| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Transport (London)
9. Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the transport system in London. [7450]
Mr. Norris: The Government plan a continuing high level of investment in London's transport system, with increasing benefits to passengers from greater efficiency and increased private sector involvement.
Mrs. Prentice: Will the Minister apologise to users of London transport who have faced fare increases of up to 14 per cent. in the past week? Will he also apologise to the 100,000 passengers whose journeys to work are being disrupted by urgent repair work that could have been dealt with sensibly had the Government bothered to invest in the network?
Given that the previous Secretary of State for Transport--now chairman of the Conservative party-- said only last year that fare levels would be stabilised and
would eventually fall, will the Minister apologise to the whole country for the present state of our transport system?
Mr. Norris:
That is an extraordinary series of requests, coming from a member of a party whose record of investment in London is so abysmal that we are now experiencing far more disruption than we would had it invested in the system properly when it was in office. It is shameful for Labour politicians to seek to extract a palpably incorrect interpretation from the considerable investment that is now taking place. The hon. Lady advances the extraordinary proposition that we should apologise for the fact that decades of neglect by Governments of her persuasion--indeed, all Governments--are now being remedied for the benefit of passengers.
As for the issue of fares, if the hon. Lady has any proposals, have they been costed by her right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury team? I suspect not.
The current Administration have ensured that London Transport now makes an operating profit on its activity, as a result of which investment levels are at a level unparalleled since the war.
Mr. Brooke:
What prospect does my hon. Friend see of further new schemes to accelerate the movement of buses in London, similar to the initiative at Shepherds Bush?
Mr. Norris:
I certainly foresee a continuation of that programme. Bus priority is another of the programmes that have received increased funding in this year's London local transport settlement; it is the key to better patronage of buses and, in turn, to the success of any urban transport system.
The experiment at Shepherds Bush has been extremely successful. We are building on it, with local authorities in west London and other authorities of all political persuasions throughout the capital.
Mr. Spearing:
Does the Minister recall the encouraging reply given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) about the proposals of Transport on Water for an imaginative scheme providing public water buses in London, to be funded by a mixture of public and private capital? The public capital would cover the transfer of traffic from road to water--mentioned by the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke)--particularly the transfer of coach traffic, some of it carrying visitors, among the five tourist centres between the Tate gallery and the tower of London. Such a scheme would reduce congestion, and secure the support of the people of London. As the tide of time is now against the Government, will they float the scheme and push the boat out while they have the chance?
Mr. Norris:
That was a rather tortuous metaphor, but, on the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have to say that I share his aspiration. I have long wanted river boat services to return to the Thames, but the prerequisite is that they should be viable, at least at the operating level. I know that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that proposition.
I am happy to examine the proposal made by Transport on Water--indeed, we have plans of our own to try to improve river services. However, the hon. Gentleman,
who is extremely knowledgeable about the Thames and its use in the past 30 or 40 years, knows that such a proposition is not as easy to implement as it appears. There are some inherent costs in waterborne transport operations which far exceed those per passenger mile on, for example, buses or light rail.
10. Mr. Robathan:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the Central Railway project. [7451]
Mr. Watts:
The promoters of the Central Railway project are preparing an application under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
Mr. Robathan:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that most hon. Members, and, indeed, most members of the public, share the aim of shifting more freight from the roads to the railways. However, he may not be aware that recent reports in local newspapers, to the effect that an application has already been made by Central Railway plc, have added to the confusion, uncertainty and unhappiness, and especially the blight, along the chosen route. Will my hon. Friend reassure the House and my constituents in Lutterworth and elsewhere that, as soon as an application is made to his Department, the House and the public will get to know about it and the public will have an opportunity to state their views? At the moment, there is tremendous uncertainty and unhappiness along the entire route from Kent to Leicestershire.
Mr. Watts:
If an application is made, it is virtually certain that it will be regarded as a scheme of national significance under the 1992 Act. The House would therefore have an opportunity to debate the principle of the scheme.
31. Mr. Thurnham:
To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what is his
latest estimate of the cost of the new accommodation to be provided in phase 2 of the new parliamentary building. [7472]
Mr. Paul Channon (Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee):
The estimated cost of the new parliamentary building remains within the maximum risk estimate of £165 million which was approved by the House of Commons Commission in 1993. That figure excludes inflation in building costs between that date and 1999, when the building is scheduled for completion.
As the House will realise, building cost inflation is difficult to predict.
Mr. Thurnham:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Parliament should not only erect a very fine new building but achieve value for money for the taxpayer? Will he provide the House with full details of this very expensive new building so that we can have a proper debate about it?
Mr. Channon:
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on both points--about the need for the building to be of high quality and yet not too extravagant. If he requires further
Mr. MacShane:
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members are still working in offices, with members of their staff, in conditions that are wholly illegal? Given that not 100 yd from here there is another, largely unused Chamber with many offices around it, will he invite his honourable--in the full sense--and noble Friends to vacate those premises until such time as all democratically elected Members of Parliament have proper office facilities of their own?
Mr. Channon:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind suggestion, but I am not sure that I am the best person to undertake that rather sensitive and difficult task.
Sir Sydney Chapman:
I accept that there must be value for money in any public sector or, indeed, private sector building project, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the new building is to be on one of the finest and most important sites in London and that it would be quite wrong for it to be built as cheaply as possible with poor quality materials? Does he agree that it is absolutely essential to use good quality materials so that the building will last for all time?
Mr. Channon:
My hon. Friend, with his architectural experience, puts his finger on the main point. It is essential that we do not ruin this very fine site so near the Palace of Westminster. I hope that the right balance has been achieved and that we shall have a building of high quality at reasonable cost.
33. Dr. Goodson-Wickes:
To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what recent provisions have been made in the past two financial years for acquisitions of works of art. [7474]
Mr. A. J. Beith (On behalf of the House of Commons Commission):
The financial provision for works of art in 1994-95 was £37,000, including some £17,000 specifically for 7 Millbank. In 1995-96, the provision is £50,000.
Dr. Goodson-Wickes:
May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer? He will be aware of the admirable work done by the House of Commons Works of Art Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), especially in commissioning works to fill gaps that have been identified for this century. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Commission will seek adequate funding for the new parliamentary building so that similar gaps do not appear in the next century?
Mr. Beith:
The experience of 7 Millbank and
1 Parliament street suggests that the Commission and the Finance and Services Committee will try to meet reasonable requirements to display good works of art in the new building. I know that the Works of Art Committee works hard and drives a hard bargain on behalf of the House in trying to make that possible.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |