| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Austin-Walker (Woolwich): AlthoughI welcome the statement on Stratford international terminal and the Minister's recognition of the importance of public transport to economic regeneration, does he recognise that Union Railway, London Underground, British Rail and all the local authorities are keenly interested in the Woolwich rail tunnel, which could link Ebbsfleet and Stratford, supply public transport access to the Thames gateway on the south bank of the river, and provide an excellent opportunity for economic regeneration? Will he press ahead with that?
Sir George Young: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London has recently consulted on a wide range of schemes--public transport and roads--in east London. He proposes to take that consultation forward.
Mr. David Tredinnick (Bosworth): May I also congratulate the Chairman of our Select Committee,my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West(Sir A. Durant)? We sat three days a week for a year,and he chaired it very fairly?
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the fact that this is principally a passenger railway, but is he aware of the Committee's concern about freight and the fact that, at Singlewell in Kent, we required the optional loops for freight to be included in the main part of the Bill? Does he agree that huge environmental possibilities are connected with this new railway--not least because of the spur that is being put through to the west coast main line--in getting freight off the roads? Has he made any assessment of how much freight we can get off the roads, and of what the environmental impact will be?
Sir George Young:
My hon. Friend asks a much broader and very important question about the capacity to move freight from the roads to the railway. As he may know, my predecessor launched a great debate on transport. I am in the process of considering the representations that have been made, and the Government hope to draw together the threads of the debate and make a response to it. The broader answer to my hon. Friend's question may become clearer after that response.
My hon. Friend will know that we have kept the options on freight open by enabling the CTRL to carry freight--by specifying suitable track geometry and the introduction of the loop. It will therefore be able to carry the so-called piggy-back trains and other container loads, if that is where the demand lies.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle):
I too welcome the decision on Stratford station, but if its benefits were so self-evident, why did it not appear on the face of the Bill, rather than merely being the option of a long box? We have the station only because of tremendous pressure from local people and from members of the Select Committee.
I should return, very briefly, to the point about public subsidy. When the cost is grossed up, this railway will incontestably require more than £5 billion of public subsidy. The railway did not go ahead in 1990, when--as the Minister conceded a few moments ago--the total public subsidy would have been £1.9 billion. It was vetoed at that point by the then Secretary of State for Transport, Lord Parkinson. The delay in getting this project off the ground has been a national disgrace.
Sir George Young:
The hon. Gentleman will have heard a number of other Opposition Members pay tribute to the statement, precisely because it includes Stratford. If he is pressing the case that the Government should have gone ahead in 1989 or 1990, he should remember that at that time it was proposed that the line should go not through east London but through south-east London. He will have to explain to
Mr. Mark Robinson (Somerton and Frome):
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on announcing the first new major railway line to be built in this country since Victorian times. Will he ensure that all the design documents and other detailed work are properly logged, so that the Railway Heritage Committee knows what it can preserve for future generations? I hope that, under my Railway Heritage Bill, which received a Second Reading a couple of weeks ago, the Committee's powers will be extended to cover the private sector.
Sir George Young:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; the answer is yes. He makes the important point that this will be the first new railway line to be built since the Victorian age. It is a tribute to the present Administration that the decision to go ahead with it has been made during our term in office.
Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest):
I warmly welcome what I understand is the biggest private finance initiative project ever. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it will cut journey times between Birmingham and Paris to four hours, and thus have a significant effect on the economic infrastructure of the midlands? Does he think that it is slightly hypocritical of the Labour party to argue for better economic and transport infrastructure for the midlands, but, at the same time, consistently to oppose the PFI and the privatisation which have made it possible?
Sir George Young:
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We continually hear about new Labour and its willingness to work with the private sector, but when such a project is put before the House, it is condemned by Members of the Opposition Front Bench. My hon. Friend rightly points out the benefits to people in the midlands from the announcement that I have just made.
Madam Speaker:
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Humber Bridge Debts Act 1996
Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Act 1996
Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996
Edinburgh Assay Office Act 1996
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton):
With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
Monday 4 March--Debate on the Economy on a Government motion.
Tuesday 5 March--Debate on Benefit Fraud on a Government motion.
Wednesday 6 March--Until 2pm, there will be debates on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second reading of the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill [Lords].
Motion relating to the Education (School Premises) regulations.
Thursday 7 March--Debate on Equal Opportunities for Women on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Friday 8 March--Private Members' Bills.
Monday 11 March--Estimates Day (2nd allotted day--first part). There will be a debate on the Spring Supplementary Estimate, Class XIII, Vote 4, Department of Social Security: Administration and Miscellaneous Services. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion relating to Welsh standing orders.
At Ten o'clock the House will be asked to agreethe Spring Supplementary Estimates and the DefenceVotes A.
Tuesday 12 March--I expect to take the Consolidated Fund Bill, followed by other Government business.
I am not yet able to give details for Wednesday 13 and Thursday 14 March, although it may be necessary to take Government business on the Thursday. Friday 15 March is a non-sitting day.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 6 March to consider European Community Document No. 11954-95 relating to worker information and consultation.
Wednesday 6 March--European Standing Committee B. European Community Document: 11954-95, Worker Information and Consultation. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 51-viii.]
Monday 11 March--Estimates Day. Spring Supplementary Estimate, Class XIII, Vote 4, Department of Social Security: administration and miscellaneous services. Relevant reports: the fifth report from the Social Security Committee of Session 1994-95 on The Work of the Department of Social Security and its Agencies (House of Commons Paper No. 382), the Government's reply thereto (Cm 3148) and the Social Security Departmental Report: the Government's Expenditure Plans 1995-96 to 1997-98 (Cm 2813).
Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury):
I thank the Leader of the House for that statement, but must express our disappointment that next week will be the third in which no Opposition day has been allocated.
I begin by reporting what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday about elections in Northern Ireland. The Opposition will facilitate any necessary legislation, assuming, of course, that such a move is broadly acceptable to both communities.
While we welcome the fact that we are to have a debate on the economy next Monday, the lack of notice about such a debate will cause concern to some hon. Members. Will the Leader of the House assure us that Monday's debate will not replace the set-piece economic debate that is usually held in the summer but will be in addition to it? If he can confirm that, will he ensure that greater notice is given next time? That is especially important to Back Benchers, but, in view of the Jopling agreement, it is also important that the House should have as much notice as possible of such a important debate.
On Wednesday, the House is to debate the Education (School Premises) Regulations. The Leader of the House knows that attention has already been drawn to the fact that the regulations have an incredible number of handwritten alterations; they are covered in scribbles. That issue has been under consideration by the Government for at least three years and the former Secretary of State for Education admitted that it was sensitive territory. Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that important issues that affect the education of our children should not be treated in such a cavalier fashion and that the House should not be treated with such contempt by asking Members to debate regulations that can hardly be read because of the number of handwritten comments on the only documents that are available?
I understand that the Dearing report on the education of 16 to 19-year-olds is to be published soon. It seems appropriate that there should be a statement to the House at the time of publication. Can the Leader of the House facilitate that?
4.20 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |