the reason for many of the problems facing people on Britain's road, rail and air system is that there is too little choice. We recognise and welcome the fact that the Government are trying to redress the balance and to begin to tackle some of these important issues.
The Bill introduces local transport plans and gives them a statutory basis. We welcome the principle enshrined in the Bill. We think it will be a useful tool to tackle congestion, poor service provision and the lack of integration that typifies many community transport systems.
We also commend the fact that the Bill establishes targets for the reduction of pollution and traffic at local level. That is very good--although we are disappointed that the logic of that has not been extended to the establishment of national targets for traffic reduction. In recent days, the Minister for Transport has expressed a view which has been echoed here today, saying that the Government's targets now relate to slowing the rate of traffic growth, rather than to an actual and absolute reduction. The Deputy Prime Minister entered the debate this afternoon, but confused the issue again by saying--if I heard him correctly--that there would be fewer car journeys after his policies had taken effect. That sounds to me like a pledge to reduce traffic levels, which all Liberal Democrats would wholeheartedly support.
Funding the alternatives is of course crucial, but many people throughout the country are rightly sceptical about those alternatives, and about the objective of persuading travellers to use public transport. They think that at
present there is little opportunity for that, and they will continue to be sceptical about the Government's proposals until funds and provision have caught up with need, and real choices exist.
The Bill contains good proposals for buses. A key aspect of the implementation of local transport plans will be improvements in the quality and number of bus services, and response to customer requirements. We also welcome the huge boost for quality partnerships, which will be a cornerstone of future transport policy. We hope that powers will exist to enforce them, and to ensure that high standards are delivered. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) hopes to say something about open-top buses if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I will not detain the House by talking about that now.
We broadly welcome the proposed information and ticketing systems, and the new powers for traffic commissioners--especially the environmental aspects of those powers--but we shall want to examine them in more detail in Committee. We are disappointed by what is proposed for concessionary fares, however. We share the Government's desire for the introduction of such fares, but we are less happy about the delay that has occurred. Concessionary fares were first mentioned in 1998, and their introduction apparently requires only £25 million per annum--so why is it being delayed until 2001-02?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill):
It is a question of legislation.
Mr. Moore:
The Government have been keen to introduce certain measures ahead of legislation when they have considered them to be a good idea. We wish that they had done the same with the concessionary fares scheme, and we do not believe that this legislation will take a further year to introduce.
The proposals for road charging and workplace parking will clearly tackle head on the problems of congestion and a crumbling infrastructure. Although the plans are understandably controversial and will have to be implemented carefully, there is growing acceptance that, without charging, congestion will become worse, not better. Even the CBI, in its briefing for today's debate, says that it
Mr. Gray:
The hon. Gentleman supports congestion charging because he thinks that it will reduce the amount of traffic. What sort of drivers does he think will leave the roads as a result of such charging?
Mr. Moore:
I have said that I think that until people have alternatives to the car, which many in different parts of the country do not have at present, they will not be tempted to abandon it, but I do not wish to be quite as cynical as the hon. Gentleman: I hope that things will change over the next few years.
The key to road user charging and workplace parking must be additionality. The revenue must represent an extra resource for transport funding, and must not be seen as a replacement for other Government finance. Ministers have said that that is their intention, but, if that is to be believed and taken on board, we will have to ensure that there are agreed baselines for existing transport expenditure and equalisation between different areas of the country, as certain parts have enjoyed higher investment than others. Indeed, once those systems are implemented, it will be critical that areas with more scope for congestion charging have their revenues shared out and equalised with others that have less scope.
On the proposals for the Strategic Rail Authority, there is clearly a need to sort out the mess that privatisation has left behind--which is widely acknowledged except by Conservative Members. The Liberal Democratshave supported the shadow Strategic Rail Authority. Legislation for the SRA proper is also to be welcomed and encouraged. However, we require clarification--I hope that, in Committee, we will get it--on the respective roles and responsibilities of the SRA and the regulator, particularly over such things as the national rail inquiry service.
The Minister will probably be aware of concerns that the SRA's potential direct involvement with Railtrack could undermine train operating companies. Some anxiety has been expressed by both TOCs and Railtrack on that issue. It is important that we get further clarification as the Bill proceeds through the House.
Liberal Democrats would like to stress in particular that, although there is much to commend in the Bill, we regret the fact that the Government have not taken the opportunity to establish a strategic transport authority. The Bill repeatedly highlights the need to integrate local authorities' provision of transport service. We have already focused on the lack of national guidance or targets for traffic reduction. Opportunities should be seized now to integrate bus and train services and other modes of public transport, so we hope the Government will think again.
Dr. Godman:
On the question of a strategic transport authority, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for many of our coastal and island communities in Scotland, an important element of any integrated transport system is passenger ferry services? Does he agree that the Caledonian MacBrayne company performs that service, requires a decent subsidy and should remain in public ownership?
Mr. Moore:
I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman, whose argument will find echoes throughout the country and underlines the importance of a strategic transport authority to cover all the different aspects of transport throughout the country.
The issue of safety has dogged the transport debate over many years, but particularly since the Ladbroke Grove tragedy. We have heard Ministers talk about the fact that they are "minded" to remove the safety and standards directorate from Railtrack, and Liberal Democrats recognise that inquiries are on-going and that Ministers will wait for the results before they make final decisions.
We believe that the case for an independent safety body to tackle the issues of air, sea and rail has never been stronger. The Transport Sub-Committee has recommended it and we would endorse that recommendation. Again, we hope that, at some stage in the Bill's passage, the Government will consider the inclusion of such a body.
Safety is at the heart of the final part of the Bill to which I turn my attention: the part privatisation of NATS. The Liberal Democrats have made it clear that we oppose that part privatisation. Again, I stress the importance of the comments of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
I want to focus on three aspects of the argument: the undoubted need to finance the infrastructure that NATS requires over the next decade; the question whether private sector expertise is to be brought into the process; and the important issue of safety, which must not be forgotten.
I do not think that anyone denies that NATS needs substantial investment--today, the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned £1.3 billion; at briefings at NATS, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath and I were told that the figure is £1 billion over 10 years--but we are told that the money is not available, or that it would count against the public sector borrowing requirement, which would be unacceptable.
I should not like to underestimate the investment required--the sum is substantial, and will make the difference in determining whether NATS is able to progress and develop--but would point out the crucial fact that, at £100 million per annum, it amounts to less than 15 per cent. of the credit approvals announced last week as part of the one-year local transport plans. Therefore--relatively--the sum is not huge.
If the sum is truly an obstacle and there is no way round it, surely other structures short of privatising the air traffic services are possible and must be considered. The Select Committee drew attention to some options. Liberal Democrat Members favour an independent publicly owned corporation or a trust. However, the key feature in the debate is that, because of regulation and Eurocontrol, NATS has a guaranteed market and pricing, which makes it an attractive proposition for bond financing. Conversely, as other hon. Members have said, the growth potential of NATS is relatively restricted.
Liberal Democrat Members do not believe that the PSBR rules should get in the way of the investment. If that happened, it would be a case of accountancy getting in the way of real decisions. It would also undoubtedly give rise to the strong suspicion that the Treasury was simply protecting a holy grail, and that no one in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions could seriously tackle the issue.
With a highly regulated market and caps on pricing and growth opportunities, scope for a public-private partnership operator to increase revenue is limited. Consequently, cost pressures increase--which is the point at which concerns arise about safety. I have spoken to representatives of both management and unions at Prestwick, and they--particularly union representatives--do not understand or accept that one can bear down on costs without creating consequences for safety.
Private sector expertise has frequently been cited as the solution. Although Liberal Democrats would be the first to welcome the suggestion that the private sector should
have a role, we do not accept that the private sector is infallible. The prospect of using private sector expertise raises two issues: first, the lack of progress at Swanwick, and the major role played there by the private sector; and, secondly, the issue of what will happen to NATS' current management. Are the current management part of the Government's long-term or short-term plans, and who has the upper hand? To outsiders, the situation is very clear.
Although safety is an emotive topic, and we have to approach it with some sensitivity, the facts speak for themselves: the public sector record is first class, and the ethos of the personnel is beyond reproach. Many ordinary people will ask, "Why tamper with that highly successful arrangement?"
"supports the principle of congestion charging, but only if it brings demonstrable reductions in traffic and the revenue is ploughed back into transport improvement."
That returns us to the need for an absolute reduction in traffic, rather than a slowing down of the growth in the rate of traffic.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |