Supplemental

Part of Orders of the Day — Railways Bill (Allocation of Time) – in the House of Commons at 6:10 pm on 2 November 1993.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Hugh Bayley Hugh Bayley , City of York 6:10, 2 November 1993

If the House had been given time properly to consider all the amendments, it would have had an opportunity to debate future investment levels. There will be no such debate, so I want the Minister to say how investment levels for rolling stock, signalling, track and infrastructure will be maintained at historic levels. If that is not done, there will be huge redundancies in the rail manufacturing industry. The arguments were explored on previous occasions, but I want that answer from the Minister.

As to the amendments on clause 105, the Bill makes provision for the Government to write off British Rail's historic debt, which the annual report puts at almost £2 billion. If that sum is to be written off, it will have to be written off by taxpayers to make privatisation more financially attractive to private sector operators. Why should taxpayers in my constituency foot the bill for privatisation? Why should retired railway men and women on low pensions who pay income tax also have to meet a £2 billion cost after spending their lives building up a rail system that is now to fall into the hands of private operators?