In the House... Speeches in the House of Commons

c. 4:45 p.m.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): I know my hon. Friend's constituency well. As she is aware, I spent some time as a railway engineer maintaining bridges in and around Crewe. Will she tell the House whether Railtrack has delivered on its promises and commitments on bridges in the relatively small area in and around her constituency; and will she tell us how detrimental its failure to produce has been to the immediate economy of her constituency?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not want to get diverted, but people who enter my constituency have to cross antique rail bridges; indeed, three of the main roads are on rail bridges. The previous time one of them was examined and modernised, it managed to sink 11 inches during one night, so I am somewhat sensitive to the difficulty arising from trying to rebuild an ancient system. Not only will working on bridges be an urgent part of Railtrack's work, but it will have to work closely with others to provide a properly programmed advance in the provision of proper infrastructure.

==

Mr. Quinn: I know of my hon. Friend's great personal experience as a driver in and around the London area. Would he care to share with the House his experience of the excessive freight transport that moves around the London area? What role does my hon. Friend think that the Strategic Rail Authority should play in easing the problems caused by excessive freight movements on the capital's roads and in our inner cities?

Mr. Efford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to consider that matter. The increase in axle weight introduced by the previous Administration has had a dramatic effect on my constituency. It is situated at the junction of the A20 and the A2 which leads from the channel ports, and there has been a massive increase in the number of heavy goods vehicles polluting and congesting local roads. It is clear that we must adopt a strategic approach and shift that freight from our roads and onto the rail network.

==

Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): As someone who worked for the railway industry since 1979 until I entered this place, I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman has commended all the many members of the railway community. For the assistance of the House, will he please explain the damage that his Government did over 18 years, which caused the loss of many thousands of jobs and a paucity of services? He said that excessive powers would be granted to the Strategic Rail Authority. While he is on his feet, will he please explain exactly what those excessive powers are and why they do not complement the development of our railway industry?

Sir Teddy Taylor: I shall certainly speak about those powers in detail, mention the relevant clauses and provide all the details for the hon. Gentleman. However, I hope that he will accept that it is simply not possible for the Government--whether Labour or Conservative--to find money for railway investment. As he will well know, when the Conservatives were in power, for a long time, money was demanded for many things, such as the health service, but the necessary finances were simply not available.

I felt sorry for British Rail, which was not receiving the investment that it required. The consequence of that lack of investment was that the industry became a shambles. Exactly the same has befallen London Underground. However, the problem with London Underground has not been its managers but the fact that the necessary investment was not forthcoming. Privatisation, which may be unacceptable to some, is a way of dealing with the investment problem. Although the Government are making arrangements with Railtrack that they hope will raise some extra money, we have to solve the problem of finding the necessary investment.

Mr. Quinn: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that a consequence of the fragmentation of our railway industry is that an organisation that formerly was a whole now has more than 100 parts. As for giving excessive powers to a Strategic Rail Authority, surely the creation of such an authority will provide a focus for developing our railways--essentially bringing Humpty- Dumpty back together again--and ensuring that we really are looking forward so that, for the first time in about six years, we and our railway industry might see some light at the end of the tunnel.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As I said, the subsidy has fallen whereas, this year, 2,000 new passenger vehicles are being delivered. In the old days, that simply did not happen. Privatisation--I am not talking about a group of nasties or of nice people--is producing facilities that simply did not exist before.

What about the new authority's powers? Although a crowd of new authorities is being established, the Financial Services Authority is the one that horrifies me most. It is the most appallingly powerful body, using its powers to treat cruelly and heartlessly those who run a business. Some of those businesses have been operated for years by very reputable people. Clauses 8 to 17 deal with all the issues of the Strategic Rail Authority's powers of central direction. If those running the authority want to use those powers to the full, they will be able to rush around and direct those who, in a difficult situation, are trying to run the railway.

The Bill will also provide the authority with the power to impose massive fines. Clauses 19 and 20 will allow people at the authority to impose massive fines and to say, "We don't think that the railway is being run correctly. It's all wrong." Those idiots, who will probably be on very high salaries, with lovely big offices and enormously large staffs, will be able to tell railway companies, "We think you've made a muck of it. Here is a fine of half a million pounds."

To whom will the companies be able to appeal? To whom will they go? The answer is to no one. They will be allowed to appeal the merits of a fine, but not the size of a fine. Therefore, people who are running a railway company and think that they are, despite all the difficulties, doing the best job they can will have to face a massive new organisation, which will be run--according to rumour; the Minister may confirm it--by the person who told us how wonderful the channel tunnel rail link would be and how much money it would make.

Clause 17 will allow the authority to say to a company, "We want you to invest. We want you to spend all this money doing this." How does the new rail authority know whether that investment will be profitable? What special knowledge will the authority have? Will it employ consultants or bring in experts? I fear the consequences of the power provided in clause 17, especially when it is allied with the rather frightening power, to make grants, provided in clause 8.

==

Mr. Quinn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his great generosity in giving way. However, on expertise in running a railway, would he like to comment on the fact that the vast majority of those who are now running privatised railway companies had little or no prior experience in the railway industry? Would he also like to give the House his reaction--or perhaps that of his constituents--to the recent Public Accounts Committee report on the Railtrack valuation and sell-off, and on whether that sell-off ensured value for money for his constituents and the country?

Sir Teddy Taylor: Although I have already spoken for far too long, I shall deal with the specific points that the hon. Gentleman has made. He will know that political complications made it difficult to value and sell Railtrack. My impression of the sale is that the previous Government obtained the maximum possible market price. As it turns out, Railtrack was worth more than that, so the investment was very profitable for those who made one. However, that was not the previous Government's responsibility.

The fact is that Railtrack has been run very sensibly, so it has been able to obtain otherwise unobtainable resources. Does the hon. Gentleman think that, if he were a merchant banker, it would have been possible--this is the real test--to obtain a lot more for Railtrack? I believe that the answer to that question is no, and that the Railtrack privatisation has been a success story.

It is not the job of a regulator--or of someone who has run that ridiculous venture, the channel tunnel rail link, which was going to be so profitable--to say whether he or she thinks that an investment will be profitable. Surely such decisions must be made by those who are running the industry. If they think that something will be profitable, they should go ahead with it.

I accept that there must be some regulation to ensure that the public are protected. However, for goodness sake, let us not establish a series of crazy and expensive organisations that will cost a fortune, tell the rail companies exactly what they have to do, how they have to do it and for what they will be fined.

I say to the Government seriously that when we have a success story--there have been failures but by and large the railways have been successes in that passenger numbers and freight mileage have increased, and they are operating well--we should single out the companies that have done well and encourage them to try to improve the image of the industry so as to attract others to it.

I think that the Bill goes too far. The Strategic Rail Authority will be far too powerful. It will become a horrendously expensive and powerful organisation that will make it more difficult for others to run a railway. Generally, I think that our railways are being well run at present.

6 p.m.

Mr. Quinn: May I offer the House different experience from a different part of the country? The Great North Eastern Railway and Northern Spirit--which are the train operating companies up in Yorkshire, the part of the world where I live--provide taxis and buses that follow the route so that people can continue their journey, and they do that to safeguard the commercial aspects of their business. My hon. Friend has hit on an important point that shows how the industry has fragmented: passengers in his part of east London receive a totally different service from passengers in Yorkshire, even though they all may not reach their ultimate destination.

Mr. Cryer: The railway industry is fragmenting and the previous Government effectively turned the clock back to pre-1924, or even the last century.

I want the railway industry to move forward to greater co-ordination and planning and to greater investment. I have made it pretty clear on a number of occasions that I would take the railways back into public ownership tomorrow if I had the power. I do not have that power, but the Railways Bill, which sets up the Strategic Rail Authority, is certainly a step in the right direction and I look forward to voting for it this evening.

6.18 p.m.

==

Mr. Quinn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pickles: I give way to the hon. Member who mentioned the light at the end of the tunnel.

Mr. Quinn: As someone who has been in that tunnel and knows the difference between daylight and a train, I can tell you that it is daylight that I was referring to. ... The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the historical situation. I am sure that he recalls his leadership of Bradford borough council and his work, along with councillors in Leeds and other west Yorkshire councils, to introduce the West Riding electrification scheme, which benefits many commuters in that conurbation. Will he consider how much easier that process would have been if there had been a Strategic Rail Authority to work in partnership with those councils, rather than the situation that he alludes to? Is not that what the railway industry has needed--that strategic overview and interlinking with the other transport systems? I commend him for his work during that period.

Mr. Pickles: I am blushing: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. He is right to say that electrification of the line was important for economic development; but with regard to land development, I would talk to Railtrack, so it would not present a problem under the current situation.

Mr. Quinn: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that he would have needed to talk not only to Railtrack, but to the train operating companies. At least three services run in that area, not to mention the freight companies. Surely, the key point is that we need that strategic overview to act as the cement to bring the constituent parts of the railway together, and to give that important voice to passengers and to community groups to ensure that not only national taxation but the local taxation that subsidises key services for the economic viability of that part of west Yorkshire provide value for money. That is what the legislation is about. Those are the principles behind the Strategic Rail Authority. Does he agree?

Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity to recoil from my embarrassment at his kind words. He seems to think that I am suggesting that a Strategic Rail Authority will be wholly bad; I am not doing that. I am dealing in shades of grey.

==

Mr. Quinn: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pickles) has made an important point about future investment in rail schemes. As he knows, City venture capitalists are looking for a return on their investment in any transport infrastructure project. Does he agree with the chairman of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority, Sir Alastair Morton, who rightly pointed out recently that about 10 years of work and investment will be needed? Surely the stimulus that the venture capitalists seek is the long-term rather than the short-term view. Is that not why, in the past, investment in companies such as SNCF in France has attracted them more than investment in Britain's railways?

Mr. Pickles: I am beginning to warm to the hon. Gentleman: I think he has the potential to become a free-thinking capitalist. He must understand, however, that clause 8 works against the very objective that he seeks to achieve. Let us consider what will be involved if the clause is taken to its logical conclusion. I am not talking about specific schemes or grants to encourage specific activities; but if the powers in the clause are used in regard to the general capital schemes that exist, they will act as a considerable disincentive in relation to the methods of capital-raising to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Under clause 17, the regulator, at the request of the authority, may direct Railtrack to provide a new facility, or to improve or develop an existing facility. That undermines commercial freedom: essentially, it is second-guessing what Railtrack is doing. By its very nature, the Strategic Rail Authority is unlikely to have the detailed knowledge that would enable it to judge individual schemes against each other. A strategic authority should set itself broader objectives. If it becomes involved in supporting one form of investment against another, improvement of one station against improvement of another and one type of train against another, commercial decisions will be undermined.

As far as I could understand from what the Secretary of State said, that is not the Government's intention. He seemed to be saying, "I intend to use these provisions as a substitute for social services provision with regard to particular lines, to ensure that a line or a service continues to exist for reasons of public necessity. I will not use them to set investment scheme against investment scheme." If that is the case, the Government should give an undertaking that they will restrict clause 17 to such considerations.

Mr. Quinn: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about freight, and I am sure that he is aware that EWS plans to triple its business over the next 10 years and to aim for the target of about 18 per cent. of freight being moved by rail, to bring us into line with Europe.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the previous Government's policies, which fragmented the rail freight company into three distinct parts, caused the decline in rail freight to 6 per cent. of the total? Does he welcome the work of Ed Burkehart and EWS to glue back together those three parts so as to make one company and to bring in investment for that business from the capital sector? Does not that demonstrate faith in the future of the railway industry--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's interventions are getting longer and longer, and I believe that he is seeking to catch my eye, so perhaps he should bear that in mind.

Mr. Pickles: Indeed; I was thinking of trying to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. Freight has been terrifically successful under privatisation. Let us consider the challenges that freight now faces in expanding. We should not forget that the target of 20 per cent. refers to a percentage share of a rising freight total.

There are a number of constraints on rail freight. The loading gauge on the west coast line, in particular, means that we are unable to take international carriages. If we could do so, we could increase our capacity by one third at a stroke. That would enable us also to engage in piggy-backing of freight, in which a road vehicle is moved straight on to a carriage. Currently, we do not have a loading gauge capable of doing that. If piggy-backing were possible, we could certainly increase the amount of freight being carried by rail.

A more important problem, which relates directly to the Strategic Rail Authority, is the conflict between rail and freight. It is ironic that every improvement in the passenger rail service works against the expansion of freight. The faster trains become and the more frequent the service becomes, the less able we are to expand freight transportation.

We have to remember that most freight is carried at night. That gives rise to certain environmental considerations, not least the noise. Complaints about the noise of rail freight have increased. No doubt those complaints are made by the people who are urging us to carry more freight by rail. As someone who lives by a railway line, I am acutely aware of the increased freight traffic at night.

If we are to increase the proportion of freight that is carried by rail to 20 per cent. or more, the Strategic Rail Authority will have to address the essential conflict between the two uses of the railways. We have to remember that most freight that is carried by rail is not time-critical, so it does not matter whether the load arrives on a particular day. That factor is largely historical and relates to the carrying of grain and coal.

To get above the 20 per cent. target, we shall have to start involving the railways in carrying loads that are time-critical. If, for example, a load left Aberdeen one day, we would then have to be reasonably certain that it would arrive in Brentwood the next day. That is an enormous task for the Strategic Rail Authority, and it is far more important than messing about on the various capital schemes that we have heard about.

==

Mr. Quinn: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's (Dr. Whitehead ) remarks, and I understood that he was talking about the freight sector, for which the state provides no subsidy. He was talking about reliability, which the freight companies have improved through investment in locomotives and wagons. Was not that the main point that he was making, before he was interrupted?

Dr. Whitehead: Operating and franchising conditions for freight are different from those for passengers, but the franchising director's remit is based on passenger transport, and, because its operating charges come primarily from passenger transport, Railtrack's investment strategy is also based on passenger services. Freight must be taken seriously for the future, but services currently fall outside the remit of railway regulation. Railways are not just about passengers, and every success with passenger miles raises a further problem for the movement of freight by rail. We need strategic investments to prevent that.

The Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs recently visited Holland, where the rail authorities plan a dedicated line from Rotterdam to Germany to take freight away from passenger lines. It is inconceivable that we could do the same in the UK under the present investment and regulation system.

==

Mr. Quinn: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. St. Aubyn) seems to suggest that the privatised railway companies can use the simple market mechanisms to acquire the necessary investment and create the sort of service that his constituents need. How does the hon. Gentleman answer the evidence about the proposed rail authority that was provided to the Select Committee during its last sitting? Railtrack said that it would need assistance of about £100 million to help with the bottlenecks to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) referred.

Mr. St. Aubyn: The hon. Gentleman has almost made a complete speech. I shall come to the issue of bottlenecks, but, before I do, let us deal with clause 7(2)(c). So confusing is this clause that the explanatory notes to the Bill state:

"the Authority will not be required in every case to give effect to its purposes and strategies . . . Some of these considerations could contradict each other, so the Authority must undertake a balancing exercise in each case."

Bottlenecks pose another problem. There are about 30 bottlenecks in the rail network around the country and it costs about £30 million to cure the typical bottleneck. That is what the signalling at the west end of Leeds station cost, for instance, and experts in the industry estimate that that is the typical cost. Therefore, curing 30 bottlenecks at £30 million a time will cost nearly £1 billion. Yet the Government are providing only £100 million to tackle bottlenecks over three years, which will cure only three of the 30 bottlenecks.

I have a particular interest in this matter as the bottleneck at Waterloo is important to my constituents. That is an urgent consideration. The Government offer no clear solution to that problem in their plans for a Strategic Rail Authority.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate because, as I have already pointed out several times, not only did I spend years as a member of staff working in the railway industry, but I am proud to speak as a member of a wide community--the railway community. I am proud to say that my father was a train driver and that, until recently--because I now spend time in my constituency--I always lived in railway towns. From 1979 until I was returned to this place, I worked as a manager and a civil engineer for the railways. I shall focus on my constituency and the opportunities that will arise from the SRA. Recently, the Esk valley line, which runs from Middlesbrough, Teesside to Whitby has benefited and flourished through a community- railway-train operator partnership. That partnership came about because of the support given by the local community. In that rural community, there was a desperate need for effective transport corridors to quite remote areas of the country. There was a need for access to the rest of mainland Britain, and--especially during the winter months--for a viable route into the port of Whitby.

The line offers a tremendous opportunity. I hope that, when the Bill is passed, I shall be able to argue the case for that currently little-used passenger line--there are about four trains into Whitby and four trains out--to be used to assist the great coastal port of Whitby to flourish. Those hon. Members who have visited my constituency will know that it includes a hilly and mountainous area--the North York Moors national park. Currently, there is a contract of about £6.5 million for the delivery of steel to the port of Whitby; as many as 20 lorries regularly carry steel from the unloaded ships over the North York moors, into the Vale of York, on to the A64 and the rest of the transport network. That steel has been imported from Holland. It seems stupid that a mechanism does not exist to ensure effective transport links for that steel and other commodities being unloaded at the port of Whitby--which is thriving and goes from strength to strength. There should be a rail freight system from the port of Whitby.

I should declare interests other than those of a professional civil engineer. Many hon. Members will be aware that I am proud to chair the all-party rail freight group. Several Members of this and the other place have seen the real benefits that are afforded by the flourishing and the further renaissance of rail freight. That has arisen from the excellent work carried out by English, Welsh and Scottish Railways and Freightliner Ltd.

Opposition Members referred to bottlenecks, especially in relation to rail freight. The problem is that, at present, Railtrack has clearly stated to the Government that it cannot fund from its own resources the improvements that are needed to deal with bottlenecks. Opposition Members have made that point. The company has asked the Government for extra assistance, but, although Labour Members acknowledge that matter, Opposition Members seem to believe that the whole principle of a Strategic Rail Authority working in partnership with freight companies to address those key problems is somehow not in order.

Mr. Jenkin: There is some confusion in the debate. We are discussing a Bill about the regulation of the railway and about the Strategic Rail Authority. We are not necessarily voting for increased money for the railway--that is a different debate. However, Labour Members seem to be conducting the debate on the premise that the Strategic Rail Authority means that there will be significant new resources. Of course, the problem of freight described by the hon. Gentleman has arisen because it is difficult to run commercially viable freight services on the railway. Access charges merely wash the face in respect of the current costs of Railtrack. We are not arguing against the application of additional funds to the railway case by case, but the funds will not flow automatically--as the hon. Gentleman seems to think-- from the establishment of the SRA. Nor is it necessary to have an authority in order to get increased funds into the railway.

Mr. Quinn: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not quite hear what I said. I welcome the establishment of the SRA in principle, so that I and other hon. Members can argue our case for the renaissance of railways--whether passenger or freight. At present, when Railtrack is approached by freight companies, its prime obligation, under the current regulatory system, is to meet the requirements of the passenger network. That is what the company is paid for; that is why it receives the bulk of its resources--to sustain the current railway system. I and my constituents want strings to be attached to the considerable sums that are paid into the railway industry to ensure that the industry performs to its full potential and delivers its part in our nation's transport policies.

A considerable investment has been made in the rail freight sector by English, Welsh and Scottish Railways--a company that receives no support except on a case-by-case basis. Route availability is the mechanism by which companies decide whether bridges are strong enough or clearances in tunnels and bridges are sufficient to allow the trains to pass. In administering the mechanism by which a clear through path is provided for freight or high-speed passenger services, Railtrack concentrates on the here and now--it does not focus on future potential.

Whitby is an extremely important and vibrant community and it is located in a picturesque part of the country. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), I have an interest to declare: with the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I am pleased to be a vice-president of the North York Moors railway. There is a transport corridor from Whitby to Pickering that has the potential to link into the rest of the rail network. That would afford a better lifeline to the communities in the Esk valley and the North York moors, not only by bringing in additional tourists and revenue through their sustainable tourism policy, but by providing the economic development that is vital to peripheral areas such as the one that I represent.

If I and the hon. Member for Ryedale wanted to make the case for a link to fill the gap of about seven miles between Pickering and Malton, both of which stations lie in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, we would not be able to press our argument direct to Railtrack alone under the current regulatory system. We would have to approach Railtrack, Northern Spirit, and other operating companies to make the case. The simple business of running regular services on the North York Moors railway line into Whitby required the making of a special safety case and the establishment of a partnership between Northern Spirit and the North York Moors railway. That took many years to achieve under the current regulatory system. My constituents want action now--they want some of the tax money they pay to deliver for them, because they are not getting the benefit of existing potential.

Mr. Jenkin: The confusion still arises. The hon. Gentleman can bleat to his heart's content to the SRA making the case for a new rail link, but unless he can put some money on the table, he will get nowhere. If he could go to Northern Spirit and Railtrack and put money on the table now, he would find that money talks. What counts in transport infrastructure investment is money. He has an unrealistic expectation that, somehow, the SRA will have money coming out of its ears to lubricate the way of all those projects, but there is no evidence that that will be so, unless the Minister tells us tonight that far more public money will be made available. There are only two sources of money: the fare box or the Government.

Mr. Quinn: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but the North York Moors railway has in fact developed such a partnership; what it needs to do is engage other partners to come on board. Perhaps I am being idealistic and optimistic, but I am doing the best that I can for my constituents. I believe that the SRA will offer a forum in which such partnerships can be created, not only between the operating companies and Railtrack, but with the wider public sector, such as local authorities and the communities that rely on transport partnerships. I commend the work done by the Esk valley partnership, which has come to fruition in the past few weeks in the opening of the first integrated transport centre at Whitby station, where bus, rail and tourist information services for the area are all available.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Can my hon. Friend explain a paradox? The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) says that there will be no money in the SRA, and implies that it might be better if there were. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) says that there is a little money, but not enough, and the free market should be allowed to sort things out. However, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) says that the big problem is that there is £3 billion somewhere to be spent by the SRA. It appears that the Opposition do not know whether they are coming or going--perhaps my hon. Friend can tell me whether they are doing either.

Mr. Quinn: I thank my hon. Friend--he puts his finger on the central problem. The Opposition are so focused on the short term and so wedded to the notion that the market will deliver that they do not understand that the feelings and experiences of the travelling public are that privatisation has not delivered for them. The prospect of "bustitution", which is a real likelihood facing many rural areas, engenders fear in many rural constituencies because of the possibility that, especially in the winter months, the so-called replacement bus services that have been offered will not be able to make their way through to their destination.

I remind my hon. Friend of the experience of the community of Alston in northern Cumbria. A short branch line linked it to the Newcastle to Carlisle line and, when buses were promised to replace the rail link, the arguments about winter access were made. The simple realities of the weather in my part of northern England are that train services are the only transport service that can get through. I am making the case for communities and people, not for business.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): The hon. Gentleman rightly describes a form of social exclusion in rural areas. Will he comment on the deregulation policy of the previous Tory Government, especially as it affected bus services in rural areas such as his and my own? How much damage did that policy do, and how much worse did it make the problems of social exclusion in rural economies and communities? There were 18 years of increasing social exclusion.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right. However, there is a notable difference between London and the rest of the country. In London bus use has grown; in the rest of the country it has fallen. The issue affects even those whom the Conservative party might regard as its natural supporters, those in business. Estimates of the cost to business arising from congestion range from £15 billion to £30 billion a year. Most of the increase in that figure occurred while the Conservatives were in office.

The Deputy Prime Minister referred to traffic calming, on which the Conservatives' proposals are muddled, to say the least. Their policy document states:

"We will not promote the use of environmentally unfriendly traffic humps."

I represent a rural community, and every September I spend a couple of weeks visiting all the villages that I represent--about 70 different stops--holding travelling advice surgeries. During the past two years, the No. 1 overwhelming request has been for traffic calming. Village after village is being destroyed by the cars that drive through.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the new integrated transport centre that has recently been opened at Whitby railway station? Is it not the case that, when the Strategic Rail Authority considers the development of integrated transport policy throughout the nation, our railways will need to be closely integrated? The public need more information and better access to public transport. That is what the SRA is about and that is what these policies are about.

Mr. Prescott: The House is aware of my hon. Friend's expert knowledge of transport. We have seen the provision of many more services, and more people are travelling on trains, especially during the past two years since we were elected. We can now see the whole integration of our system because of our requirement that trains and buses should connect. There is much more integration of the system than we have ever witnessed before.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): Can my right hon. Friend confirm to the House that we do not expect to see this problem arise again? Can he also confirm to the hard-pressed staff in the offices in my constituency that they will no longer be faced with up to 30 callers a day trying to sort out their problems?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is quite right to complain about what has happened in the Passport Agency. I made the position clear to the House when I spoke about it two weeks ago and I apologised to those many people--not only the 132 who have been paid compensation, but the many thousands of others--who have been inconvenienced by the changes. What has happened is unacceptable and we are working hard to make sure that it does not happen again.

c. 9.55 am

Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): I thank the hon. Gentleman for referring to partnership; I was waiting for that word to come up. To me and to the people who work in tourism and the hospitality industry in Scarborough and Whitby, partnership is the key word. In "Tomorrow's Tourism", the hon. Gentleman will find a clear example of effective partnership in my part of the world, which is developing hospitality in particular. We are looking at matters such as training, too. I urge him to look very carefully at our example. Does he agree that the industry will develop and be far better in the future as a result of such partnership?

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I saw the reference to Scarborough and Whitby. There are several very good examples of local partnership in the document, as there often are in tourism. The partnership between the Cambridge tourism group and Cambridge city council is another good example. That reinforces my point.

If one works towards a strategy that is based on good practice, one often finds that, valuable though the work of, for example, the East Anglian regional tourist board may be, the focus of action must be complementary to the visitor's view of the area. The Cambridge sub-region and Cambridge might therefore connect with Huntingdon, Cromwell and Constable country and the imperial war museum in my area. By and large, visitors do not visit East Anglia as a whole. Although seaside resorts such as Yarmouth are important, their marketing must be different to that for Cambridge.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): I agree with the hon. Gentleman up to a point. The people in the industry whom I represent have struggled for many years under Governments of both parties, and have come to the conclusion that establishing partnerships with local authorities and others in the area is the way to ensure that tourism thrives. Where did the industry in my part of the world go wrong over the past 18 years under the hon. Gentleman's Government? People in my area did not see an approach such as that suggested in "Tomorrow's Tourism". We did not receive any national help or hear of any national strategy, as he seems to be saying we did.

Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to revisit the past; I am talking about a strategy for the future. It is important that we focus on the future.
. . .

c. 10.05 am

Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): What is the hon. Gentleman's opinion of the proposed reduction in value added tax for tourism and hospitality? Does he support that proposal? I do, as I believe that it will free up resources for reinvestment at the grass roots of our tourism industry.

Mr. Butterfill: As I have made clear, the present disparity between our VAT rates and those of other countries is not sustainable in the long term.
. . .

10.26 am

Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many young people perceive a career in hospitality and catering--especially the culinary crafts--as being an attractive prospect? That enthusiasm is owed in part to the phenomenon of the television chef. As well as good English people, we have good Scottish, Irish and Welsh people, some of whom serve up fantastic dishes in Scarborough and Whitby in Yorkshire--I urge the right hon. Gentleman to come and try them.

Sir Peter Emery: We are doing better--no one would suggest that we are not on the up slope--but in most of the seaside resorts the number of people with good qualifications is extremely limited, so I want the Government to do more to upgrade in that area of work.

Reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO