| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Her Majesty's Stationery Office (Contract)
29. 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 preparation of the new contract with HMSO.[34712]
Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): As I announced on 22 May in a written answer, Official Report, column 191, a copy of the draft contract between the House and HMSO for the provision of printing and publishing services was placed in the Library on 4 June. Discussions with HMSO to finalise
certain outstanding details are now approaching completion, and it is expected that the contract will be signed before the end of July.
Mr. Greenway: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to assure the House that HMSO will be paid in full for the contracts into which it has entered to supply education materials to the agencies of some foreign Governments? Will it be paid in full, or will it not?
Mr. Beith: I cannot comment, because that is not a matter for the Commission. It is not something over which we have any control.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the right hon. Gentleman absolutely certain--can he give an undertaking to the House--that any such contract will protect the interests of Members, and the public interest in the control of parliamentary papers, which is fundamental to the working of the House?
Mr. Beith: Yes. You, Madam Speaker, set out in a letter that was printed in Hansard the basis on which the House authorities needed to be satisfied. Officers of the House have gone to great pains to ensure that the conditions set out in that letter are satisfied in the contract. As far as it is possible to do that, I believe that the House authorities have satisfied the obligation.
Child Care Voucher Scheme
30. Mr. Corbyn: 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 the child care voucher scheme for Commission employees.[34714]
Mr. Beith: The scheme was introduced on 1 April 1995. Expenditure on child care vouchers to date is £58,877. Fifty staff have participated in the scheme since its introduction.
Mr. Corbyn: Given the limited number of staff who have benefited from the scheme, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Commission cannot undertake a survey of all staff and others employed in the building to ascertain the need for on-site child care facilities? It is nonsensical that a very large number of people are employed in this building and that their employer is way behind any other large employer in London or anywhere else. Employees have no child care facilities, yet they are desperately needed. The provision of such facilities would send out a signal that we are serious about looking after people who have small children, people who sometimes cannot get to the House because of the illness of their children, for example, or because there are no facilities for their children in other workplaces, which there ought to be.
Mr. Beith: The Commission ensured that a survey was carried out, and a full review, the results of which suggested that the child care voucher scheme was meeting many of the requirements of those employed by the Commission. Indeed, there was no evidence that a larger number of people would have their requirements met by on-site facilities.
The wider question of whether we should have a creche on the premises is one on which the Commission has regularly sought the advice of the relevant Committees--the Select Committee on Accommodation and Works and the Select Committee on Administration--both of which have regularly pointed to the difficulties of providing such a facility. The Commission continues to review the possibility and would in principle be happy to see such a facility available to the staff it employs.
Mr. Jacques Arnold:
Bearing in mind the old adage: people should put their money where their mouths are, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many hon. Members ask the House authorities to issue child care vouchers at the expense of their office cost allowance?
Mr. Beith:
That question would have to be directed to the Leader of the House, but it is a useful reminder that Members of Parliament could use the office allowance to extend the child care allowance to their staff. If hon. Members feel that the office allowance is inadequate for that purpose, opportunities might arise later in the week to raise the matter.
East and West Coast Main Lines
13. Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much public money has been spent on upgrading and modernising the rolling stock and railway infrastructure of the (a) west coast and (b) east coast main line over the past decade.[34695]
Mr. Watts: East coast main line electrification was completed in 1991 at a cost of £515 million at 1991 prices. The west coast main line was electrified in the 1960s and 1970s, and some £200 million was spent on new traction on that line between 1987 and 1990.
Mr. Prentice: Is not it a national disgrace that so much public money has been used to modernise the east coast main line, which was virtually gifted to the American company Sea Containers, yet the west coast main line has been starved of investment? We have clapped-out rolling stock driven by puffing billies. The Minister, in answer to an earlier question, talked about improvements to the track. The bids are out for the franchise this Friday, and I would like an assurance from the Minister that, whoever wins the contract to run trains on the west coast main line, new trains--high-speed trains--will be introduced at the earliest possible time on that vital link between the north-west and London.
Mr. Watts: Investment in the east coast line was not gifted to an American company. The investment was in track, power supplies and signalling, which is now in the ownership of Railtrack, for which the taxpayer has just received £1.9 billion, and in rolling stock, which is owned by the rolling stock companies, which were also sold for some £1.9 billion.
Part of the reason for issuing invitations now for the franchise of the west coast main line service is so that potential operators--
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
More delay. Always delay.
Mr. Watts:
No, not delay, as the hon. Gentleman suggests from a sedentary position.
Part of the reason for issuing invitations now is so that potential operators can take part in the decisions that will have to be made shortly about upgrades of line performance over and above the core investment programme to which Railtrack is committed from its existing income.
14. Ms Glenda Jackson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for improving public transport in London.[34696]
Mr. Norris:
The Government's plans for improving public transport in London were set out in the recently published transport strategy for London.
Ms Jackson:
I thank the Minister for that reply--albeit it is 17 years too late. Does he agree that dial-a-ride is a vital part of public transport for Londoners with disabilities? Does he also agree that the number of complaints about the service that is now offered to users of dial-a-ride is increasing? Will he therefore reconsider his refusal to meet one of my constituents--a user of the service--so that he might meet some of those who are so dependent on it and hear at first hand their complaints and discover a way to improve such a vital service?
Mr. Norris:
I make two points to the hon. Lady. First, it ill becomes her to talk about investment in London Transport. I remind her that, in 1978, the last year for which her party was responsible--I am talking now in 1996 prices--total investment in London Transport and London Underground was £203 million. The figure this year was £1,102 million--more than five times as much in real terms.
Secondly, the hon. Lady should know--I suspect that she is too busy with her ASLEF activities to have noticed--that we have protected the budget for dial-a-ride. The budget is ring-fenced within London Transport. It has grown consistently in real terms over recent years and dial-a-ride provides in London the best service for disabled users of any comparable city anywhere in the world. I know of the hon. Lady's constituency case. I have told her that I cannot meet her constituent because I have an obligation to many other users of dial-a-ride, but I am always willing to hear constructive suggestions on how to make the system work better.
Sir Michael Neubert:
Will it surprise my hon. Friend if I point out that one way in which to improve public transport in London would be to establish passenger high services on the River Thames, a greatly underused highway through our capital city? Can he offer any prospect of progress on that front?
Mr. Norris:
I can indeed. As my hon. Friend knows, I established a working party to examine the viability of passenger services on the Thames two years ago. That working party has stimulated a good deal of activity on the river, and the Port of London Authority is currently organising a proper auction of available pier slots to determine how a viable service might be provided.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |