House of Commons
Tuesday 17 June 2003
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Mersey Tunnels Bill
Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
To be further considered on Tuesday 24 June.
Oral Answers to Questions
TRANSPORT
The Secretary of State was asked—
Skye Bridge
1. Pete Wishart (North Tayside): What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive about the levying of tolls on the Skye bridge. [119402]
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): There have been no recent discussions with the Scottish Executive about the levying of tolls because, as the hon. Gentleman ought to know, all issues relating to the administration of the Skye bridge fall entirely within the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament.
Pete Wishart : I thank the combined Secretaries of State for Transport and for Scotland for that answer. May I congratulate him on acquiring the poisoned chalice that is the post of Secretary of State for Scotland? We look forward with great interest to seeing how his job-share arrangements with Lord Falconer work out.
The Secretary of State will know that there is a great question mark over the legality of the collection of tolls on the Skye Bridge, as the assignation order that allows that collection is neither signed nor dated. Does he share my concern about that and, following the saga of the botched private-finance initiative—which this House initiated—does he agree that the collection of tolls for the bridge should be abolished immediately?
Mr. Darling: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am grateful for his congratulations, which I am sure were heartfelt. Two poisoned chalices are probably better than one. I am well aware of the long drawn-out saga of the Skye bridge, but it is a matter that is entirely
for the Scottish Executive and Parliament, and it would therefore be quite wrong of me to offer any opinion or give them any advice. It is a matter for them.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): The proof of the chalice will be in the drinking. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to have regular discussions about that and other matters with the Secretary of State for Scotland?
Mr. Darling: I have no intention of discussing with the Scottish Executive matters that are entirely within their province. As I have said over the past few days, devolution has changed this country's constitution dramatically. With regard to the post of Scottish Secretary, the hon. Gentleman—who I know prides himself on his knowledge of constitutional matters—might be interested in the following quotation. Indeed, it might be of interest to the whole House:
- "Scotland must be represented in Westminster and in the Cabinet. We will keep the position of Secretary of State for Scotland with the holder of that position also having an additional UK role within the Cabinet."
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Are not situations likely to arise in which my right hon. Friend may have to go to himself and tell himself that he has no case?
Mr. Darling: No. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I have made a habit of not talking to myself for the past 49 and a half years. If I am spared, as my mother would say, I intend to continue that practice.
School Buses
2. Adam Price (East Carmarthen and Dinefwr): What recent assessment he has made of the safety of school buses in England and Wales. [119403]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): There is no specific category of school bus in UK regulations. Any bus, coach or minibus may be used for dedicated school-to-home transport. In that context, therefore, it is imperative that we keep assessing and researching all aspects of the safety of all of those forms of transport.
Adam Price : I thank the Minister for that reply, which bears out what many hon. Members already know—that the regulations governing the transportation of live cattle are more stringent than those governing the transportation of children to and from school. Will the Minister undertake to review, for instance, the 50-year-old rules that allow three children to be placed in seats designed for two? The same rules permit up to 22 children to stand in a bus, even when the journey takes in a motorway. Are not those both examples of yet more accidents waiting to happen?
Mr. McNulty: It is entirely unlike the nationalists to make cheap points about something as important as child safety. A range of matters is under ongoing consideration. The point about live animals and children is not accurate, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Special yellow school buses are being used in various pilot schemes in England and Wales. They have operational features such as dedicated drivers, allocated seats and timetables for pick-ups. There has been exhaustive research into the three-for-two regulations, which are on the way out anyway under the post-1998 regulations. The matter is taken very seriously: the assessment of and research into safety for children on buses are of paramount importance in the Department.
Roger Casale (Wimbledon): My hon. Friend will be aware that children with special educational needs very often are transported between home and school by minicab. There have been problems, including in my area, with securing the right Criminal Records Bureau checks on both drivers and escorts. Will my hon. Friend seek an urgent meeting with the Minister for Children to address that issue, and to see how we can increase protection for that most vulnerable group of children?
Mr. McNulty: My hon. Friend raises an important matter. Between the greater regulation of private minicabs in London and the discussions that I shall happily undertake with the new Minister for Children, I hope that we can resolve the situation, but it goes wider than travel for special needs children.
Bypass (Worthing and Lancing)
3. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham): If he will make a statement on his practice in relation to meeting delegations from Worthing and Adur to discuss the need for a bypass around Worthing and Lancing. [119404]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): We have recently revisited our policy of meeting delegations while considering multi-modal study recommendations. Where there are issues of particular significance, we have decided that we should listen to the views of delegations.
Tim Loughton : I am pleased to hear it. As the Minister well knows, the thorny problem of the Worthing bypass stretches back about 30 years, and congestion on the A27, exacerbated by the further house building being forced on the area, is acting as a brake on business investment. Why is it, therefore, that he refused to see a delegation from the West Sussex economic forum earlier in the year, and that in April he refused to see a delegation of local businesses headed by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), yet recently he has apparently seen delegations from a number of environmental groups opposed to any road building in the area? Is not that double standards, and will he agree to meet proper delegations, representative of Worthing and the desperate need for a bypass in our area?
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not unwilling to meet him, because I did so last year on another matter related to his constituency. Our view was that such meetings could have led to some frustration; as he will appreciate, Ministers are somewhat constrained on such occasions because we could not hold discussions
that were seen to pre-empt the Government's formal response to any study. If he will accept that during such meetings Ministers would be very much in listening mode, I should be happy to meet a delegation and to hear his views about the bypass for Worthing and Lancing, the merits of which were certainly never recognised by previous Conservative Governments.London Airports (Regional Services)
4. Mr. David Stewart (Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber): What plans he has to secure access to (a) Gatwick and (b) Heathrow for regional air services. [119405]
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The issue of access to London airports for regional services will be addressed in the air transport White Paper, which, as the House will know, I plan to publish before the end of the year.
Mr. Stewart : Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the major lack of capacity at both Heathrow and Gatwick, and that regional air services are most at risk? Does he share my view that future aviation strategy must include a mix of public service obligations, specific slot allocations and regional-only runways?
Mr. Darling: As I have said to my hon. Friend in the past, PSOs should be granted sparingly and only where they are justified. At present, there are a limited number of PSOs on loss-making routes, including those serving some of the islands in the west of Scotland. In relation to his constituency, he will be aware that there are four flights a day from Inverness to Gatwick and that a service to Luton has recently been introduced. Of course, if services from different parts of the country were withdrawn, the Government would have to consider that situation, but it would not be a good idea for us to change our policy and to start granting PSOs on the chance that a problem might arise, as the inevitable result would be that airlines would conclude that the Government were willing to pay for something that they were willing to do commercially. I have no intention of doing that.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South): Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that any further expansion at Gatwick by, say, building a second runway means breaking a legally binding agreement?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will recall that when the High Court decided that the Government were wrong to exclude Gatwick, I made a statement to the House, on 28 November last year, in which I said that the reason the Government had not made proposals for a second runway at Gatwick was the long-standing agreement between the council and the then British Airports Authority, which precluded development before 2019. The High Court held that we were wrong in making that decision and that we had to consult on the basis that there could be development both before 2019 and afterwards. Subsequently, we extended the consultation process to the whole country, including proposals for Gatwick, as the hon. Gentleman must know.
The general point that we must all face up to, and which relates to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) a few moments ago, is that there is no doubt that, on any view, the south-east airports are under severe pressure. That means that we will have to take some difficult decisions. As the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) is well aware, most of us can probably agree that something needs to be done, but there is an awful tendency to suggest that it ought to be done somewhere else.
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe (Cunninghame, South): Surely, given the earlier question about Inverness and the withdrawal of the service to Heathrow, there is an overwhelming case for the extension of runways and for new runways. Heathrow must be given that option sooner rather than later, with runways designated solely for regional use.
Mr. Darling: I am not sure about the latter point, but I agree that we need to consider how we meet the pressures that the London and south-east airports face in particular. That is why the Government are conducting a very extensive consultation, which finishes at the end of this month. I have said on a number of occasions in the House that we cannot allow a period of uncertainty to continue too much longer beyond then, which is why I intend to publish a White Paper setting out the Government's strategic direction for airport development over the next 30 years; and I will do so by the end of this year.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): The Secretary of State will be aware of the strategic role that the British Midland flight from Teesside to Heathrow plays as a lifeline for businesses in the north of England. Will he ensure that that flight is guaranteed, not just through the air transport consultation paper, but through his slot allocation policy? What mechanism and channel does he intend to use to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland on air transport capacity in Scotland?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Lady has clearly been working all night to produce such a contrived question, but not a very good one if I may say so. On her substantive point, the BMI flight from Teesside to London is an example of a very good regional service—it helps Teesside, and the position is similar to the services from Inverness and from Plymouth, which, as the hon. Lady will know, are currently under discussion because British Airways is withdrawing them. Of course, if a region makes a request to us about a flight, we will consider it, but it would be a mistake, as some countries have done, to start to designate PSOs in advance even though a problem may never arise. I should have thought that the hon. Lady agreed that the best possible option is to base such flights on commercial propositions, because that is a much better way to ensure that they last in the longer term. I find it hard to believe it, but perhaps the Conservatives now advocate wholesale subsidies where none are required.
Jonathan Shaw (Chatham and Aylesford): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the number of bird strikes that would occur if an airport were created at Cliffe
would make it impossible to operate and far too dangerous? Given that it is a non-starter, can he confirm whether Cliffe is now well and truly off the agenda?
Mr. Darling: I understand the position that my hon. Friend advocates, but I have made it very clear that the Government will take the decisions in relation to the whole consultation and airport development in the UK at the same time. It would be quite wrong of us to start taking piecemeal decisions, as that would soon lead to great difficulties and, I have not the slightest doubt, to rich pickings for m'learned friends in the courts. I understand my hon. Friend's position, but he will have to wait until the end of the year, when we publish our White Paper setting out the strategic direction that we think necessary for the next 20 to 30 years.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |