House of Commons
Monday 11 March 1996
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
TRANSPORT
Oil Pollution
1. Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ban single-hulled oil tankers from British waters. [17992]
The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): The Government have participated fully in amendments to international regulations, which will phase out the use of conventional single-hulled tankers over the next 30 years.
Mrs. Campbell: Why does the Secretary of State not start work now, through the International Maritime Organisation, to change the requirements for 30-year changes to tanker design? We need the world's tanker fleet to become safe as soon as possible. Thirty years is surely unacceptable.
Sir George Young: No country has banned the use of single-hulled tankers, but the hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that we have started with increased inspection of older ships. One must bear in mind the fact that 93 per cent. of the fleet have single hulls, so obviously there are constraints on the speed with which one can move to alternative use.
Mr. David Nicholson: In view of the enormous damage to wildlife and the immense cost that the recent Milford Haven upset has caused--I am thinking of the coasts of Cornwall and Devon as well as that of Wales--what urgent measures can my right hon. Friend pursue in the meantime, especially with regard to improving the training of tanker crews as there is some suggestion that badly trained crews have caused some of the mishaps?
Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend knows, the marine accident investigation branch is conducting an inquiry into the accident at Milford Haven. It will consider issues such as those that my hon. Friend rightly mentioned. It will be able to publish interim reports if lessons need to be learnt urgently, and one such special bulletin was published last week. The inquiry will cover the question of crew training.
Mr. Allen: In respect of the single-hulled Sea Empress, will the Minister ensure that the MAIB inquiry considers not only the advice given to Ministers about the incident but the responsibility that those Ministers must bear for having accepted in its entirety advice that was wholly and wildly optimistic?
The Minister failed to learn the lessons of the Braer disaster and the Brora disaster. Will he ensure that he learns the lessons of the Sea Empress disaster and that a tug is stationed in the western approaches at the earliest possible moment, and not in a year's time when the inquiry reports? Is there a tug in place in the western approaches today to prevent the possibility of a recurrence tonight of what happened to the Sea Empress?
Sir George Young:
On the first point, the MAIB is independent of the Department of Transport. It has published reports which have criticised the Department and I have no doubt that it will criticise the Department in the future if it finds grounds so to do.
On the second point, lessons have been learnt from the Braer. There was a similar inquiry into that incident and then there was the Donaldson report, 86 recommendations of which have already been accepted.
Finally, as regards tugs, we accepted Lord Donaldson's recommendations that priority should be given to the Minches and the Dover straits. Tugs were stationed in those places straight away.
2. Mr. Wilkinson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet European Transport Commissioner Kinnock to discuss the regulation of civil air transport in Europe. [17993]
Sir George Young:
I met Mr. Kinnock on 5 February and discussed a number of matters, including civil air transport. No further meetings are planned at present.
Mr. Wilkinson:
Given the evident inability of Commissioner Kinnock to regulate fair competition within the European Union, as evidenced by his accession to the Spanish Government's request to pump an extra £600 million or so into Iberia in addition to the large sum that they pumped in about five years ago, thus taking the figure well over £1 billion, will the Secretary of State go straight to Luxembourg and lodge an action with the European Court in view of the clear breach of article 92 of the treaty of Rome, which purports to ensure fair competition within the European Union?
Sir George Young:
I agree with my hon. Friend that it was a disappointing decision which allowed Spain to subsidise Iberia to the tune of £566 million. It will distort competition and it is unfair to the United Kingdom airlines, which compete without subsidies. It is the second huge payment to Iberia in four years. We shall study the decision closely and consider carefully what options are available to us to take the matter further.
3. Mr. Pike:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what change in the level of use of public transport his Department forecasts for the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [17994]
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris):
The Government do not make forecasts of that sort.
Mr. Pike:
Does the Minister recognise that his answer is not helpful? Obviously, if there is to be an increase in the use of public transport, there needs to be major public investment. Does the Minister recognise the need to meet the requirements of the disabled who need to be able to get on and off public transport if they are to be able to use it? Investment is needed as soon as possible.
Mr. Norris:
The hon. Gentleman is right: my answer was not very helpful. His supplementary question, however, was based on at least two fallacies. It is not inevitable that large improvements in public transport need to depend on public subsidies; the case that he mentioned is evidence of that. Low-floored buses, which allow the disabled to gain access on the same basis as other people, are also useful to mothers with buggies or children, people with lots of shopping and those who do not walk or get about particularly well. Operators are finding that those buses pay for themselves. Private sector operators are happy to make that sort of investment.
Sir Sydney Chapman:
Is my hon. Friend aware that buses are now reaching parts of my constituency of Chipping Barnet that it was never dreamt they could reach 10 years ago? Although I understand that 90 per cent. of passenger and freight traffic goes by road, does my hon. Friend agree that it is right that 75 per cent. of his Department's budget for London should be spent, as it is, on public transport services in our capital city?
Mr. Norris:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right about the proportion of the Department's budget that is spent on public transport in the capital city. My hon. Friend is also right to state that buses provide the key to improving the public transport quality in an area such as the one that he represents. That is why my bus working group--which brings together operators, local authorities and officials from the Department--has been looking at ways to enhance the quality of bus services. In so doing, it has been able to achieve a remarkable degree of unanimity; there is agreement across the board that we need to make buses more attractive to more people so that they are used for more journeys.
Ms Short:
Will the Minister explain why the Government attempted to keep hidden their own forecasts of road congestion, which the Royal Automobile Club describes as a
Will he confirm that the maps predict chronic congestion and gridlock on increasingly large sections of the road network in the near future? Does he agree that the only way forward for the country is increased use of public transport, which will not come about with our deregulated and declining bus services with passenger miles
decreasing and our fragmented rail services, which have resulted from privatisation and in which there has been underinvestment?
Mr. Norris:
I appreciate that not many hon. Members visit the Library, but I would hardly call placing a document in the Library keeping it secret. The plans on congestion are straightforward: they show the congestion that will arise if the growth in transport is entirely unaffected by any Government action and if no more roadworks are carried out. The question is one for the hon. Lady, whose party is in a dreadful mess over the road-building programme. As that forecast is the inevitable and logical consequence of doing nothing to our road system, when will she and her party come off the fence and make it clear that we need a generous and vigorous road programme and that the Labour party's talk of cancelling or abandoning the road programme is utter nonsense?
4. Mr. John Marshall:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about progress in the supply of new trains for the Northern line. [17995]
Mr. Norris:
The first of the trains will be delivered during 1996, and will come into service at the beginning of 1997.
Mr. Marshall:
I thank my hon. Friend for his progress report on the £1 billion investment in the Northern line, which constitutes the largest single private finance initiative project. He said that the first train would come into service early in 1997; can he and I agree to celebrate a happy new year on that first train on 1 January 1997?
Mr. Norris:
Not necessarily on 1 January--I applaud my hon. Friend's enthusiasm, but I hope that he will not mind if I temper it slightly. I have every confidence that the new fleet of trains--delivered, as my hon. Friend pointed out, under the private finance initiative--will massively enhance the service offered to Northern line travellers; 50 per cent. of the current down time on the line is due to train faults, a problem that will be eliminated immediately by the introduction of this excellent new stock.
Ms Glenda Jackson:
How confident is the Minister that the new trains will have a track worthy of their newness, given that large sections of the Northern line are having to be closed so that necessary repairs can be carried out? The need for those repairs is a direct result of the Government's failure to invest adequately in London Transport over the past 16 years.
Mr. Norris:
I am very confident. It is extraordinary that the Labour party should wail about lack of investment, given that it invested only about a quarter of the amount that the Government are now investing. Now that we have launched a massive programme of investment to improve the Northern line, Labour Members have the sheer cheek to complain about the disruption that may be caused. Passengers see with their own eyes the improvements that are being made and they wholly reject the hon. Lady's thesis.
Mr. Dykes:
Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents travel on the Northern line from Edgware and Colindale stations? When the new trains start to run at the end of the year, will he ensure that their introduction is accompanied by improvements in infrastructure and electronic arrangements on the line as there have been many mistakes, failures and disappointments so far?
Mr. Norris:
My hon. Friend is right: as well as introducing new trains, we need to give thought to signalling, power supply and track quality. We are already undertaking an extensive programme of refurbishment and improvement at stations so that we can improve the overall quality of the service offered to my hon. Friend's constituents. We are also looking for ways in which we can further harness private finance to make improvements at a rate that would not be possible if we relied solely on the taxpayer for funds. That is the key. We have the prospect of delivering £1 billion-worth of improvements to the Northern line, and the private sector can provide the vast majority of the money.
"nightmare vision of the future"?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |