British Rail (Hansard, 23 April 1990)

§ 7. Mr. Nicholas Bennett
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters he proposes to discuss.

§ 12. Mr. Foulkes
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters he proposes to discuss.

§ Mr. Parkinson
I plan to meet the chairman of British Rail on Wednesday 25 April when we will discuss a variety of railway issues.

§ Mr. Bennett
I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. When he meets the chairman of British Rail, will he make it clear that BR's proposals to continue as a monopoly after privatisation are unacceptable to many Conservative Members? We seek a system whereby there would be some form of competition from a track authority so that others besides British Rail had an opportunity to provide a vital service to the public.

§ Mr. Parkinson
As my hon. Friend knows, the structure of a possibly privatised British Rail is under consideration. I shall take into account what he says.

§ Sir Peter Emery
When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Rail, will he discuss with him the improvements necessary on a number of lines, particularly that from the southern railway down to Exeter, and the need for electrification of that line? If the whole of the track cannot be doubled, at least there should be more passing places in the area between Salisbury and Exeter.

§ Mr. Parkinson
As my hon. Friend knows, there will be a great deal of investment in British Rail over the next three years. It is part of a programme of capital investment that has been building up. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the chairman.

§ Mr. Strang
Will the Secretary of State discuss with the chairman the sense of shame felt by many people throughout Britain at the contrast between this Government's handling of the channel tunnel and that of the French Government? When will the Government recognise that the channel tunnel is a strategic national project and that we want the fastest possible link between the continent and the north of Scotland with the minimum 8 of damage to the amenities of residents near the route? Is he aware that that can be done within the Government sector, funded and controlled by the Government?

§ Mr. Parkinson
The Government learnt a lesson from publicly funded civil engineering projects when the Thames flood barrier was built. It was meant to cost £40 million and to be built in four years. It cost £435 million and was built in eight and a half years. The contract had to be renegotiated three times. We are about taxpayers' money, which is why we will not listen to the nonsense that the hon. Gentleman is talking.

§ Mr. Gregory
When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he impress on him the fact that the Government are supporting British Rail to the greatest amount in real terms in a quarter of a century and that employees in many railway cities, particularly York, are frustrated that they cannot participate in the success of that great industry, although their colleagues in British Rail Engineering and Sealink have already had the benefit of privatisation?

§ Mr. Parkinson
I thank my hon. Friend for so typically speaking in support of British Rail while all we get from the Opposition is grossly ill-informed criticism. We have a huge investment programme and are backing British Rail to an extent that no previous Labour Government did. The problem is that we have a couple of innumerate Opposition Front-Bench Members who do not understand the figures.

§ Mr. Prescott
Is the Secretary of State aware that the annual report of Eurotunnel, published today, which I hope he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail, has shown that costs have almost doubled in three to four years and that the requirement that it should be privately financed and organised has meant that it has inadequate management and finance? Will he assure the chairman of British Rail that the Eurorail link will not face the same restrictions of that ideological requirement, that is, private control and private finance?

§ Mr. Parkinson
My earlier point, which the hon. Gentleman once again did not understand, is that if huge projects are carried out in the public sector, it is a recipe for gigantic cost overruns. If this was in the public sector we should be talking about costs, not doubling, but trebling or quadrupling. The sooner he realises that public sector——

§ Mr. Prescott
Costs have doubled in three years.

§ Mr. Parkinson
I pointed out that the cost of the Thames barrier multiplied 10 times in eight years.

§ Mr. Gerald Bowden
When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Rail on Wednesday 25 April, will he impress on him the importance of a channel tunnel rail link that serves the whole United Kingdom, not one that terminates at King's Cross and serves only the development of the King's Cross site?

§ Mr. Parkinson
I am afraid that my hon. Friend will not find a great deal of support for that proposal from the whole Opposition. We get many representations from northern Members who say that if the terminus were transferred to Stratford, it would be unattractive to those from the north and that King's Cross is the chosen site. That is partially, indeed only slightly, to do with the 9 redevelopment of King's Cross and massively to do with connecting the whole United Kingdom to the channel tunnel.

§ Mr. Foulkes
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you take my question separately as the Department of Transport informed me only two minutes before I came into the Chamber that it was to be taken together with question No. 7?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am afraid that I cannot do that.

§ Mr. Foulkes
Why not?

§ Mr. Speaker
Because the hon. Gentleman had a letter from the Department. I have no idea when it was posted, but I would expect any hon. Member who has a question on the Order Paper to be present for Question time from the beginning.