To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in respect of his plans to allow trust ports to move into the private sector.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in respect of his plans to enable trust ports to be privatised.

I believe that we should now build on the resounding success of the abolition of the dock labour scheme. To open up the ports industry further to market forces I want to see the main trust ports transfer into private ownership. I therefore intend to introduce a Bill in the current Session to allow trust ports to move into the private sector without the need to promote private legislation.

Will my right hon. Friend accept a strong welcome from Conservative Members for the enabling legislation that he is proposing? Will he join me in congratulating Tees and Hartlepool port authority on having been one of the first to put a Bill before the House, paving the way for others? Does he agree that the extension of private ownership to the trust ports represents a tremendous expansion of the business opportunities available to them?

Yes, I do. The present constitution of the trusts ports inhibits their development. The sooner they have a proper structure and are in the private sector, the better they will be able to develop, expand, create jobs and aid industry.

May I urge upon my right hon. Friend the importance of ensuring that when trust ports are privatised provision is made to allow dock workers and other port employees to obtain shares on favourable terms? That would do a great deal to make privatisation of the trust ports popular with those who work in them.

The Bill will encourage trust ports to come forward with their own schemes for privatisation. We shall have to approve those schemes; an important part of any scheme will be giving dock workers an opportunity to own shares in the ports in which they work. That has been a tremendous success in the case of Associated British Ports and it will be in others.

What will happen to the disgusting Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, which has created a lot of trouble in the House and led to the introduction of this measure? The interesting question is: how far can we trust trusts if measures such as this are to be introduced? And what implications are there for the national health service?

The only disgusting feature of that Bill was the mindless opposition to it by Opposition Members, including the hon. Gentleman. Even the hon. Gentleman's stretched imagination is roaming a bit far if it brings the health service into this question.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the port of Poole is a trust port in an area of great environmental beauty and sensitivity. Will he assure me that he will consult local authorities and other bodies before bringing in any element of compulsion in connection with privatisation that might put the environment at risk?

There will be no change in the environmental regulations governing ports and there will be no relaxation of standards. An important part of any proposals will have to be the protection of those environmental concerns—but I shall take my hon. Friend's point into account.

Why did not the Secretary of State tell us anything about the Treasury? Are not the proposals really all about asset-stripping the land and taking the money into the Treasury? How much money does he intend to raise from that? How can he reconcile the proposal with the special responsibility that trust ports have towards the local community and, more importantly, to the local economy, with an integrated transport system?

I welcome the hon. Lady to the Opposition Front Bench and congratulate her on already setting a standard that her colleagues have never managed to attain. The measure is being promoted so that trust ports, which have very ancient constitutions and whose development is presently hampered, can get on with the business of being the modern ports that they are capable of being, now that we have got rid of the dock labour scheme. The Treasury share is incidental.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current rail electrification programme.

British Rail is making good progress with its electrification programme. The electrification of the east coast main line will be completed in late spring next year, and other projects such as Tonbridge-Redhill and Birmingham cross-city are being implemented.

Does my hon. Friend think that British Rail is responding with the necessary courage and imagination to the challenge and opportunities of the channel tunnel and 1992? In particular, is it considering the ultimate necessity for an electrified link all the way via north Wales to Ireland?

I shall take the latter point first. It is for British Rail to come forward with investment propositions. We shall certainly look at InterCity propositions that are presented as being financially viable. The French Minister responsible for transport, to whom I recently spoke, said that when French railways appraises inter-city trains, it uses exactly the same basis as we use—the 8 per cent. financial rate of return. British Rail will invest some £1·4 billion to prepare this country for the opening of the channel tunnel. When it brings forward proposals for a high-speed rail link, the Government will look at them favourably, constructively and urgently.

Is the Minister seriously saying that, for example, on the Paris to Strasbourg TGV route, French railways is employing the same restrictive criteria as British Rail? Surely it is the Government who are responsible for regional policy and who should therefore look at ways in which regional rail investment can be fitted into overall regional policy. Will the Minister look as positively as French railways at areas such as the south Wales route for electrification, to ensure that Britain can benefit from the channel tunnel?

I confirm what I said earlier about the attitude and approach of French railways and the French Ministry of Transport to the provision of rail services between capitals. In terms of the basis of proposals for provincial services, the hon. Gentleman may know that only 50 per cent. of total rail investment over the next three years has had to meet the 8 per cent. real rate of return test. The other 50 per cent. has been justified for largely non-financial reasons. That is to say, it takes into account the benefits to non-users and, certainly, the economic and social benefits to the cities, regions and towns that such rail projects serve.

In thanking my hon. Friend for his answer, may I tell him that there will be despair not just among my constituents but among those throughout the Bradford metropolitan area and all hon. Members involved if electrification stops at Leeds? If one city has benefited under the Government it is Bradford, and we need electrification to encourage the further development of a thriving economy.

I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that the Government will reserve the appropriate resources to permit the electrification of the railway line between Leeds and Bradford and between Skipton and Likely. I am happy to confirm the electrification to my hon. Friend and to others who have pressed me on it—my hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who is not in his place.

Ms. Ruddock.

indicated dissent

What about me?

Then I definitely call Mr. Robert Hughes.

Will the Minister please get his facts right? The east coast main line electrification will not be completed at the time that he states, because it goes only as far as Edinburgh. There can be no confidence either in British Rail or in the Government if they persist with such misinformation, especially when British Rail is cutting services and seems to be about to cut freight services to Aberdeen.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the advent of the electrification of the east coast main line to Edinburgh. That will cut substantially the journey time between London and Edinburgh. As I have told the hon. Gentleman before, it is for British Rail to present a case on the extension of the electrification of the line to Aberdeen. We shall look carefully at any case that it presents, but InterCity services must meet the test that I outlined of an 8 per cent. real rate of return. We shall look at other factors, including regional and social benefits and alleviation of congestion for services other than those that we call the commercial railway, and take them into account.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to open up more transatlantic services from United Kingdom regional airports.

The Government recognise the importance of regional airports. An agreement was reached in June, which provided new opportunities for transatlantic services from regional airports. Official talks are to start tomorrow in Washington on the prospects for further liberalising the United Kingdom—United States aviation relationship on transatlantic services. That could open the way for any suitable United Kingdom airport to be used.

Does my hon. Friend agree that good transatlantic links can be of considerable importance in opening up regional centres such as Manchester and Birmingham for commercial and industrial development? My hon. Friend has been most successful in that so far. Will he continue with it? Will he confirm that that is not a substitute for further airport capacity in the south-east of England?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance for the regions of transatlantic services. It is thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that in June we managed to get the agreement that made a significant advance. We intend to build on that in the talks that start tomorrow. I understand what my hon. Friend said about additional capacity in the south-east. A report on that was published last year, which we are studying and working on.

Does the Minister agree that much of the increased congestion at Heathrow is caused by people from other parts of the United Kingdom being brought in on shuttle flights so that they can then fly on to the United States? Would not it be better and quicker if the flights went direct from places such as Manchester to the United States? Would not that avoid some of the congestion in the south-east and bring the necessary investment to the Greater Manchester area that we all want?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I should go further and say that it is important that we concentrate on developing regional airports. Much of what can be done by regional airports, such as attracting the airlines and showing that the business is there, is in their own hands. Regional airports such as Manchester have done that and I congratulate it.

Does my hon. Friend understand that regional airports will not benefit from the opening up of transatlantic or any other services unless and until they are properly privatised? Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that the local authorities will be made to divest themselves of ownership of those regional airports, so that the airports can expand and take advantage of the opening up of air travel in the 1990s?

Hear, hear.

My hon. Friend makes a forceful point, which found sympathy with a number of my colleagues. Some regional airports have gone into private ownership. Perhaps it will surprise most hon. Members to know that one of the first was Liverpool. We welcome that and hope that others will follow that example.

What encouragement are the Government giving regional airports to develop transatlantic services? Is not it strange that British Airways, although not wanting to operate such services, invariably objects to foreign airlines doing so? Will the Minister comment on the fact that British Airways in the private sector rarely welcomes the competition that it regularly and publicly espouses? Is there any evidence that ownership of the airports has been anything other than beneficial to local authorities and poll tax payers, who have contributed to the airports?

Regional airports have grown because of the economic benefits offered by the Government. Ten years ago, regional airports were not making any money and were not providing services for their localities. The liberalisation of air services, to which the Government are committed, has led to the expansion of regional airports and we are proud of that.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, with regard to the Washington talks, the Government's ability to resist pressures from the United States to get something for nothing will result in our airlines being able to compete fairly across the north Atlantic? Will my hon. Friend guarantee that there will be no concessions on our fifth freedom or cabotage rights this side of the Atlantic without the Americans playing the game and giving us similar rights in America? Would not the current GATT round of talks be a good forum in which the lowering of that protectionist barrier might be achieved?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I assure him that the talks that start tomorrow are designed to bring liberalisation, which will give opportunities for United Kingdom and other airlines. We are determined to give those equal opportunities and to make sure that United Kingdom airlines do not suffer or lose out in the negotiations.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss wages and conditions of British Rail staff; and if he will make a statement.

I discuss a variety of railway matters at my regular meetings with the chairman of British Rail. Wages and conditions of BR staff are primarily matters for British Rail management.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is nothing short of a scandal for Sir Bob Reid to receive £200,000 a year—an increase of £88,000 on the salary of the previous chair—when the basic rate for railway workers is £115·10 a week? Why did the management last year receive a 15 per cent. increase across the board, yet the railway workers got a miserly 8 per cent? Why will not the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee now—some of his colleagues are throwing around promises—that railway workers will be treated in the same way as the management? Let us have no more of these double standards.

The new chairman of British Rail is one of the outstanding managers in Britain. To accept the job, he took a substantial reduction in salary compared with the salaries offered to him in other jobs. As the hon. Gentleman knows, those 15 per cent. increases were all individually negotiated contracts and were based on performance-related pay. Will the hon. Gentleman use his trade union connections to encourage the unions to start thinking in a modern way and to adopt shorter, more flexible hours and co-operate with the management, so that they can be better paid and work fewer hours?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a pent-up feeling in the railway work force, particularly in great centres such as York, that the work force would like to share in any possible equity participation? The fruits of their endeavours would come through in share ownership. At the next meeting with the chairman of British Rail, will my right hon. Friend look actively at that possibility, which would reduce the demand on wages and hence the pressure on freight and commuter users?

As the House knows, we are determined to privatise British Rail. As part of that privatisation, we shall make sure that the employees have shareholdings. I am sure that the House is aware that in every privatisation, the trade union leaders opposed privatisation and then urged their members not to take shares. However, 95 per cent. of their members, on average, chose to ignore their advice. I am sure that it will be the same with British Rail.

In view of the connection made by the Hidden inquiry on the Clapham tragedy between the excessive working conditions of the workers and the cause of that tragedy, can the Secretary of State tell us whether he now accepts that the Government's financial policy contributed to that problem? Does he accept that his inspectors should be prosecuting not only British Rail but the Government?

I heard the hon. Gentleman's half-baked suggestion when the announcement of the prosecution was made. I am sure that he will remember, as he studies those matters carefully, that in their evidence to Hidden both the chairman and the finance director said that they had adequate finance available——

But they were wrong.

May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the accident arose from additional new investment in signalling that was badly carried out? The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that British Rail recently came forward with a package offering shorter hours, higher pay and more flexibility. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage the unions to accept that package—they are refusing to do so at the moment.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether there have been any changes since the last announcement on the roads programme intended either to reduce the expenditure or prolong the construction periods in that programme.

No, Sir. This year's public expenditure settlement provided additional resources sufficient to maintain the programme already announced.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that confirmation should be welcome news to the groups that have expressed concern, on environmental grounds, about the noise and vibration from heavy traffic in our towns and villages and to those who are concerned about the reduction in road safety standards? Does he further agree that the programme will provide the means to avoid congestion, which wastes fuel and negatives the use of catalytic converters?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Investment in new roads ensures that congestion is relieved in the areas where it is most environmentally unsuitable to have through traffic. That is why the Government are proud of their record of 100 new bypasses and a massive road-building programme. Alone of all the political parties, the Conservative party is committed to further investment in Britain's road network.

My hon. Friend will be aware of my concern about the prolongation of the agony of decision making. Is he also aware that my constituents have been waiting since 1971 for the decision to build a fast, safe, dual road from the motorway to the city of Nottingham? My hon. Friend has before him a viable, widely supported plan, which has been put to him by the local Member of Parliament. Will he make a decision and get on with it?

It will not be long before the decision is made. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend would have been too pleased if what he thought to be a wrong decision had been made.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new trains British Rail has on order.

British Rail has on order, for delivery up to 1994, 787 coaches for electric trains, 630 coaches for diesel trains, 15 channel tunnel train sets and about 170 locomotives.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents are fed up with the cattle truck conditions that they suffer when commuting to London? Is he further aware that they are looking forward to the introduction of the Networker trains, which will do a great deal to help? When can my constituents expect that relief to be on track?

The north Kent line is undergoing a modernisation programme costing more than £467 million. Some 63 stations will be lengthened to take 12-coach trains and the most modern commuter trains running in Europe will be introduced on the line next September. There will be brand-new signalling along the whole of the line and a new maintenance depot to ensure that the new equipment is properly maintained. Huge investment is taking place, which is good news for my hon. Friend's constituents.

Will the Secretary of State ask his officials to give him a report on the quality of the stock available on the Edinburgh-Linlithgow-Dunblane line?

Yes, I shall do that for the hon. Gentleman. I spent the day with ScotRail a week last Friday and I was very impressed with the new service between Edinburgh and Glasgow, which has the new 158 trains that are air conditioned, fast, clean and reliable. I was also impressed with the service on the Bathgate line, which has been reopened. I shall give the hon. Gentleman the answer to his question.

Should not my right hon. Friend be congratulated on his success in obtaining money from the Treasury—not only last year, but in the autumn statement this year—hugely to increase investment in British Rail and elsewhere in the transport system? Will he ensure that publicity is given to the sort of information that he has just provided, not least that on the new terminuses in London that are being greatly improved, so that the travelling public will know that improvements are on the way?

I am pleased to confirm that there is more than £7,000 million in the programme for investment in public transport, both rail and underground, for the three years beginning next April. That is in addition to the record programmes now under way.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the statement made recently by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) that he intends to devote far greater resources to railway investment, even at the expansion of a reduction in tax? As that is clearly at odds with what the Secretary of State has told the House, is not it time that the right hon. Gentleman accepted my suggestion that he should resign, before he is sacked in three days' time?

The hon. Gentleman's English is matched only by his powers of logic.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on investment in British Rail.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we have provided for up to £4 billion of investment by British Rail over the next three years —the highest level for 30 years in real terms. Of that, £1·4 billion is for channel tunnel services and £1·3 billion for Network SouthEast.

My hon. Friend deserves congratulations on his Department's provision of that huge amount of money. He recently saw for himself the enormous cost, in environmental and money terms, that is carried by Kent because of the colossal increase in the number of lorry movements in the country. When he examines British Rail's investment programme, will he take into the mathematics the cost savings in the road programme if he encouraged British Rail to make more sensible plans for carrying freight on the railways?

I agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. We must encourage the transportation of as much freight as can sensibly be carried by rail. We expect to make an announcement after Christmas that will bring together the various strands of British Rail and Department policy on freight. Sir Fred Holliday, a member of the British Rail board, is conducting a study of the environmental impact of channel tunnel rail services and we expect him to report next spring. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested to learn that. W. S. Atkins, an independent consultancy, will review the processes by which British Rail will reach a conclusion next spring on the right route for the high-speed rail link into London.

The Minister said that he would welcome an application from British Rail for electrification of the Crewe to Holyhead line. However, he must realise that British Rail will not apply, because, although European money is available, the Secretary of State would deduct it from grant that British Rail might be given for investment elsewhere. Money is available, uniquely, for the Crewe to Holyhead line, which would serve a development area and offer a direct international connection between member states of the European Community. What encouragement can the Minister give British Rail to produce plans for the electrification of that line for the Department's consideration?

Of course, we welcome any grant from the European transport fund, which this year stands at approximately £50 million, and which is expected to rise to £100 million next year. However, those sums are modest if one remembers that they are available for all 12 countries in the Community. Any grant, however small, is helpful and appreciated., but the European fund is by no means a panacea and will certainly not assist the hon. Gentleman in his promotion of a high-speed rail link from London to Scotland. Sufficient funds are not available now from the European transport fund and they will not be available.

Further to the earlier answer of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, does my hon. Friend share the concern about the north Kent line felt by Members of Parliament representing Kent constituencies? Will he confirm that British Rail investment will not only cover the inner-city area but will extend all the way down to Thanet?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are very mindful of the need to improve services on the north Kent line. I hope to visit my hon. Friend's constituency shortly, to explore with him and to understand better his constituents' concerns, which he has represented clearly and forcefully. British Rail plans to make improvements to the line, but that will be done as resources are available.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on prospects for the channel tunnel fast link to London.

British Rail is eager to proceed with the rail link to the channel tunnel as soon as it is a viable proposition. It is reviewing the options and expects to reach a conclusion on its preferred option next spring.

On behalf of myself and the London borough of Newham, may I thank the Minister for his visit to Stratford on Friday? What are his impressions following that visit? Will he give a clear public assurance that British Rail is seriously considering Stratford as the site for the international station for the channel tunnel? Will he also say that British Rail will publish the criteria that it has adopted for considering the options for the route linking Kent to London?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I enjoyed my visit to Newham and Stratford terminal very much. Clearly it is an important intersection of lines for British Rail. The director of Network SouthEast gave the hon. Gentleman British Rail's commitment at that meeting—which I reinforce—that he will consider the prospects for redevelopment of the station straight away to improve facilities, which clearly need improvement, for the lines that currently run through Stratford.

As for Stratford being the location for the international station, that is for British Rail to evaluate. It was interesting for me to see the space available, but we must also note that, whichever route is chosen for passengers to come into London, it is important for them to arrive at a terminus in central London. British Rail made that plain. The Government understand that. In so far as the second terminal is to be King's Cross, the Government support British Rail. That is not inconsistent with a station at Stratford, but is nevertheless an important consideration.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is some misunderstanding about the timetable to be followed by the Department following the presentation to him of British Rail's proposals for the construction of a high-speed rail link through Kent? Can he place on record today the likely timetable to be followed, leading to the announcement of his Department's approval, or otherwise, for British Rail's proposals?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. British Rail has said that by next spring it will conclude its study of the alternative routes into London. The chairman of British Rail and its management have made plain their view that one needs a second terminal in central London, and that it should be King's Cross—that is the subject of a Bill before Parliament. When British Rail has reached a conclusion—as I said earlier, independent consultants will review the process and I am sure that my hon. Friends will put questions about it at the appropriate time—it will place before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport a proposal for the preferred route and the method of financing it. The Department will consider that as quickly as possible.

Pending the decision to make Stratford the international interchange for the channel tunnel link, which would be a sensible decision, does the Minister recall sending me a letter earlier this year, stating that there would be immediate improvements to Stratford station —for example, making the lavatories work and painting the waiting room? His letter said that that work would be done by the end of the summer. Has he noticed the cold weather outside and the fact that the English summer has now ended? Can he give me a date when those promised improvements will take place?

That is a matter for British Rail. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and that expressed by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). Improvements are needed to the station. Quite honestly, services and facilities there are not up to those that a major interchange station such as Stratford deserves. It will receive my personal attention.

Will my hon. Friend reassure the House that the independent assessment of British Rail's and the private group's proposals for the channel tunnel rail link will be truly independent and objective? I am sure that he will be disturbed to learn that functionaries of British Rail are promoting the impression, in the Warwick gardens area of my constituency, that it is only a matter of time before British Rail's original proposals for Warwick gardens are carried out.

There is no reason why my hon. Friend's constituents should jump to that conclusion. Distinguished independent consultants will thoroughly review the process to ensure that the logic, reasoning and rationale are sound and that the decision made is not only defensible by British Rail, the operator, but will command the widespread support of hon. Members.

Will the Minister admit that the choice of Upper Halling in west Kent—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hawling."] However it is pronounced—[Interruption.]

Order. I do not think that pronunciation matters too much.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall start again. Will the Minister admit that the choice of Upper Halling in west Kent on the safeguarded route prejudices the rest of the route? Will not the link pass through south-east London, unless he changes the criteria? Will he follow the advice of the European Commission and change the Treasury rules to allow for a mix of public and private money to finance the link in a way that will meet national, economic and environmental needs?

I understood perfectly what the hon. Lady meant. The line that is safeguarded between Folkestone and the North Downs does not prejudice any of the three routes. It is a safeguarding procedure to prevent developments or construction along the line of the route that would be inconsistent with perhaps one or two of the proposals. Whatever happens, it is certain that the route will pass through Ashford, and the Government have given a commitment to support Ashford station.

The Government have not ruled out public financing of a high-speed rail link—not a grant, but public financing —or a contribution from Network SouthEast to reflect improvements to commuter services in south-east Kent. A high-speed rail link that serves commuters will bring benefits to those who live in the south-east and therefore higher fares and revenue to British Rail.