| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Bus Deregulation
39. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to discuss the future of bus deregulation with local authorities. [4702]
Mr. Prescott: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport announced last week, we have launched a review of bus policy as part of the fundamental review of transport policy which I announced on 5 June. Local authorities will be among those consulted.
Helen Jackson: My right hon. Friend will know that those of us in Sheffield are aware that one cannot build an integrated public transport system with a totally deregulated set-up. What will he do to control the present free-for-all in cities such as Sheffield? Will he consider introducing a minimum standard of reliability and allowing local authorities to set environmental guidelines on the number of buses that can travel through city centres or on main routes?
Mr. Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend that a deregulated bus system has been the enemy of an integrated transport system, and nowhere is that more true than in Sheffield. In that city, a regulated transport system, working under the passenger transport authority--set up by Labour--got people to use public transport more and their cars less. That is a matter of fact. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) told us that the bus system is better following deregulation. I appreciate that, having spent some time with his family, he may have missed some of the recent reports which show that deregulation has produced more mileage, fewer people travelling on buses, higher prices and less of a networked system. That is why we are right to carry out a review and to aim for an integrated transport system. Sheffield led the way, and we shall look at its experiences in the review.
Mr. Garnier: Can the Deputy Prime Minister envisage a re-regulated bus system without increased taxation or public expenditure?
Mr. Prescott: I know it is difficult for the hon. and learned Gentleman to think other than that everything is paid for by increased taxation, but I invite him to look at the ridership on buses in a deregulated system. Fewer people travel on buses because buses are less reliable and of a poorer quality. If we increased ridership, we would increase income from buses and the amount of trips from a particular bus. In that way, we could increase revenue to pay for the changes to improve the transport system.
Coach Safety
40. Ann Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of existing coach safety regulations; and what plans he has to increase the protection of coach passengers. [4703]
Ms Glenda Jackson: Existing regulations on coach safety include requirements for vehicle construction, roadworthiness testing, driver licensing and operational standards. There is a continuing process of improving standards both nationally and internationally, supported by research.
Ann Clwyd: My hon. Friend will remember the Raglan coach crash, in which 10 people died and 33 were injured--many of them were my constituents. It took a long time to bring prosecutions and the families are still distressed at the outcome. Has she given thought to the idea from the Consumers Association to set up an independent accident unit to investigate transport disasters and to ensure that changes to bring about greater safety are properly implemented?
Ms Jackson: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my sincere condolences, and I can well imagine the trauma that her constituents suffered following that appalling accident. I am aware of the suggestions to which she referred, and her concerns have been expressed to me from a variety of sources. I intend to examine, with all possible speed, the proposal to which she referred, and other representations.
Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Lady make use of her existing powers to control emissions from coaches and buses, which endanger both passengers and people in the vicinity of coaches? Is she aware that one of the greatest causes of pollution is the emission of particulates from such vehicles?
Ms Jackson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is a requirement for all public service vehicles to be tested annually. I understand that the Vehicle Inspectorate checked 29,000 vehicles at the roadside last year. I find very encouraging the co-operation between vehicle manufacturers, bus and coach providers and the oil industry in pushing forward alternative fuels, which, as I am sure that he is well aware, could reduce some of the worst effects of emissions from existing fuels.
London Underground
41. Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the funding of London Underground. [4704]
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman's party left us with a legacy of reductions in Government funding for London Underground and cost overruns on the Jubilee line
extension. Together, they total more than £700 million. Those reductions were made to funding levels which were already below what London Underground needed. Against that background, we are looking urgently at the options for public-private partnerships to increase investment in the core underground network.
Sir Sydney Chapman: As the right hon. Gentleman adopts that attitude, perhaps he would like to confirm that annual investment in London Underground, excluding special projects such as the Jubilee line extension, has averaged more than £500 million a year during the 1990s. That compares with an average annual investment of less than £50 million in the 1970s. On reflection, does he agree that commendable progress has been made, that the problem facing London Underground is the chronic
under-investment of the 1960s and 1970s, and that the best way forward would be privatisation, using the receipts for the necessary investment?
Mr. Prescott: I could bandy figures with the hon. Gentleman about the past but, in reality, last year's investment figures are similar to those for 1979, when the last Government came to power. Whatever the case, London Underground has insufficient resources to meet the investment requirements of a modernised system. That is the situation which I inherited from the Conservative party. I intend to meet investment requirements through the study that we are doing on public-private partnerships. While the last Government talked about full privatisation of the underground, which we totally reject, there was no guarantee that the moneys from its sale would have gone towards investment in London Underground.
Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard (South-West Norfolk): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, in response to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), you made it clear that you regarded freedom of speech as one of the most cherished privileges of parliamentary democracy. In the light of the confusion that still surrounds the freedom of speech permitted to some Welsh Labour Members, and given that the full facts of the matter have not been given to the House--or to you, as you said yesterday--and given the continued absence of the Secretary of State for Wales from the Dispatch Box to dispel the confusion and present the facts, do you think it appropriate that the matter should now be fully considered by the House authorities and, if necessary, by the Standards and Privileges Committee?
Madam Speaker: I have nothing further to add to what I said yesterday, and I stand firmly by the remarks that I made then.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As, in the last Parliament, much progress was made in the battle against sleaze in the House, I note that there have been a couple of worrying incidents that require the House's attention. Last week, the fraud squad raided premises that had been provided for the Leader of the Opposition for his leadership campaign. I understand also that the company concerned made a financial donation.
We also know that another company, City Mortgage Corporation, whose business is to impoverish its tenants and which is run by a man most of us would fairly describe as a crook, has given £20,000 to the Leader of the Opposition. Should he not come here to clear the air and make a statement?
Madam Speaker:
If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence that he feels should be put into the public domain, he should immediately let the Commissioner for Standards have it. That is why we have a Commissioner for Standards to investigate such matters. If the hon. Gentleman has anything, he should not use it across the Floor but should give all the information to the Commissioner, who will consider it.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex):
Further to the point of order made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, Madam Speaker, will you consider the following proposition? The other day--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |