| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Concessionary Travel
6. Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam): What plans he has to review the arrangements for concessionary travel in Greater London. [78821]
The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): Subject to the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill, provision will be made to continue arrangements, including a reserve free travel scheme which ensures that London's pensioners and eligible disabled persons continue to enjoy the benefits of concessionary travel.
Mr. Burstow: Does the Minister understand that, if just one of London's 33 boroughs refuses to support the concessionary fares scheme, it falls, and, as a consequence, a reserve scheme comes in which costs more, starts later in the day and excludes the use of the railways? Will the Minister, therefore, legislate to ensure that the freedom pass is safeguarded so that, if the worst happens and London's boroughs do not agree among themselves, we can guarantee to Londoners that they will not be the ones to lose out?
Ms Jackson: The whole point of the reserve scheme is that it guarantees a concessionary fares scheme for pensioners and disabled persons. We will, of course, listen to anyone who wishes to improve the present scheme and will react accordingly.
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow): Does my hon. Friend accept that the present reserve scheme is out of date--I think that it goes back to 1985--and depends on the powers that were put in place on the abolition of the GLC? Will my hon. Friend consider bringing that scheme more up to date so that, if we fail to obtain agreement, we at least have a reserve scheme that matches today's conditions, not those of 1985?
Ms Jackson: The date to which my hon. Friend refers is 1984. As I have already said, we shall listen to anyone who comes forward with improvements to the existing scheme to ensure that pensioners and disabled persons in London can rest assured that their concessionary travel is secure.
Sites of Special Scientific Interest
7. Mr. David Lepper (Brighton, Pavilion): When he expects to bring forward measures to implement proposals in the Government's consultation paper, "Sites of Special Scientific Interest-Better Protection and Management". [78822]
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): Following the recent conclusion to the consultation exercise, to which we received nearly 600 responses, I hope to be in a position to make an announcement very soon outlining how we intend to proceed.
Mr. Lepper: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread public support for legislation for the greater protection of our wildlife which will be shown this afternoon by 250,000 pledges collected by the Countryside and Wildlife Link which will be presented to hon. Members? Will my right hon. Friend also note that 334 hon. Members have now signed early-day motion 11 in my name in support of such legislation, and agree that a commitment to introduce legislation more securely to protect our wildlife would be welcome? Can my right hon. Friend give a commitment to the early introduction of that legislation?
Mr. Meacher: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his persistent campaigning in support of wildlife protection. I recognise the widespread support in the country for the strengthening of wildlife protection laws. As the House knows, 335 signatories to an early-day motion is a large number and shows strong support from hon. Members. As soon as parliamentary time permits, I intend to introduce legislation to strengthen the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which is now outdated in significant ways.
Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford): I assure the Minister that we shall look forward to his announcement with great interest, because we believe that the 1981 Act needs to be tightened up and improved. Does he accept that the crown jewels of our wildlife heritage, the SSSIs, are in a desperate state? There have been more than 2,000 cases of damage in the past six years, 46 sites have lost their SSSI status and hundreds more have had part of their designated area depleted. Do the Government accept that there is an urgent need to take quick action to prevent further erosion and damage to these important sites? Can the Minister give the House any reassurance that, before further legislation is introduced and enacted, more will be done under existing rules and regulations to tighten the protection of these important areas?
Mr. Meacher: I agree that, over the years, SSSIs have been significantly damaged. The reasons for that are road building programmes, over-abstraction of water and intensification of agriculture, all of which were significantly increased under the previous Government. We are taking action on all three fronts. Last year, we carried out a review of the roads programme. We are also reviewing existing consents for water abstraction and seeking the time-limiting of all consents. At the negotiations on the common agricultural policy in Brussels and Berlin, we have recently made significant progress on the countryside through the inclusion of the
rural development regulation and cross-compliance on environmental conditions for agricultural grants. Those measures will reduce the damage that was done in the Tory years.
Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe): Does my right hon. Friend agree that new legislation in this area is not only desirable in principle, but urgent in practice because of the steady deterioration referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) and other hon. Members? Does he accept that this subject has excited great public concern beyond the usual groups that routinely write to us?
Mr. Meacher: I accept what my hon. Friend has said. The Government published a consultation paper, "Sites of Special Scientific Interest--Better Protection and Management", last September. The radical policies that it contains were broadly accepted during the consultation process. I repeat that we are seeking the earliest opportunity to introduce a new Bill to give greater protection to SSSIs, which are essential for wildlife.
London Underground
8. Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet): If he will make a statement about the Government's policy on (a) investment in and (b) fares on London underground. [78823]
The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): Our policy on investment in London underground is to secure high and stable investment in modernising and maintaining the system. Fares are currently the responsibility of London Transport, but following the establishment of the Greater London Authority, they will become the responsibility of the mayor.
Sir Sydney Chapman: How can the Minister be confident that private investment in the infrastructure of the London underground will be forthcoming, given that the assets created will remain in or return to the public sector? The Transport Sub-Committee has referred to the public-private partnership as a convoluted compromise. Is not the truth of the matter that the PPP will lead to a lack of adequate investment and a continuation of fares rising above the rate of inflation, in contradistinction to the privatised railways whose fares have gone down in real terms since privatisation?
Ms Jackson: No. Private sector interest in our proposals for PPP is very strong. As for fare rises, according to the modelling, fares will rise at a rate conforming to the retail prices index plus 1 in 2000-01, and at RPI plus 0 after 2001. That is in marked contrast to the last decade of the last Administration, during which, despite promises to freeze London Transport fares, they rose by 38 per cent. in real terms.
Mr. Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South): Is not the real picture very different? Does the Minister agree that the last Government were investing £700 million a year in the underground, while the present Government are investing £500 million? Does she agree that, while this Government's PPP will raise £7 billion over 15 years,
the last Government spent that in 10 years? Does she agree that, while the private railways are experiencing rising investment and falling fares, the underground is experiencing falling investment and rising fares, and that, after decades of expansion, no new lines are planned? What on earth has happened to the Labour party's manifesto pledge to improve the London underground?
Ms Jackson: The last Administration reduced core investment in the London underground year on year. Their only solution to the problems was to wash their hands of the underground by promoting a privatisation that would have reduced the existing network by at least a third, and which received the big thumbs-down from Londoners. Our proposal for public-private investment has been welcomed, and will provide enough investment to ensure that our underground is of a quality fit not only for the people of London, but for the 21st century.
Rural Bus Services
9. Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd, West): If he will make a statement on rural bus services. [78824]
The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): Rural areas throughout Great Britain now have new or improved bus services as a result of the new money for rural transport announced in each of the last two Budgets. A total of £150 million over three years was provided for rural transport in last year's Budget, and that was increased by over £20 million in this year's Budget.
Mr. Thomas: That announcement is particularly welcome in the light of the Conservative party's mismanagement of rural transport.
First, does my right hon. Friend agree that, when public money is spent on matters such as rural transport, effective consultation is essential if services are to meet needs? That is certainly my experience in north Wales. Secondly, can my right hon. Friend give us some details of improvements in rural bus services?
Dr. Reid:
I agree that consultation is essential. Indeed, local authorities, especially those that are taking the integration of transport and the provision of transport services for those in their areas seriously--the vast majority of which are Labour authorities--are an essential part of an integrated transport policy.
My hon. Friend asked what effect the grants had had. So far, 55 replies have been received to 73 questionnaires in an initial survey of English local authorities. They show that there are 578 new services, while the frequency or coverage of a further 744 has improved. That is a result of the extra money provided by a Labour Government. Furthermore, the £2.25 million allocated in 1998-99 under the Welsh rural bus subsidy grant scheme--including £76,000 for Conwy and £91,000 for Denbighshire, both of which are in my hon. Friend's constituency--has resulted in improved and additional services.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley):
Many villages in my rural constituency will suffer further strain because of the lack of provision of places in schools. In Clitheroe, for instance, many youngsters will have to be bussed miles
Dr. Reid:
We are, of course, grappling with our inheritance from the hon. Gentleman's party. However, we have not only discussed the matter with the Department for Education and Employment, but formed the school travel advisory group, which is examining it closely.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |