| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Alterations (Expenditure)
29. Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what expenditure on alterations to the Palace of Westminster has been approved by his Committee in each year since 1992. [596]
Mr. Paul Channon (Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee): Excluding the phase 2 building, approved expenditure for all new works in the parliamentary estate since 1992 has been £10.45 million in 1992-93, £9 million in 1993-94, £7.16 million in 1994-95, £9.85 million in 1995-96 and £9.2 million in 1996-97.
Mrs. Jackson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Will the Committee seek to find the money necessary to alter the use of the shooting gallery in the Palace of Westminster to a more appropriate use? The right hon. Member will be aware that it has been said before, almost as a joke, better a creche than a shooting gallery. As the vast majority of hon. Members now support a ban on the private use and ownership of handguns, is it not appropriate that steps are taken to put that into practice now?
Mr. Channon: I understand the hon. Lady's concern, but that it is a matter not for my Committee but for the Accommodation and Works Committee. Perhaps she should write to the Chairman of that Committee; if we can assist financially, we shall certainly do our best.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend have a view on whether pressure on the budget would be relieved if Parliament decided that the boundary changes would reduce the number of hon. Members from roughly 660 to about 450 after the next general election?
Mr. Channon: That is an extremely ingenious question, but I am not sure how it relates to expenditure on alterations to the Palace of Westminster.
TRANSPORT
Barking to Gospel Oak Line
16. Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve services and rolling stock on the Barking to Gospel Oak line; and if he will make a statement. [578]
Mr. Bowis: The franchising director is consulting on his passenger service requirement proposals for the Gospel Oak to Barking line. The draft PSR safeguards the current level of service for the line. He will also be requiring bidders for North London Railways to make proposals for the replacement of the existing rolling stock on this branch.
Mr. Corbyn: I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that tomorrow the Minister, or his colleague, is travelling on the Gospel Oak to Barking line. I hope that sufficiently
crummy, out-of date, broken down heritage rolling stock is being prepared for them. Without wishing the Minister a bad journey, I hope that the train breaks down tomorrow so that he can experience what it is like to travel on the Barking to Gospel Oak line. We have had numerous debates and questions on the matter. Will the Minister please ensure that money is made available quickly to bring new equipment and signalling and a better service to the line rather than letting it run down and close, which is the real intention of some in his Department?
Mr. Bowis: That is very ungenerous to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing him a very happy journey tomorrow.
Mr. Tony Banks: There is no restaurant car in it, though.
Mr. Bowis: I am sure that there are plenty of facilities at the station.
The only thing in the House that is broken down is Labour policy on trains. As a result of privatisation and franchising, there are new standards of service, comfort, reliability and punctuality on the line, affecting the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I should have thought that he would be delighted about that and would be standing up and cheering at the thought that privatisation was galloping to his rescue.
London Transport
18. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the amount of money he estimates is required (a) this year and (b) next year for the current programme of work of London Transport. [580]
Mr. Bowis: This year, London Transport is planning to invest more than £1.1 billion in the network and the Jubilee line extension. I cannot anticipate future funding decisions by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Hughes: Given, as I am sure the Minister would agree, that a well-functioning public transport system in London is a prerequisite not only for London but to the country functioning well, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his Department received the famous "What If" memorandum during the summer holiday, which confirmed that major works on the London underground were urgently needed to ensure that stations were safe, that escalators worked, and so on? Will he assure me that he and his colleagues are doing all in their power to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the best thing he can do for public expenditure on transport in the Budget will be to ensure that we have the money to carry out all necessary works, continue the expansion of London Transport and complete the Jubilee line on time next year?
Mr. Bowis: The figure that I gave--£1.1 billion for local transport in London under this Government--is in real terms four times what it was in 1979. I believe that that commitment to London's transport is enviable. The hon. Gentleman is right to praise the Jubilee line extension, which will provide many new facilities for his and many other parts of London. London Transport has expressed confidence that the extension will be ready on
time as planned. Alongside that, the City branch of the Northern line has just reopened, work is coming forward on the Croydon tramlink, orders have been received for new Northern line trains and private finance initiative plans are coming forward for power-supplied electronic ticketing, and so on. Much work is going on in many parts of public transport.
Documents may have been produced, but to London Transport's management and to me, safety comes first. Safety is the priority. Thereafter, we can look to expand the comfort, reliability and punctuality of our trains. The record is good. Of course, at this time of year we all send letters to Father Christmas, but sometimes they go to Santa Ken as well.
Mr. Harry Greenway:
Did my hon. Friend see press reports a few weeks ago suggesting that some stations were a serious danger to passengers and were unsafe? Does he agree that it looks as though such reports were a means of trying to press the Exchequer for more money for work on those stations? Will he confirm that no station in London, including Northolt in my constituency, which was one of those named, will be allowed to be used if it is not completely safe for passengers?
Mr. Bowis:
Of course it is true that London Underground management have the responsibility for ensuring that services and stations are safe. It is up to them to take immediate action if it is thought that anything is proving unsafe for the travelling public or, indeed, the staff working on our London Transport railways and bus systems.
The alleged report to which my hon. Friend referred is the same document to which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred, and I make the same point. If a safety item is identified in the very large sum of money that is available for London Transport's purposes--concerning both the Jubilee line extension and its core needs--it will be a priority.
20. Mr. Jessel:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he intends to take to reduce aircraft noise around Heathrow. [569]
Mr. Bowis:
On 28 August 1996, the Government announced more stringent noise limits for aircraft taking off from Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, to come into effect on 1 January 1997. Between 1979 and 1992, there was a 77 per cent. reduction in the number of people living around Heathrow exposed to levels of aircraft noise likely to cause annoyance. This was achieved despite a 41 per cent. growth in the number of air transport movements. The compulsory phasing out of older, noisier, chapter 2 aircraft by 31 March 2002 is expected to bring further improvements. The United Kingdom played a leading role in securing international agreement to that.
Mr. Jessel:
Although the Government stopped the fifth terminal at Heathrow last time round in 1985--
Mr. Jessel:
1985--and although they stopped the Heathrow-Gatwick helicopter link and have contained the number of night flights at Heathrow to one in 60, is my hon. Friend aware that there are now more than 1,000 flights every day from Heathrow, that my constituents regard the noise as a pestilence and that they want the noise drastically curtailed?
Mr. Bowis:
My hon. Friend is, as always, a robust defender of his constituents, and rightly so. He will have noted, I believe with pleasure, that as from 1 January next year the decibels permitted will be reduced for daytime flights from 97 to 94 and for night-time flights from 89 to 87. Fines are applicable if aircraft exceed those limits. As of tonight, experiments with alternating runways will take place for night flights, which should help my hon. Friend's constituents in Twickenham.
Mr. Mackinlay:
What about terminal 5?
Mr. Bowis:
Terminal 5 is a question for the planning inquiry, not for me today.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |