Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I referred earlier to the answer that I received today on the environmental information tribunal, which we had understood would be the most likely forum in which access to environmental information would be enforced. The Minister said that he wanted legislation on health and safety. Will he clarify the position on the enforcement of access to information on both health and safety and the environment?
Mr. Freeman: The Government are considering the proposals in the report of the House of Lords Select
10 Dec 1996 : Column 173
Committee on the European Communities on freedom of access to information on the environment, which recommends alternative procedures for resolving disputes under the regulations as soon as the Government have decided the best way to proceed. I must say that I was unaware of that point, but the hon. Gentleman has now ensured that I will take a personal interest in the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) raised important points, including access to information on European regulations. I hope to be publishing, in early January, a guidance to all Departments on how to win friends and influence people in Brussels. We do not actually call the check list that--we refer to how Ministers should become involved at an earlier stage in the origination and preparation of directives and regulations. It is important that we take a close interest at a much earlier stage. That goes not just for Parliament and the Executive, but for business and industry.
My hon. Friend also mentioned transparency. I discussed that issue with Swedish Ministers during my recent visit to Stockholm. They were right to say that the whole process of directives and regulations from Brussels should be much more transparent. One way in which to achieve that is to engage in more consultation.
I join the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood in congratulating the Select Committee. I must say that the hon. Gentleman's speech sounded very much like that of a Member of Parliament who was exiling himself permanently to the Back Benches as a voice of the people. Conservative Members will do all that we can to ensure that his ambitions are fulfilled.
Question deferred, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).
Lords amendments considered.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.--[Mr. Watts.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 82 to 84 and 86 to 88.
Mr. Keith Bradley (Manchester, Withington):
May I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I trust that the Minister was moving the motion relating to the first group of amendments.
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts)
indicated assent.
Mr. Bradley:
I am grateful for that reassuring nod; I feared that we were going to have to discuss the whole lot en bloc--in which event, my speech might have been slightly longer than I had anticipated.
Although we are dealing with a set of amendments relating to planning fees and appeals, I feel that I should first pay tribute to the work that has been done in the other place, particularly by the Select Committee. The detailed scrutiny undertaken there has made our work much easier, as have the clear and concise arguments that have been advanced and answered throughout the Bill's passage so far. As that will enable us to engage in a simpler debate tonight, neither my hon. Friends nor I intend to delay the House unduly.
10 Dec 1996 : Column 175
As we are dealing with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, perhaps I could ask the Minister whether he intends to make any further statement about today's reopening of the tunnel to passengers. Can he give any further information about safety procedures that may have been changed or enhanced as a result of the consideration and discussions that have followed the fire in the tunnel, about the implications of those discussions for the transport of lorries, and about the inquiry that is currently under way?
I am sure the Minister agrees that it is essential for us to put the maximum possible information about any changes in safety conditions or mechanisms into the public domain, in order to restore public confidence in the channel tunnel at the earliest opportunity. Any statement that the Minister is prepared to make would be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
May I also ask the Minister a specific question about the amendments? Have any of the proposed procedural changes any public expenditure implications, and, if so, does the Bill cater for them?
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling):
Like the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), I want to link my remarks to the amendments; and, like him, I wish to ask the Minister a question that bears directly on the provisions and proceedings involved in the Bill--and, I believe, on the amendments.
My hon. Friend the Minister will recall that a significant part of the outstanding business from our proceedings that was carried over to the House of Lords was the issue of the Government's response to the parliamentary ombudsman's report, which found the Government responsible for maladministration in relation to the previous planning procedures and the planning blight occasioned by the legislation.
As my hon. Friend will know, the predecessor of the present Secretary of State for Transport endeavoured to sustain the line that maladministration had not taken place, but that line proved unsustainable. It was reversed by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State, who gave an undertaking to the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration--which is responsible for the ombudsman's work--that the Government would respond positively to the ombudsman's finding of maladministration.
It is now more than a year since my right hon. Friend made that undertaking to the Select Committee--and, indeed, to Members of Parliament such as myself whose constituents are directly affected. I consider it deeply regrettable that the Government have not responded so far; I do not understand why it has taken them so long. I hope that, when he replies to the hon. Member for Withington, my hon. Friend the Minister will also deal with that extremely important issue, which concerns my constituents and others living along the line of the route.
Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh):
I, too, commend the work of our colleagues in the other place in scrutinising the Bill. As has been rightly said, it has made our job much easier.
May I link my concerns about the reopening of the tunnel with the amendments, and briefly ask the Minister whether he can provide any further information,
10 Dec 1996 : Column 176
My most pressing concern is public reassurance. As the safety procedures are covered by a confidentiality agreement, no one seems to know exactly what has happened to the fire safety tests. Can the Minister tell us whether previous safety recommendations, designed and presented at an early stage of the tunnel's design, can be published in due course, so that we can establish which procedures were used and which were discarded, and the reasons for that?
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)
rose--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Before I call the next speaker, let me say that, although I have been tolerant so far, I do not intend to continue to be tolerant. We are discussing a group of amendments, and we must stick to the subject of those amendments.
Mr. Rowe:
Unfortunately, the combination of a severe attack of 'flu and my growing belief that the version of the Bill that is on the Table is not the one to which the amendments relate is causing me some difficulty. I am not sure when I should make the point that I wish to make. I hope that you will not be too severe, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 6, line 32, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert--
(".--(1) The appropriate Ministers may by regulations make provision about fees for relevant planning applications.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) above may, in particular--
(a) make provision for the payment to the authority to which a relevant planning application is made of a fee of a prescribed amount,
(b) make provision for the remission or refunding of a prescribed fee (in whole or part) in prescribed circumstances,
(c) make provision for a prescribed fee to be treated as paid in prescribed circumstances,
(d) make provision about the time for payment of a prescribed fee,
(e) make provision about the consequences of non-payment of a prescribed fee, including provision for the termination of the application concerned or any appeal against its refusal, and
(f) make provision for the resolution of disputes.
(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) above may--
(a) make such supplementary, incidental or consequential provision as the appropriate Ministers think fit, and
(b) make different provision for different cases.")
7 pm
Next Section
| Index | Home Page |