| Previous Section | Home Page |
Sir George Young: I plan to attend the Transport Council on 7 and 8 December at which I would expect progress with the development of trans- European transport networks to be discussed.
Mr. Griffiths: When the Secretary of State attends that meeting, will he press the very strong claims being made in south and north Wales to complete the European transport networks, which are currently under threat due to privatisation? Will he also give a commitment that there will be high quality rail services from our west Wales ports to Europe?
Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to accept the premise on which he based his question--that privatisation poses some threat to the railway service in Wales. Having put that on one side, however, I assure him that I shall of course fight the United Kingdom's corner in the discussions as hard as I can. It is worth pointing out that of the 14 priority projects endorsed by the Essen European Council, four are projects in which the United Kingdom has an interest. As for the future programme, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to suggest some of the networks to which he referred as they are eligible under the TENs framework.
Sir Alan Haselhurst: In discussions with his counterparts in Europe, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of the A120 as a strategic network? Is he aware that the dualling of that road is badly needed, not only for traffic travelling from the east coast ports, but to serve the airport at Stansted.
Sir George Young: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that I am well aware of the strategic importance of the road to which he has referred.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Is the Minister aware that my colleague Robin Teverson, a Member of the European Parliament, persuaded the European Parliament to make
Column 694
rail links through to the west country, Exeter and Penzance the highest European priority for investment, bringing in European funding towards those improvements? It is understood, however, that Ministers are opposing that inclusion. Given that Ministers need to approve the inclusion, will the right hon. Gentleman argue for the improvement that the west country needs?Sir George Young: My understanding of the situation is somewhat different from the hon. Gentleman's interpretation. My understanding is that at the June Transport Council the Government put forward the addition of both the Waterloo-Exeter rail line and the
Taunton-Reading line to the draft trans-European networks. Those additions were approved by the European Commission and by the Council of Ministers.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION
National Audit Office
30. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many statisticians are employed by the National Audit Office. [36502]
Sir Peter Hordern (representing the Public Accounts Commission): I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave on 19 June at columns 15-16. The numbers have increased marginally since then. Thirty of the staff of the National Audit Office have degrees in statistics or mathematics, and there are nine full-time professional statisticians or operational researchers.
Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the quality of the work of the National Audit Office? Does he believe that the office has sufficient powers to check the accounts of agencies and organisations such as the national lottery, which disburses large sums of public money?
Sir Peter Hordern: Yes, I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend. The Public Accounts Commission and the House are extremely grateful to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to the National Audit Office for the work that it does on our behalf. At present, the NAO is responsible for the audit of about half the executive non-departmental bodies. Both the Commission and the Public Accounts Committee are in favour of its being responsible for the audit of all of them and are making representations to that effect.
On the last part of my hon. Friend's question, I understand that the Public Accounts Committee would like to have the right of access to Camelot. The difficulty appears to be that the Department of National Heritage may not have the right to give it permission to do so. However, I understand that Camelot is happy to have conversations with the NAO to see how that might be done.
Several hon. Members rose --
Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Llwyd. The hon. Gentleman rose earlier to put a supplementary question. Does he now wish to do so?
Mr. Llwyd: The point that I wished to make has been made, so I shall not ask the question.
Column 695
Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that there are reports in today's paper that the Secretary of State for Social Security may introduce legislation to enable bailiffs to track down over-payment of benefits, will the Chairman seek an urgent meeting with the head of the National Audit Office and the Secretary of State to find out why the Benefits Agency makes mistakes of the order of £600 million per year? Should the bailiffs not be put on the Benefits Agency rather than the claimants?Sir Peter Hordern: I think that that would go beyond the work of the NAO. It is certainly true, however, that the NAO has the right of access to the Department of Social Security and no doubt will continue to uncover such faults. As for the activities of bailiffs, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to table a question to the appropriate Ministry.
31. Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many inquiries were undertaken by the National Audit Office in the last 12 months. [36503]
Sir Peter Hordern: The National Audit Office achieved its planned level of 50 published reports to Parliament in 1994-95, as well as a wide range of additional outputs.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not about time that the National Audit Office found a way to look at organisations such as Nirex, which has so miserably failed in its research programmes? As that organisation is, in effect, owned by the general public, in so far as it has mucked up its research programme and in so far as the project that it is now promoting in the county of Cumbria is a waste of money and is upsetting the wider public, should not the NAO be allowed to move in?
Sir Peter Hordern: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will make his own point in his own way. In terms of the National Audit Office, I can at least give him this comfort. If the body concerned is a non-departmental executive body, the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Accounts Commission are agreed that the National Audit Office should be responsible for its audit. To that limited extent only, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not, however, agree with his other remarks because I have no idea whether they are right or not. I strongly suspect that they are not.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Parliamentary Papers
33. Mr. Bayley: To ask the right hon. Member for
Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission what plans he has to ensure sufficient financial provision to make parliamentary papers more readily available to the public. [36489]
Mr. A. J. Beith (representing the House of Commons Commission): Negotiations have been proceeding in recent months between the House authorities and Her Majesty's Stationery Office on a new agreement for the printing and publication of House documents. One of the objectives of the negotiations has been to achieve significant price reductions to the public. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the price of the weekly Hansard was reduced from £22 to £12 from 6 June this year at no additional cost to the House.
Column 696
Mr. Bayley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an effective democracy demands freedom of information about what happens in Parliament and that £12 a week is way beyond the means of most ordinary people? Does he agree that the cost of parliamentary documents, even if they are falling substantially in price, is way beyond what ordinary people can pay and that this simply increases the power and influence of mercenary commercial lobbyists? Will he seek to make information much more readily available to the public, perhaps by making documents free of charge to public libraries?Mr. Beith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the dissemination of information is of the greatest importance in a democracy. Significant progress was made by the Commission and the scale of the reduction, especially when it was at no cost, was quite large. There is also a discount scheme which further reduces the cost to public libraries of having the information available. I hope that public libraries will continue to stock Hansard . Some are declining to do so on the ground of space rather than of cost. The Select Committee on Information is looking at many aspects of the matter, including the more electronic means of disseminating information, and the Commission will be ready to consider the advice that it receives.
Mr. Ian Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman has almost answered the question that I am about to put on the electronic dissemination of documents. Has he been able to establish what it would cost to allow Internet access to parliamentary electronic documents and does he intend to put forward a time scale for when this could come about?
Mr. Beith: The House of Commons Commission has not had any detailed discussions about the possibilities of using the Internet in that way. The Information Committee is, I understand, considering it, as is a working party of officials. I know that the matter is of great interest to many hon. Members. The Commission will certainly want to consider the advice it receives as soon as possible.
TRANSPORT
Cycling
15. Mr. Khabra: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps the Government are taking to make it easier for people to cycle to work. [36472]
Sir George Young: We have taken a number of initiatives, building on the Government's policy statement last year. The most recent is our £2 million cycle challenge competition, which is designed to generate new ideas and partnerships capable of widespread application in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Khabra: Does the Secretary of State agree that this country has the lowest percentage of cyclists compared with our European counterparts and that there is, therefore, much more to be done? However much the Government blow their own trumpet about the difference that £44 million from the millennium fund will make, that is no substitute for real action across the country through Department of Transport spending. I hope that the Secretary of State, as a well-known cycling enthusiast, will back up his words with action. If he is really concerned, will he consider making new money available from his Department's budget to make cycling available to people in all our villages, towns and cities?
Column 697
Sir George Young: I agree with the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's question: there is scope to increase the percentage of journeys travelled by bicycle in this country, as the percentage in many other European countries is far higher than in the United Kingdom. So far as policy is concerned, the hon. Gentleman will know that we are bringing forward a national strategy for cycling in concert with a wide range of other interested parties. On resources, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the very welcome contribution from the millennium fund, and the Department is supporting the national cycle network--particularly where it crosses roads owned or managed by the Department. On local authority investment, we are promoting the package approach by local authorities, and I shall certainly look for transport policies which make fuller provision for cycling so that the potential for cycling is unlocked.Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are many ways to heaven? Will he legislate to enable people wishing to ride a horse to work to use cycle paths?
Sir George Young: This exchange has so far been exclusive to Members representing the London borough of Ealing, but I am sure that the interest in cycling goes far wider. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I say that I will take note of his suggestion about the greater use of cycle paths by horses; perhaps I may write to him when I have completed some extensive research into the possibility of combined use.
Buses, South Yorkshire
16. Mr. Betts: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the effect of bus deregulation in south Yorkshire. [36473]
Mr. Norris: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having left a steaming cup of tea when he realised that Transport Question Time never ends--it is merely interrupted.
Deregulation has brought great benefits to bus travellers in south Yorkshire. There are now more operators providing more bus miles and better services. Competition has led to lower fares and new buses on some routes. Substantial savings in bus revenue support are still being made.
Mr. Betts: There must be two south Yorkshires in this country, because the reality is that bus fares have gone up five times since deregulation, there is no timetable to which anyone can refer and whole sections of the community are left without transport after 6 pm and at weekends. The buses on the road look more tired and worn out than Government Ministers and while there are 40 per cent. more buses in service, 40 per cent. fewer people are riding on them since deregulation. Is not the transport policy a shambles? Should not the Government give powers back to the transport authority to enable it to integrate services, not least with the supertram system which is now in competition rather than co-ordination with the bus services?
Mr. Norris: No. The reality is that subsidies have been halved, operating costs reduced by one third and the mileage run increased by nearly one third, all of which represents a substantial improvement on the previous appallingly overregulated local authority system. I can
Column 698
understand why that system might appeal to the hon. Gentleman and to his hon. Friends, and he is obviously prepared to ignore last week's news that Stagecoach has just ordered 1,000 brand new buses to buttress the considerable success that it, among many other bus companies, is having throughout the country. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends simply never want to see success. The bus industry is a huge success and--thank goodness--that will continue under the Government.Traffic, London
17. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest assessment of the percentage of traffic within Greater London carried by (a) road, (b) rail and (c) river. [36474]
Sir George Young: In 1993, 80 per cent. of freight lifted in Greater London was carried by road, 16 per cent. by river and 4 per cent. by rail.
Sir Michael Neubert: Is it not regrettable that one of the least used highways in our congested capital is the River Thames? Is my right hon. Friend prepared to make a mark in his new role--perhaps to mark the millennium--by supporting proposals submitted to him by me with the Transport On Water organisation for a series of piers along the river like a string of pearls to facilitate a regular river-borne passenger traffic service before the year 2000?
Sir George Young: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that I will look at the imaginative proposition that he has put to us. I assume that it was piers rather than peers that he had in mind. I agree entirely with what he said at the beginning of his question: we must unlock the potential of the Thames as an important transport network and do better than we have done so far. My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that total freight lifted on the Thames increased by 8 per cent. from 1993 to 1994.
Ms Glenda Jackson: Given the huge imbalance between the amount of freight carried on London's roads and that carried by other means, why have the Government lifted the London lorry ban, which at least managed to keep some heavy goods vehicles off residential routes? If there is a commitment to using our river to transport heavy freight, why do the Government insist that millions of tonnes of London's waste which is normally carried on the river must be taken off that route and put back on the roads?
Sir George Young: I understand that we have not lifted the London lorry ban. The decision by Westminster council to transport most of its waste by road rather than river was disappointing. From 16 September, two thirds of the waste will be transported by road to the incinerator at Lewisham. It is worth pointing out, however, that it will be used there to generate heat and power. The remaining third--some 50,000 tonnes per year-- will continue to be transported by barge and on to landfill.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Standing Order No. 143
35. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received about
Column 699
the operation of Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from House). [36492]The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): None, but my hon. Friend may wish to draany concerns that he may have to the attention of the Procedure Committee.
Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the mechanism of "I spy Strangers" either does not or should not have any useful purpose in this day and age? Does not this archaic procedure, which is inexplicable to the general public, lower the reputation of the House and should it not be abolished without further ado?
Mr. Newton: Leaving aside any views that I might have on that matter, one view that I strongly hold is that changes to the procedures of the House are best made after proper consideration by the Procedure Committee and consultation through the usual channels. I know when I am getting into dangerous water, so I will refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee.
Mr. Winnick: As the procedure in question is a way for Opposition Back Benchers from time to time to cause difficulties for the Government, does the Leader of the House agree that in the next Parliament it is far more likely to be used by Tory Back Benchers than by Labour ones?
Mr. Newton: It has already been used, I believe, once in the current Session, by a Tory Back Bencher sitting not very far from me in a new capacity. However, I do not want to take any party position on the matter, which is for all of us to consider as good Members of the House of Commons.
Divisions
36. Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many Divisions there were in the House between January and 19 July 1995 and in the comparable period in 1994. [36494]
Mr. Newton: The number of Divisions in the House between 10 January 1995 and 19 July 1995 was 185. That period covered 116 sitting days. The number of Divisions in the House between 11 January 1994 and 21 July 1994 was 246. That period covered 118 sitting days, including an extended period during which the usual channels were blocked.
Mr. Skinner: Does the Leader of the House accept that what has really happened is that the House of Commons sits for a smaller number of hours and the result is that there have been fewer Divisions? Does it not also indicate that there is not so much clear blue water between the two Front Benches? Perhaps in future he will remind all the speakers at the Tory party conference that the clear blue water looks a bit purple at the present time.
Mr. Newton: I readily accept that there is even more clear blue water between the Government Front Bench
Column 700
and the Bench below the Gangway on which the hon. Gentleman sits than between the Government and Opposition Front Benches. What I suspect is also revealed is that there is a lot of clear red blue water in the Gangway.Mr. Jenkin: May I ask my right hon. Friend to do a little further analysis of those figures? Will he enumerate the occasions on which the official Opposition Front Bench has voted against measures to try to reduce crime, to reduce Britain's competitiveness and to increase public expenditure? Will he also analyse how often the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has actually voted against the wishes of the Opposition Front Bench?
Mr. Newton: I think in both cases the answer is probably that the occasions are too numerous to recall.
Electronic Information Services
38. Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to provide more information from his Department to the parliamentary data and video network and to improve electronic information services for hon. Members and the public. [36496]
Mr. Newton: The parliamentary data and video network is a private network exclusively for the use of the Houses of Parliament. Public access is expressly not permitted. As part of the recently installed Internet link, however, plans are in hand for the provision of a public World Wide Web server, which would allow access by the general public to limited information. Possibilities for future developments on the data and video network are considered by the relevant staff Committees of both Houses, together with the House of Commons Information Committee and the House of Lords Library and Computer Sub-Committee.
Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will have noted that I specifically asked about Members' services as well as access for the public. I welcome the fact that the public will be able to obtain more information on the Internet. However, as we are spending a large amount of public money putting in a network for the use of Members and their staff, would it not be better to move very quickly ahead with getting as much information as possible about what is happening in the House on to the parliamentary data and video network so that we can cut out an awful lot of the paper currently being created day by day?
Mr. Newton: I find myself quite in sympathy with that as a general proposition. However, as I have said, those matters would need to be considered by the appropriate Committees of the House.
Mr. Wilkinson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker--relating to Question Time.
Madam Speaker: We have a statement first. I shall, of course, come back to the hon. Gentleman.
| Next Section (Debates)
| Home Page |