§ 5. Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster)How many meetings he has had with passengers' interest groups in the last year about the 10-year transport plan. [105787]
§ The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. John Spellar)My right hon. Friend has had a number of meetings with passenger interest groups over the past year, at which a range of current transport issues were discussed.
§ Mr. WigginAfter listening to the answers to the previous question, particularly as it affects my constituents who still do not have disabled access to Leominster station, will the Minister tell the House why, after the Select Committee's comments on the 10-year plan—that it was "incoherent" and "incomprehensible", and that it
failed to provide a vision for a more equitable, safer, and more efficient transport system"—any passenger should believe that that has changed?
§ Mr. SpellarIf we looked at the hon. Gentleman's own constituency, we would find that his constituents have benefited from the rural bus challenge —[HON. MEMBERS: "Ten-year plan?"]. The 10-year plan applies to all modes of transport, as hon. Members should be aware. For its rail service, Leominster is on the Shrewsbury to Cardiff railway line. The A49 trunk road is a bypass and preparation is being made for a route management strategy for that road, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, carries much freight and is a vital north-south link. There is also a Leominster industrial access road. Those issues relate to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Being based near to Wales, he will know that the new franchising for Wales and the Borders has been widely welcomed. That shows that we are delivering. As the hon. Gentleman will have heard from previous answers, as well as delivering, we are insisting on value for money and ensuring that money put into the transport network, notably for rail, actually delivers a service.
§ Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South)On the assumption that the Minister has had discussions about rail safety with interest groups, will he tell the House what advice he gave those groups about the current disputes on rail safety assessments, in which the Strategic Rail Authority appears to be subsidising the nine employers disputing the case for improved safety standards, against the interests of the eight companies that have agreed to the improved standards? Does the SRA have any legal authority to intervene to provide public subsidy for employers in a private dispute?
§ Mr. SpellarMy hon. Friend was slightly incorrect when he said that eight companies have agreed to the new standards. The issue at stake is whether Railway Safety should reconsider the safety standard. Great North Eastern Railway and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers put the case to Railway Safety, which is already examining it. In other words, it is already in procedure. Given that it is in procedure, I find it incomprehensible, quite frankly, that we need disputes in other rail companies in order to get it 783 into procedure. The key issue is that it will be evaluated technically by Railway Safety, which will examine the views of several organisations, including those representing drivers as well as guards, and a standard will be agreed. I do not understand—and I doubt whether the travelling public understand—the need for a dispute when the matter is already under consideration.
§ Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York)The Secretary of State said that he wants to drive up reliability for rail passengers. Does the Minister of State accept that spending on Network Rail is going through the roof? From £21 billion, it is projected to go up by another £10 billion for this coming financial year alone, but standards of reliability and punctuality are falling through the floor. How long do train passengers have to wait, after six years of this Government, before standards of service improve?
§ Mr. SpellarWhat the hon. Lady should remember is that in the days of privatisation, 200 miles of track were replaced a year; BR replaced 300 miles of track, but Network Rail has to replace some 400 miles of track because of the historic underinvestment that was the Tory record, along with the fragmentation of the rail system. The hon. Lady has identified the early stages of assessment by Network Rail of what work needed to be done; at the same time, it has said that it needs better control of cost over-runs inherited from Railtrack. That is a very serious issue. Railtrack's inability to understand or control costs led to its demise. Network Rail has started to take some of the contracts back in-house so that it can get a better evaluation, and control over costs.
§ Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen, South)I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will listen to the views of disabled passengers when next he meets them. The level of service provided for disabled passengers by many train operators is still very far short of ideal. It is, in fact, quite appalling in some cases. My right hon. Friend may be shocked to find out that it is still possible for disabled passengers using wheelchairs to be loaded on to a train, only to discover that they cannot get off at the station for which they have bought a ticket. I know that that is true, because it happened to me only a few weeks ago. Will my right hon. Friend speak to the train operators to try and improve the service?
§ Mr. SpellarTo be fair to them, the train operators are normally receptive on this matter, especially when cases arise that demonstrate that the system is failing. I should be delighted if my hon. Friend gave me details of the case that she mentioned: not because she was involved, but because it shows that there has been a breakdown in the system. We need to work out why that happened, and I shall be delighted to take the matter up with the train operators.
§ Mr. Boris Johnson (Henley)Does the Minister agree that an essential part of the 10-year transport plan is cutting pollution and boosting renewable fuels? Has he been lobbying the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the past few days to bring in a further 20p cut in biofuels? 784 That would enable those fuels to compete directly at the forecourt with LPG, and provide us with a clean, green fuel that would be of great benefit to our farmers.
§ Mr. SpellarMy hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State takes a specialist—nay, obsessional—interest in these matters. He tells me that our fiscal record is the best in the world. Beyond that, it would be imprudent of Ministers to comment on such matters just prior to the Budget.