![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wednesday, November 25, 1998 Published at 10:22 GMT UK Politics Prescott insists he remains on track ![]() Much attention after the Queen's speech focused on transport Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has insisted the measures in the Queen's speech represent a major step towards his vision of an integrated transport policy.
"We can see who the winners and losers are around the cabinet table," he told the Commons. "The winners have got a Bill, the losers have got a draft Bill, the real losers have got their proposals 'taken forward', the completely defeated have got a consultation paper. "And for those who've got nothing at all, at least there's the consolation of being deputy prime minister."
But the deputy prime minister denied other powerful ministers who were scared of appearing anti-car had side-lined him.
"We're only at the second year of a five-year programme so give us a chance," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Mr Hague's speech, he said, was "long on humour and short on facts" - as were attacks from interest groups such as Friends of the Earth.
Mr Prescott admitted he had not received any prospect of legislation to make changes in the running of buses. But he insisted he remained on track in his plans to integrated the UK's rail network, currently run by a number of separate private companies. "The Queen's speech contains a strategic rail authority but I've said I don't want to wait and I'm getting on with the job by converting British Rail. "All the Tories produced is a privatised rail network, which I'm spending most of my time trying to correct." But transport campaigners are now sceptical about whether the dramatic change Mr Prescott promised will come. Steven Joseph of Transport 2000 said: "We won't get the better regulation needed to make the trains run on time." And Charles Secrett of Friends of the Earth insisted it would still be better to bring forward a single transport bill instead of piecemeal changes. "The idea that one should be making the polluter pay, taxing parking and then recycling those revenues, that is a debate worth having in parliament and that is why primary legislation is a far better way of going about it." |
UK Politics Contents
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||