Parliamentary column

9 RMT parliamentary column F ORTY years ago we witnessed the Beeching rail cuts. In an act of vandalism only surpassed by rail privatisation, thousands of branch lines were sacrificed in the name of rationalisation. Rural Britain has never recovered from this singularly stupid move and transport policy has always been subject to what might have been rather than what could be. As chairman of the backbench group of Labour MPs when many of us were elected for the first time in 1997, transport stood out as the single biggest challenge the government faced in the rural domain. Access to reasonable public transport is still the biggest single contributor as to whether you can get and hold down a job, if you can get affordable child care, and will depend on whether you can live and work in the countryside, and much more besides. The issue of rural lines and their future was a key feature in the government’s community rail development strategy announced just before Christmas and was a topic chosen for debate early in 2005. Of course this has been against the backdrop of more closure threats, greater reliance upon volunteer railway buffs and off loading of finance to a galaxy of other potential funders including local government, the EU and individuals who want to run their own railway. Whilst the government’s Treasury expenditure commitment is undoubted, those of us who rely on the railway as a means of getting about need to be on our guard. My constituency, Stroud, in Gloucestershire is the very epitome of what some disparagingly call middle-England. We are an area of market towns and small villages, squashed south and east of Gloucester. This is problematic because of the damage that the ‘breaking of the gauge’ still causes today, with a station which is largely a terminal. We have two lines that run through the constituency, one from Cheltenham to Paddington, via Swindon, and the other from Bristol to Gloucester and up to the Midlands. Both are well subscribed but as any RMT member will know we face the classic dilemma that if the rail companies want to run more inter- city services, it is the rural stopping trains that are sacrificed, certainly on the second, north-south line. Over the years I have noticed a marked upturn in passenger use, which is very pleasing. On the early morning and early evening trains’ seats are at a premium. Kemble in the Cotswolds, one station down from Stroud, sells more first class tickets than any station other than the main city stations. Freight also is on the up. We are a reserve line for the Severn Tunnel, and as such come into regular use because of the Tunnel’s past fallibilities. As home of the de- commissioned nuclear power station at Berkeley, nuclear material has been freighted to Sellafield by train for many years. As someone who is also a Co-operative MP I would not in any way want to deny that there could be benefits from Community Rail Partnerships. These could initiate some exciting projects to work on the four identified objectives of accessibility, rural regeneration, social inclusion and sustainable tourism. However, this must be in addition to an appropriate level of subsidy to keep lines and stations open. Such partnerships would of course be far more effective under a publicly owned, publicly accountable railway which is after all party policy. Indeed, the logic of this policy is confirmed when we find out that in the last year alone the private TOCs and ROSCO’s between them have banked almost half a billion pounds in profits, money that could be otherwise been spent on protecting and expanding rural railways. The alternative will be more closures, greater reliance upon buses and much more disadvantage being faced by those on lower incomes who do live in the countryside. It will also prevent the necessity of much more cohesion between rail and bus travel in rural Britain. Thus rural transport will be a key issue at the next General Election. Whilst Labour has to do much more, we know that the other main parties will aim to make massive savings in the area of rural transport. There is still much to play for. DAVID DREW LABOUR AND CO-OPERATIVE MP FOR STROUD Railing for the rural services 9 Rights of asbestos victims protected INSURERS failed in their attempt to evade responsibility for compensating thousands of victims of asbestos exposure following a landmark judgment in the High Court in Newcastle Upon Tyne last month. Norwich Union and British Shipbuilders challenged the right of people exposed to asbestos to claim compensation for pleural plaques, scarring of the lining of the lungs caused by exposure to asbestos. The judge rejected their argument that pleural plaques should not be compensated. Although the insurers succeeded in having the amount of the awards reduced, the right to compensation, and to return to court should the claimant develop a more serious asbestos-related condition, remains intact. Mr Justice Holland ruled that pleural plaques, indicating an increased risk of developing asbestos-related illness (including the fatal disease mesothelioma), which is a cause of anxiety meant that compensation should be paid. The insurance industry and British Shipbuilders stood to save millions of pounds had they been successful in defeating the claims. They tried to prevent thousands of people with pleural plaques from making claims against the companies who negligently exposed them to asbestos. Ian McFall, national head of asbestos litigation for Thompsons Solicitors, the law firm who represented union members in the High Court case, said the judgment was a victory for everyone who has a claim and reaffirmed the right to compensation for pleural plaques. “It has held that our clients have suffered injury and that the negligent employers and their insurers must pay damages. This is good law which puts people before profits,” he said.