| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Jopling Reforms
31. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the
House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the cost of implementing the Jopling reforms. [18023]
Mr. Beith: There have been both direct costs and direct savings for the House's votes arising from the implementation of the Jopling reforms. There have been extra reporting and security costs because total sitting hours have actually increased, but with fewer sittings of the House continuing after 10.30 pm there have been savings in overtime, night allowances and late-night transport. The net effect so far has been an estimated reduction in costs of some £80,000.
Mr. Greenway: Have the staff responded happily to the more social hours that they are now enjoying? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that any more could be done to implement the Jopling reforms with a view to making life more acceptable to lady Members as well as gentlemen Members, in the way demanded in discussions outside the House?
Mr. Beith: As an individual Member, I should like more of the Jopling reforms to be carried out. However, the Commission's job is to make provision for the decisions that the House has made. As far as I am aware, the staff continue to work well and effectively in support of the arrangements, although the Commission has not canvassed opinion on whether they prefer them to the previous arrangements.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that against the financial savings must be weighed the very real fact that the increase in hours is entirely in debates where votes cannot be taken? Back-Bench Members have actually lost an advantage that they had previously, namely, that votes could be taken on Fridays--which is not now possible on the Adjournment debates. Although there is undoubtedly some positive benefit from the reforms, it is important that the House does not lose sight of the reason why we are here, which--saving the right hon. Gentleman's grace--is not to save money for his Commission, but to do a job for our constituents.
Mr. Beith: All those points were raised in the debates on the reforms. As far as I am aware, the reforms were not influenced by considerations of whether they would save money or not save money. The relatively complex balance I have just described indicates that it would be hard to argue for the reforms on that basis.
TRANSPORT
Marine Pollution
11. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the role of the salvors in the Sea Empress accident. [18002]
Sir George Young: As I announced in my recent statement, the marine accident investigation branch will examine the detail of the salvage operation as well as the causes of the original accident.
Mr. Dalyell: Can a system possibly be right in which the sole aim of the salvor is to save the ship?
Sir George Young: The system would not be right if that were the way in which it was structured; it is not structured like that. The reward due to the salvor is based on the value of the ship and the cargo that is salved. However, the contract also provides for an additional reward if, by his efforts, the salvor prevents or minimises environmental damage. In that way, the contract encourages the salvor to minimise environmental damage.
Dr. Spink: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is not yet at all certain that the accident and the disaster would have been averted or lessened if the ship had been double-hulled? Can he confirm that the inquiry will address that question?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is by no means certain that if the ship had been double-hulled, the disaster might have been avoided. He will be interested to learn that during the inquiry, we will simulate the accident to see whether a double hull would have made any difference.
12. Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the recommendations contained in "Safer Ships and Cleaner Seas" have been accepted by his Department; and how many of these are now in practice. [18003]
Sir George Young: The Government accepted 86 of the 103 recommendations in the report when they published their response a year ago. They have since accepted a further five, and are considering another eight; only four have been rejected. Of the accepted recommendations, half have been implemented and action is being taken on all the others.
Dr. Godman: Has the Secretary of State made a definite timetable for the implementation of the recommendations on marine environmental high-risk areas? If he has such a timetable, will he outline the measures that would be taken in such areas to minimise the risk of accidents? He will not be surprised to hear me say that I think that the first such area should be the Minches.
Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman asks about recommendation 59 of the Donaldson report that so-called MEHRAs--marine environmental high-risk areas--should be established. We first need to establish whether the existing voluntary arrangements for routing are working. Our survey suggests that they are, but we will consult on the results. We also need to discuss with the EC the proposals for environmentally sensitive areas because international agreement will be needed on the definition of such areas before they can be implemented.
Sir Patrick Cormack: When can we expect to see appropriate tugs in all the appropriate places?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend will be interested to hear that we propose shortly to publish the so-called Belton report, which carried forward the Donaldson recommendations on the priorities for the location of tugs. We have implemented, as my hon. Friend knows, the priority recommendation that tugs should be situated at the Minches and at Dover. The Belton report will shed further light on the succeeding priorities.
Rail Privatisation
14. Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the franchising of rail services. [18005]
Mr. Watts: The franchising programme is making good progress. Fourteen of the 25 train operating companies, representing 61 per cent. of passenger revenue in the financial year 1994-95, have either been franchised or are in the process of being sold.
Mr. Bayley: Do the Government still subscribe to the view that rail privatisation will bring increased competition? If so, do they regard it as a failure of policy that Wisconsin Transportation now owns all four freight companies? Is it true that the previous Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), went to the United States to encourage Wisconsin Transportation to bid for all four companies? What plans do the Government have to prevent private rail operators from taking over one another and creating massive private rail monopolies?
Mr. Watts: Train freight companies are not franchised, which was the point of the hon. Gentleman's original question, but sold. With his wide knowledge of transport, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that Railfreight has plenty of competitors, notably from the road haulage industry, and it was the verdict of the market that Railfreight would be stronger with the three companies in common ownership, because that view was reflected in all of the bids.
Mr. Lidington: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread concern in my constituency that the public service obligations required of bidders for the Chiltern franchise are not compatible with the proposed freight service sought by Central Railways Ltd.? Will he therefore issue clear guidance so that bidders for the Chiltern franchise and the customers who value the Chiltern passenger service know exactly where they stand?
Mr. Watts: No subsequent proposal can pose any threat to the continuation of passenger services, which are protected and guaranteed for the first time by passenger service requirements.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Ministerial Accountability
33. Mr. Bayley: To ask the Lord President of the Council what procedural measures he proposes to increase the accountability of Ministers to the House. [18024]
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The Government will contribute to the Public Service Committee's examination of ministerial accountability in
the light of the Scott report. Sir Richard made no specific recommendations about the procedural arrangements of the House, but I am always ready to consider suggestions on procedural matters from hon. Members or from the Procedure Committee.
Mr. Bayley: In response to the Scott report, the Government claimed, ad nauseam, that Ministers had not knowingly misled Parliament, but the word "knowingly" was added to "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" only in July last year. Was it simply added to provide an alibi for the Government in the knowledge that the Scott report was coming? Will the Leader of the House consider removing the word from "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" so that Ministers who transgress must do what Lord Carrington more honourably did after the outbreak of hostilities in the south Atlantic, and resign?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman seems to be attempting to rerun a substantial debate that we have already had. If the Public Service Committee wishes to raise such points, no doubt they will be considered, but I find it a bit difficult to see why something that is done unknowingly should incur the wrath that the hon. Gentleman would like to bestow on it.
Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend look again at Friday sittings? Non-sitting Fridays deny Back-Bench Members of Parliament a valuable opportunity to table a private notice question. They also deny Ministers what can be a valuable opportunity to make a ministerial statement at 11 am on a matter quite unforeseen and of great national importance.
Mr. Newton: My general view is that the House collectively feels that the changes that were made following the Jopling report have been working rather well--including those that come up in a later question--and have given considerably increased opportunities to Back-Bench Members. I have no plans for a change at present.
Mr. Spearing: Would not the accountability of Ministers be improved if the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)--in a later question on the Order Paper--for a Question Time on European Union matters were adopted? Would it not also be entirely compatible with protocol 13 of the treaty of Maastricht? Would not the Government be in a stronger position in respect of their colleagues in the European Union if they adopted the proposal of my hon. Friend and reverted to the practice before 1979?
Mr. Newton: The question whether there should be a dedicated Question Time on European matters has been looked at once or twice in the past and has not seemed to be a good idea. The Scrutiny Committee, which is currently conducting a further inquiry into the operation
of scrutiny arrangements, might wish to make such a suggestion, although I am not aware at present that it is looking at that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |