| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Road Accidents (Children)
15. Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average number of children (a) killed and (b) seriously injured in road accidents per day in the last three months.[24732]
Mr. Norris: Despite a 4 per cent. decrease in the last quarter of 1995, compared with the same quarter in 1994, 86 children were killed and some 1,500 seriously injured; nearly one death and 16 serious injuries a day.
Mr. Soley: Does the Minister agree that those figures need the widest possible publication? Is not it a fact that the greatest fear for parents when their children walk the streets is not crime, but road accidents, and that that prevents parents from letting their children walk or cycle to school? Is not it high time that we asked ourselves, as a society, whether that is a price worth paying?
Mr. Norris: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I often reflect on the fact that 10 people are killed on our roads every day. While the fact that the figure is substantially less than the 14 or 15 who were killed seven or eight years ago is welcome, it still represents an appalling loss of life. We have become so used to glossing over it that, whereas one death in other unfortunate circumstances can give rise to reams of media interest, these deaths, which happen every day, particularly the harrowing deaths of children, are almost unremarked. The first lesson that we must draw from that is that 95 per cent. of accidents involve human error. They may be errors by drivers or by pedestrians, but where children are concerned, drivers need to understand that a child will not necessarily have the same understanding of road safety and road speeds as an adult and the need for particular care has to be indoctrinated into drivers in those circumstances. We do not have the best record on child casualties, despite our good record overall, and I am concerned that we should undertake research to find out how we can reduce that dreadful total.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Services of the House (Survey)
27. Mr. Ainger: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, when he expects the Commission
to respond to the opinion survey carried out on behalf of the Serjeant at Arms into hon. Members' views on the services of the House.[24746]
Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): The Commission has not been directly involved in the Serjeant at Arms survey. Any response to the results of the survey will be a matter for the Serjeant in the first instance and for the Domestic Committees in respect of any matters that fall within their areas of responsibility. The Commission is likely to become involved only if Committees recommend significant new expenditure or services.
Mr. Ainger: I am grateful for the response, but I am sure that the Commission would like to comment on one suggestion that came to light during the survey--that members of the public visiting the two Houses should be charged £5 a head. Hon. Members who regularly conduct people around this place or organise guides would be horrified if they thought that schoolchildren were going to be charged £5 a head.
I understand that the survey also showed that it is felt that there are great shortcomings in catering for the general public. Will there be any possibility of the Commission dealing with that shortcoming in the near future? I understand that one suggestion is to use part of Westminster Hall to provide at least a cup of tea and a sandwich for members of the public visiting this place.
Mr. Beith:
I understand that the £5 a head suggestion, which has never been considered by the Commission, was merely a report of one of the things said by respondents to the survey. I would not be willing to support such a proposal. As far as possible, the House should make itself available without cost, especially to young people. On catering for members of the public, it is the intention of the House authorities that provision should be made in the new Westminster Hall visitors centre, but the relevant committees have recommended to the Commission that that not be done until alternative provision can be made for staff who use the Westminster Hall cafeteria.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the House is extremely well served by the Serjeant and his staff? The only real criticism that one can make is of conducting a survey of that sort, which merely tends to produce crackpot suggestions, create much dissatisfaction and solve no problems whatsoever.
Mr. Beith:
As hon. Members will find if they look at the survey, it revealed a number of services that the Serjeant at Arms would be glad to try to improve, but the staff in the Department will be glad to have the hon. Gentleman's kind words.
Mrs. Dunwoody:
Will the right hon. Gentleman also note that, although a lot of things still need to be put right in the House of Commons, the Serjeant at Arms has one great cross to bear--the fact that there are some fairly intolerable Members of Parliament and, from time to time, some pretty awful staff? The Department deals with that extremely well and quite kindly.
Mr. Beith:
That is not a subject on which the Commission would be wise to comment.
Child Care Vouchers
28. Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission how many child care vouchers have been issued since their inauguration; at what cost; and if he will make a statement.[24747]
Mr. Beith: There have been 6,984 child care vouchers issued to 52 employees in the first year of the scheme's operation. The scheme was introduced by the Commission for its staff as part of its policy of equal opportunity employment. The policy was reviewed at the end of March this year, and the views of users and the trade union side were sought as a part of that review. The review's outcome showed that the vast majority of users were satisfied with the scheme, which is meeting their needs by making a wide choice of child care facilities at convenient locations accessible to them. Some suggestions for minor changes in the scheme will be considered by the management.
Mr. Greenway: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that comprehensive reply. Can he tell us how the Commission views the scheme's future? Does it cover hon. Members, or only staff of the House? Are there sufficient qualified child carers available to meet the possible demand by House staff or those who qualify for the vouchers? It has been suggested that some staff have difficulty finding qualified child minders.
Mr. Beith: The survey showed that many of our staff are able to find suitable means of using the vouchers and that the vouchers are popular with them. Whether the scheme will be extended to hon. Members' staff will depend partly on hon. Members--who can, if they wish, use the office costs allowance for that purpose--and partly on the Leader of the House and whether there is any demand for an extension of the allowance for that purpose or for the extension of the scheme to the children of hon. Members.
Members' Dining Room (Staff Conditions)
29. Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what proposals he has to improve the working conditions of staff in the Members' Dining Room.[24749]
Mr. Beith: The refurbishment of the Refreshment Department, which the House has approved, will lead to improvements of the working conditions of its staff. Work to improve the central kitchen and the dining rooms it serves, which include the Members' Dining Room, is scheduled to commence next year.
Mrs. Clwyd: That was not quite the answer that I had in mind. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that hon. Members are concerned not only about their pay and conditions but about the pay and conditions of the people who make life more tolerable for us in this place. Will he look into the pay and conditions of the people who serve in the dining rooms--particularly those who work split shifts and do not have adequate rest room facilities? Their rest room facilities have, in fact, got worse.
I am sure that the new catering manager or manageress is a very efficient person, but the stools at the side of the dining room, which people could use to take the weight off their feet when they were not serving at the table, have been taken away. Many people have to stand for long hours in the dining room without resting their feet. Although the catering manager says that the stools look untidy, I do not think that many hon. Members share that point of view.
Mr. Beith:
The pay and conditions of members of the Refreshment Department staff compare favourably with those of the rest of the catering industry. The conditions in the kitchens, however, have not been ideal, and that is one of the reasons for the substantial refurbishment I have described.
The other part of the hon. Lady's question relates to a decision taken in 1994 in the Refreshment Department as a matter of day-to-day management. Sitting down during working hours was possible only for staff in the Members' Dining Room. That practice has not been considered by the Commission because it does not raise issues about the general conditions of Refreshment Department staff.
Mr. John Marshall:
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that some members of the Refreshment Department staff are paid more than Members of Parliament?
Sir Patrick Cormack:
And the Prime Minister?
Mr. Beith:
Yes, in respect of Members of Parliament.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |