| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
TRANSPORT
Heathrow Airport
12. Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress by the European Community on its review of slots at Heathrow airport.[8774]
Sir George Young: We are awaiting proposals from the European Commission on revisions to the current regulations governing slot allocation at all Community airports.
Mr. Steen: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a fearful row is going on in Europe between two socialist Commissioners, Commissioner Kinnock and Commissioner van Miert. As a result, the report about the future of grandfather rights and slot trading in major European airports has been delayed by more than a year. Is that an example of the British Government being unable to do anything because Brussels bureaucracy is sovereign over matters that it decides to investigate?
Sir George Young: We can carry on with the present position, under which a certain amount of slot trading is acceptable. As I said in my original answer, we are awaiting proposals from the European Commission. It has expressed the view that trading is contrary to current regulation, but it remains a grey area. In the meantime, I am not aware of any substantial disadvantage to the United Kingdom civil aviation industry.
Mr. Cunliffe: Does the Minister appreciate that the best way to relieve pressure on slots at Heathrow would be to grant a second runway to Manchester airport immediately? Hundreds of thousands of people from areas north of Manchester must travel to Heathrow to fly to Strasbourg, Bonn and other destinations in Europe--including the British parliamentary delegations to the European Union, and those to the Council of Europe and the Western European Union, of which I am a member. Therefore, I have a vested interest in the matter. I ask the Secretary of State to take an immediate decision that would bring automatic relief to Heathrow.
Sir George Young: I commend the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in introducing a question about Manchester airport as a supplementary to a question about slot allocation. He will be pleased to hear that a decision about the second runway at Manchester is imminent.
Heathrow-London Rail Link
13. Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will report progress on the Heathrow to London rail link.[8773]
Sir George Young: Work on the Heathrow express project, financed by BAA plc, is progressing well. It expects to start operating in June 1998.
Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the project is on schedule and will provide a wonderful facility from the airport direct to Paddington? Is he
13 Jan 1997 : Column 18
confident that additional services may be grafted on to the line to serve other stations in addition to a full express service?
Sir George Young: I confirm what my hon. Friend just said. It is a £350 million investment by the private sector in improving infrastructure in London, which puts a gloss on the debate that we had earlier in Question Time, in which it was implied that improvement could come only through public finance.
As to grafting on further services, I was encouraged to hear that BAA recently announced that it is considering the introduction of a sister service to the Heathrow express. That service, which could start in 1999, would operate between St. Pancras and Heathrow and would include some local stops. That would clearly be of great advantage to the travelling public in London.
London Underground
14. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the level of investment in safety on London Underground in (a) 1995 and (b) 1996 to date; and what is the planned level for 1997.[8772]
Mr. Bowis: Decisions on investment priorities are a matter for London Underground Ltd. It is impossible to estimate how much money is spent each year on safety because very many projects include some element of safety-related work.
Mr. Hughes: That was a pretty hopeless answer, if I may say so. Did not London Underground warn the Government that its funding for the coming year would put at risk many of the necessary routine safety works that it needs to carry out? Is it not the case that only the most urgent repairs of escalators are being carried out, such that other escalators are often closed and not used? What is the point in ensuring that the brickwork in the East London line tunnels is restored if, at the end of the day, the opening of the line will have to be deferred for a further two years because London Underground cannot carry out basic work on the line and the track?
Mr. Bowis: If I may return the compliment, that was not a very satisfactory supplementary question, because the truth is that any investment in London Underground's track and trains is likely to improve safety. That is what I was saying in my initial answer, and given the real-terms increase in investment, that has to be good news.
In terms of safety, the hon. Gentleman will know that, under the Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 1994, London Underground was required to submit a safety case. It did so and its case was approved by the railway inspectorate. From this year, London Underground will produce annual safety plans. The hon. Gentleman can be reassured that--certainly from the Government's point of view and that of the management of London Underground--safety is the top priority, and the good news is that the number of fatal accidents on London's underground fell from 46 in 1990 to 26 last year.
13 Jan 1997 : Column 19
LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
EU Legislation
33. Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement about the House's procedures for the scrutiny of EU legislation.[8752]
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The House's procedures for scrutiny of EC legislation provide for comprehensive and detailed examination of legislation coming before the Council of Ministers. As the Select Committee on European Legislation acknowledged in its recent report on the subject, our system compares extremely well with systems elsewhere in the European Union.
Mr. Jenkin: While I have no doubt that our system compares extremely well with those of our European counterparts, may I, as a member of a Committee that considers EU legislation, explain to my right hon. Friend how topsy-turvy it feels to take part in the legislative process? We deal with extremely significant draft legislation in a Second Reading debate, tucked away in Committee upstairs, and then when the primary legislation emerges to implement European legislation, we have proper scrutiny debates of proposed Acts of Parliament down here. There is no way to bind Ministers or to alter legislation once it has been enacted in Europe. Is that not something that we desperately need to consider at the intergovernmental conference?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have made a number of proposals in the context of the IGC, not least of which is that there should be a minimum of four weeks before a proposal can be adopted by the Council of Ministers, to allow for proper scrutiny by national Parliaments. I am glad to say that that idea has attracted significant support.
Sir James Molyneaux: Will the Lord President consider extending the scope and authority of European Standing Committees A and B, in which we sometimes have quite stimulating debates?
Mr. Newton: I agree that the debates are sometimes stimulating, although I am not quite sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) appeared to share that view.
As to the general arrangements, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the Select Committee on European Legislation has produced some thoughts on
13 Jan 1997 : Column 20
Divisions
34. Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many Divisions there have been in the House during 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996, and if he will estimate the number likely in the first four months of 1997.[8751]
Mr. Newton: There were 390 Divisions in the House in the 1992-93 Session, 339 in 1993-94, 202 in 1994-95 and 33 so far this Session. I have made no estimate of the likely number of Divisions in the first four months of 1997.
Mr. Hughes: I suggest that it may be fewer than 33, which was the last figure that the right hon. Gentleman gave. Are the Government likely to obtain Royal Assent for all their legislation before the end of the Session? What are the odds on the month when the election will be called? Will it be decided by the Government at their choice or by the Opposition with our votes?
Mr. Newton: I am a politician and not a gambling man, although I occasionally buy a lottery ticket. I do not propose to be drawn on that matter by the hon. Gentleman. However, I will say that I hope and expect that we shall be able to carry out our legislative programme, given that the number of Divisions held so far partly reflects the extensive support for that programme.
Mr. Skinner: Is it not true that the number of Divisions fell dramatically in the past two years principally because the Government called upon the vast majority of their Back Benchers to push through the Jopling recommendations? That resulted in many orders, such as the Common Market orders to which the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) referred, being sent upstairs to Committee. It should be clear to all and sundry that, after the next election, when the Tory party will be in opposition, many Conservative Members will rue the day that they sent all that legislation to Committee.
Mr. Newton: As hon. Members know, the notion that the Jopling changes were rammed through by a Tory majority is far fetched. Total agreement was reached through the usual channels. I accept that the hon. Gentleman did not agree with those changes, but he should take the matter up with his hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who supported them.
13 Jan 1997 : Column 19
13 Jan 1997 : Column 21
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |