| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Traffic Reduction
15. Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to reduce the amount of traffic on United Kingdom roads; and if he will make a statement.[34697]
Sir George Young: The Green Paper "Transport: The Way Forward" sets out our view of the measures needed to manage traffic growth.
Mr. Cohen: Is it not time for significant traffic reduction measures? I have here a copy of the Japan Times, which describes United Kingdom roads as a "gridlock to nowhere". Japan's traffic derives from business and full employment, but we have no such excuse; our traffic throttles business and work. Should not direct measures be taken to improve public transport, cut fares--rather than increase them as the Government have--and keep cars out of city centres?
Sir George Young: Only a couple of minutes ago, we heard an excellent recitation from my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London about the substantial investment that has been made in London's public transport. If the hon. Gentleman examines the situation in London, he will see that we are not investing a great deal in new roads, but that we are investing substantially in the Jubilee line, the Heathrow express, the channel tunnel rail link and Thameslink 2000. We are making much faster progress now than we have for many decades, and we are doing it with private finance. What we do not hear from Opposition Members is how on earth they would maintain that momentum without the partnership that we have created with the private sector.
LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
Sessional Spill-over Period
31. Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the merits of the spill-over period in the sessional cycle.[34715]
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): A spill-over is on occasion necessary to complete the Session's business, and has been in recent years.
Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My right hon. Friend will appreciate the special reasons for the spill-over period to be examined in the lead-up to the general election, but does he agree that such an inefficient, outdated system would not be tolerated in any other walk of life? Will he give an undertaking to consider whether that system should be among those subjected to critical examination during the welcome reforms of our procedures?
Mr. Newton: Given the inevitable uncertainties relating to the time that it takes to complete some business, I think that some form of flexibility is needed in the arrangements for a parliamentary Session, but I certainly accept the desirability of having no spill-over
period if that can be achieved. I am glad to say that I expect a shorter spill-over this year than has been customary in recent years.
Mr. Winnick: In the spill-over period, would it be possible to give the British people what they want--an autumn general election?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman might like that, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we have a mandate to continue to govern the country, and we intend to do so.
Mr. Wilkinson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's sympathetic response to the wise representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes). From every point of view, would it not make more sense for the House to rise earlier--towards the beginning of July--so that hon. Members could spend more time with their families, and to reconvene at the beginning of October, with no spill-over period? That would be a much more logical and effective way of doing business.
Mr. Newton: I intended my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) to be sympathetic, but the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) would lead to another difficulty--unless he really wants the House to sit during the party conferences. That would involve some obvious problems. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I see that that idea is attractive to Labour Members. I would not want to go to their party conference either.
Illegal Drugs
32. Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Lord President of the Council what actions the ministerial group on tackling drugs together has taken in respect of the methods of sale of illegal drugs.[34716]
Mr. Newton: The ministerial sub-committee of the Cabinet on the misuse of drugs, which I chair, is responsible for co-ordinating the Government's national and international policies for tackling drug misuse. All aspects of the Government's "Tackling Drugs Together" strategy, which focuses on illegal drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, are kept under regular review by the sub-committee. Action is taken to address other drugs of misuse as and when appropriate.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Given that, in some circumstances, the sale of amyl nitrates might be deemed illegal--particularly when sold to those under 18--are the Government considering further enforcement measures involving such sales, or even their proscription?
Mr. Newton: I have been made aware of the fact that the hon. Gentleman is in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health about a particular case that has arisen in his constituency,
or which has been drawn to his attention by a constituent. The problem to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention is being carefully examined.Statutory Instruments (Scrutiny Procedure)
33. Mr. Steen: To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of present scrutiny procedures of the statutory instruments passed since January 1994.[34717]
Mr. Newton: I think that our procedures for scrutinising statutory instruments are generally effective but, of course, we are always willing to consider suggestions for improvements. The Procedure Committee's recent report on delegated legislation contained many interesting ideas and, on Thursday, during the debate on parliamentary procedures, there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to express their views.
Mr. Steen: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the cost to industry of the 8,098 statutory instruments that have been passed by the House since January? Is he aware that the cost of implementing those 8,098 statutory instruments is £8.75 billion and that only 643 statutory instruments have been repealed? As the Government are committed to deregulation, just as I am, does my right hon. Friend agree that some improvements are called for before the general election?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend refers to activities that have gone ahead under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. I understand that he would like to see further and speedier progress but, inevitably, it has taken time to build up. I hope that he will acknowledge that many of the statutory instruments to which he refers--for example, the many that are concerned with social security--do not, in the sense in which he means it, impose costs on industry.
Mr. Spearing: Does the Lord President agree that one of the problems in scrutinising and debating the merits of statutory instruments is that, of late, primary legislation has been much more framework legislation than of yore, so the importance of statutory instruments and their impact on industry, to which the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) referred, are much greater than before? Should not the Government look to the drafting of legislation that is less of a framework and more precise and in greater detail when it is first presented to the House?
Mr. Newton: I certainly agree that it is right to seek to improve the quality of the drafting of primary legislation. I have been seeking to advance that by publishing more Bills in draft so that practitioners may have a proper opportunity to look at them before they are presented to the House. Beyond that, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point but, equally, I understand the difficulties--for example, the pressures on parliamentary time. The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity, should he catch your eye, Madam Speaker, to develop his thoughts further in Thursday's debate.
Orders of the Day
Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |