Previous SectionIndexHome Page

Tom Brake: I will dwell on that shortly. However, it is important to consider the way forward.

As I said, two Conservative Members of Parliament are standing in a leadership contest, and I looked for more up-to-date information on what they have to say about the railways. I checked out the website for the shadow Home Secretary. On 29 March, he listed 14 campaigns, all of which he seemed to have launched on that one day. The website did not list other campaigns since that date, which perhaps explains what is happening to his leadership campaign.

A rail campaign was listed. The right hon. Gentleman's website says:

Clearly, that is the beginnings of a transport policy. It is slightly constituency-centric and perhaps a little bit self-interested, but at least it is a start.

Damian Green (Ashford) (Con): The hon. Gentleman may care to reflect that the successful campaign that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) conducted on that issue enabled him to double his majority over the Liberal Democrats at the general election.

Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I repeat my view that basing one's transport policy on the need to secure direct trains from one's constituency to London is short-sighted.

I thought it appropriate to look at what the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said about transport policy, specifically rail. In part of his website headed "Quality of Life" he states:

Such a place, he goes on, is

That is the first part of the hon. Gentleman's transport policy. In a section on a dynamic economy he says:

He goes on to say:

That is the second part of the hon. Gentleman's transport policy, but it is sad that his website finds it necessary to state that spending on education and transport is

24 Oct 2005 : Column 55

Surely, even the most ardent supporters of the Conservative party could not fail to agree that stated goals such as ensuring that

and spending on transport

hardly constitute a transport policy. I looked for salvation in the Conservative manifesto entitled "Are you thinking what we're thinking?".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is in danger of going down a branch line. The debate is about the Government handling of decisions relating to Railtrack and the Prime Minister's amendment to the motion. The hon. Gentleman is not speaking directly to that at the moment.

Tom Brake: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I accept your point. It is worth, however, stating briefly that the Liberal Democrats agree with the Conservative manifesto about the need to bring

The incompetence demonstrated by the Conservative Government when they created Railtrack and privatised the railways does not exonerate Labour. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton identified some interesting facts, including the number of miles of new railway line to be built in the next few months. In 2007, 24 miles will be completed, so I assume that this year none will be built. He also told us that just three transport projects costing £500 million or more have commenced since 1997. Things were supposed to be different, as the 1997 Labour manifesto makes clear:

The Secretary of State may wish to comment on the need for convenient connections, which are not yet available at King's Cross, St. Pancras or in the Thameslink box. They will not be available at Stratford station unless a travelator is provided. And we await progress on through-ticketing in relation to the Oyster card.

A subject that Conservative speakers have repeatedly raised in this debate is the link with the Chancellor. They have asked whether he has had an active hand in everything surrounding Railtrack and its demise. The evidence that all lines lead to the Chancellor in relation to transport policy involves not Railtrack but the public-private partnership for the tube, but I shall not dwell on that subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you would probably call me to order. However, that partnership has not been a great success, and I do not imagine that the Chancellor will want to stress his involvement in it.

In a final comment on Labour's performance, I must point out that the Strategic Rail Authority was to have been the solution to these problems, and the body that would have ensured that the strategic planning infrastructure was appropriate. The Government announced the legislation to introduce the authority to
24 Oct 2005 : Column 56
great fanfare in 2000, but now, just a few years later, it has very inconveniently been disbanded, with millions having been handed over to consultants in the process.

A clear consensus is emerging that Britain's transport problems can be solved only by environmentally sustainable strategies, and that the railways will form an essential part of that solution. That is why this debate should have been about the future of the railways, not about things that have happened in the past. Those issues were examined in the court case, and the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges will consider the activities of the right hon. Member for North Tyneside, which is the appropriate course of action.

I did not agree with much of what the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton said, but I agree with him that the House is the place to redress grievances. They include those that were imposed by the decades of underinvestment in the railways—the delays, the cancellations and the overcrowding—that previous Conservative Governments inflicted on the travelling public, aided and abetted to a certain degree by the present Government. Those are the grievances that people want to see redressed today, but it is clear from the debate that people will remain dissatisfied. They will get only forced indignation and no humility from the Conservatives. The travelling public's grievances will have to be redressed on another day.

5.27 pm

Mr. Stephen Byers (North Tyneside) (Lab): I listened with great attention as the motion was moved by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). I spent just over three weeks in the High Court at the end of June and the beginning of July, and the hon. Gentleman's speech was a total rerun of every argument that was put before the court. There was nothing new in his contribution. None of the documents to which he referred was new or fresh. I think that he said that some of them had been leaked, but they were all disclosed to the public during the court proceedings. In relation to the evidence that was put before the court when I petitioned for administration, the bundle of all the documents that we put before the High Court was also put into the Library of the House by the end of October 2001. So all the details and documents have been made available to Members of the House and, indeed, to the wider public. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to say that the judge had complimented the Department on its full disclosure, including that of documents that would usually have had legal privilege attached to them and would not have been disclosed in the normal course of events.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton is now back in his place, and I have to say that I have had many insults in my time in politics, but to be called "weedy" by him really takes the biscuit.

Next Section IndexHome Page