---

Rail Safety Regulator

3. Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone) (Lab): What plans he has to revise the role of the independent rail safety regulator after completion of the rail review. [173495]

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The rail review is continuing to look at the regulation of safety. As I said in my statement to the House on 19 January, the Government will publish their proposals in the summer.

Mr. Clapham : Does my right hon. Friend agree that since the Health and Safety Commission took over the safety remit in 1990, there has been a steady improvement in safety? Does he agree that those who criticise the Health and Safety Executive for gold-plating safety on the railways are sending out the wrong signals to the public because they give the impression that safety is not the priority?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that safety must be in with the bricks. It is absolutely fundamental to the running of the railway, as it is to other parts of the transport sector. Undoubtedly, however, there are too many organisations involved in rail safety and we need to look at that in the review. When the HSE wrote to me at the time of my announcement, it made the point that there was a plethora of industry standards, some of which were over-cautious or applied in an over-cautious way. The culture of safety is of concern to the railway industry, but we must make sure that we have a far more
 
18 May 2004 : Column 809
 
streamlined system of responsibility. That works in other parts of the transport industry and it can work in the railways.

Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): If we cut away all the waffle, is not the Secretary of State attacking the regime put in place by his own Government and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers)? Is it not true that the Government got it wrong and still do not know what to do? As privatisation took place 10 years ago and his Government have been in power for seven of those years, does not the blame for current problems on our rail network clearly rest with him? Will he come clean and admit to the House that, on railways, Labour has let the country down?

Mr. Darling: I notice that the hon. Gentleman could not keep his face straight. I say to him in the nicest possible way that in the months following the loss of his last seat, he must have reflected on the reasons for that loss; rail privatisation might have been one. He says that the Government do not know what we want to do. I have just been reading an article in The House magazine by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May)—who, sadly, is not with us today—in which she states Conservative policy; it is to wait and see what the review comes up with.

For a number of years, we tried to make the system that we inherited work. I tried to do that, but I came to the view that if I asked myself whether the system would last for the next 20 or 30 years, the answer was no. It is clear from the review and all the representations that people are looking for a more streamlined, straightforward structure. The way in which privatisation was carried out was a disaster; this country has paid a heavy cost, both financially and in terms of organisation. That is something we are sorting out.

Mr. John Smith (Vale of Glamorgan) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend assure me that whatever plans he has for reviewing rail safety, he will try to make sure that they are in place by May next year when we plan to open the Vale of Glamorgan railway line for a passenger service for the first time since Beeching shut it in the 1960s? May I invite my right hon. Friend to join me on the inaugural journey across the Porthkerry viaduct, through beautiful Rhoose, Aberthaw, Llanilltyd Fawr, Llandow and on and on?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has received the invitation.

Freight Transport

4. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): What his policy is on encouraging more freight to be transported around the UK through south coast ports. [173496]

The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): The Government are keen to see freight transported by water rather than road where this makes sense. Our water freight grant scheme offers help towards investments, including port facilities, where
 
18 May 2004 : Column 810
 
these will allow freight traffic to be transported by sea or inland waterway rather than by road. The scheme can fund facilities at any port.

Tim Loughton : I am glad to hear the Minister's enthusiasm for sea transport. He will be intimately aware of the capacity of Shoreham harbour, in my constituency, for bringing aggregates and other building materials by sea for use along the south coast nearby. However, getting freight into Shoreham harbour by water will be successful only if we have the road infrastructure to get it out and distribute it. In the interests of joined-up thinking in his Government, will the Minister bring pressure to bear on his transport colleagues to ensure that road improvements around Shoreham harbour, and especially a proper link road to the A27 trunk road, go ahead? Without those, the Shoreham harbour maritime vision will simply be unworkable.

Dr. Howells: I shall certainly pass that communication to my right hon. and hon. Friends, and reassure them that there is one member of the Conservative party who obviously does not subscribe to the £600 million cuts that his party's policy will bring to transport.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab): My hon. Friend will know that we are rapidly running out of capacity in the south-east ports, which is a matter of great concern. Will he give me an undertaking that no more decisions will be taken on ports development unless there is a clear and firmly adhered-to plan to expand capacity, rather than to cut it back?

Dr. Howells: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that we must judge each application on its merits. Sometimes, when there are internationally recognised environmentally sensitive areas that must be protected, we have to take inspectorates' judgments very seriously. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of the need to have adequate ports throughout the country to ensure that we can trade properly. We are one nation in the world that depends, probably more than all others, on our ability to trade across seas.

Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): Is it not clear that on ports policy, as on so many other policies, Labour has let this country down? Why is it that in respect of three key south-coast ports—Dover, Shoreham and Poole—the Minister's Department has not even been prepared to agree with the Treasury definition of those ports as public corporations, which is inhibiting vital investment?

Dr. Howells: In the port of Shoreham, for example—I know that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) hoped that I would say more in my answer to him—we are definitely considering an application for an award of freight grant relating to facilities there. I must say to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that this Government take the problems of ports very seriously. They were
 
18 May 2004 : Column 811
 
neglected badly under the previous Government, but this Government will ensure that we have adequate port facilities so that we can trade properly.

Mr. Bill O'Brien (Normanton) (Lab): When considering the development of south-east coast ports, will my hon. Friend also consider all the other ports around the country? Inland waterways are one means of transporting freight and taking the pressure off our roads. My hon. Friend will be aware of the recent launch of a large freight-carrying vessel for our inland waterways, and we need more of those if we are to succeed. Will he support that programme?

Dr. Howells: Yes, indeed. We are very interested in helping the technology that must be developed to carry big loads, including on inland waterways. Our freight grants programme provides help towards the capital costs of equipment such as cranes where that investment will help to make water transport a viable alternative to roads. That applies to inland waterways and coastal shipping. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that this year's budget is £9.5 million. In the past two years, we have awarded 12 new water freight grants worth just over £3.5 million. Those grants will save about 17 million lorry miles during the next 10 years.

A1

5. Mr A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): If he will meet the A1 Safelink campaign to discuss future strategy for the A1 north of Newcastle. [173497]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): Yes, I will be happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman and a small delegation of representatives from the Safelink campaign group.

Mr. Beith: I look forward to that meeting. Will the Minister prepare for it by examining the A1's strategic importance to industrial development in the north-east, which is recognised by all those involved in regeneration work? Will he also take into account the increasing importance attached to the A1 by the Scottish Executive, who pointed out in the national planning framework for Scotland the importance of improving road and rail links between Edinburgh and Newcastle, and Aberdeen and Newcastle, in terms of regeneration in both countries?

Mr. Jamieson: The right hon. Gentleman will know that according to the A1 multi-modal study, which represents the local voice on this issue, there are fewer accidents on that road than on many others. It has also been said that dualling from Alnwick to Berwick is not justified in terms of traffic or of economic benefits, but that does not mean that we are not undertaking substantial work on the A1 in that area; indeed, the Stannington and Seaton Burn junctions, the Morpeth to Felton dualling and the Adderstone to Felton dualling constitute £106 million-worth of work. But as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, in the light of the study and the view expressed by the Scottish Executive, further work is not thought to have any economic benefit.
 
18 May 2004 : Column 812
 

---