| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
British Transport Police
8. Kate Hoey (Vauxhall): What plans he has to increase the resourcing to the British Transport police to cope with increased demands for policing of football. [119409]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): The resources available to the British Transport police are a matter for the BTP committee, which oversees the force and sets its budget. The rail industry, including London Underground, Network Rail and the train operating companies, are responsible for providing the necessary funding, not central Government.
Kate Hoey : I thank my hon. Friend. However, is he aware of the enormous pull on transport police time during a normal weekend of football matches? Does he share my view that football is the only sport that requires such a massive amount of policing, both by the BTP and other police? Does he not think that it is time that football should have to ring-fence a tiny percentage of the huge amount of money that it gets from Sky and other television companies and give it to the BTP and other police for policing a sport that can no longer be watched peacefully?
Mr. McNulty: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that on some Saturdays football increases the lot and load of the British Transport police. For example, since the closure of Wembley stadium, there have been 36 matches for which central funding has been available for Home Office forces, but not the BTP. A survey on 4 January 2003 estimated that the additional cost for the BTP of policing matches on that day was £142,000. The Government maintain that it is the responsibility of the industry to meet those costs, and how it does so is up to it. However, I share my hon. Friend's sentiments.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): Is it not the case that almost more than for any territorial force, the key objectives for the British Transport police must be deterrence and reassurance, and that that is achieved by visibility of patrols on trains and the tube? Should not that be a prime objective of the British Transport police authority, and should not the resources be available to make sure that there are enough officers to be visible on our trains and tube?
Mr. McNulty: Whatever other changes have been made over the past couple of weeks, for the British Transport police the world is as it was on 1 April 2003, when the hon. Gentleman raised the matter of the BTP with the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my
right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) when he was in the Department for Transport. My right hon. Friend said then:
- "The British Transport police play a full part in the British police service within their railways jurisdictions, including the prevention and detection of terrorism."—[Official Report, 1 April 2003; Vol. 402, c. 789.]
Maritime Transport
9. Mr. Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute): What plans he has to seek changes to European Union regulations regarding state aid to maritime transport services; and if he will make a statement. [119410]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): The UK supports the European Commission in its aim of clarifying the interpretation of the current legislation. To this end, the European Commission, on its own initiative, presented proposed revisions of Community guidelines on state aid to maritime transport to member states.
Mr. Reid : Will the Minister try to persuade our EU partners of the need for flexibility in the regulations? The Scottish Executive are having difficulty implementing the regulations as they stand. For example, there are endless consultations on the future of the Dunoon-Gourock route, and while that is going on, Dunoon pier is in danger of falling into the sea through lack of repairs. There were consultations and tender documents drawn up for the Campbeltown to Ballycastle route, but so far they have not borne fruit. Will the Minister please go to Brussels and try to get some flexibility and common sense into the regulations?
Mr. Jamieson: The Government recognise the importance of those ferry services to the islands. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Commission will shortly publish the revised guidelines regarding state aid for maritime transport. That will give the flexibility that he wants, and benefit some of the smaller services in particular. However, the implementation of those policies will be for the Scottish Executive. Although Scottish nationalism has taken a bit of a hit in recent months, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not advocate that those matters should be taken on centrally by the Westminster Government.
Mobile Phones
10. Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton): What action he is taking to tackle road safety issues arising from drivers using mobile phones. [119411]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): We consulted last year on a proposal to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones by drivers. We plan to make an announcement on the way forward as soon as possible.
Linda Gilroy : I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents says that one in four drivers admit to using a mobile
phone or texting while driving. May I urge him to bring those proposals forward as a matter of urgency? In the mean time, will he join me in congratulating the police in Plymouth and Devon on the campaign that they ran last month, using existing powers to crack down on inappropriate phone use? Does he agree with Plymouth's road safety officer, PC Duncan Russell, that "missing a call won't kill you, but having an accident may"?
Mr. Jamieson: I thank my hon. Friend. She will be pleased to know that we share her concerns. I pay tribute to the work that she has done on the matter. She said that one quarter of people admitted to using a mobile phone at some time for making a call or texting. We know that at any one time, one in 40 people are using a mobile phone while they are driving, and putting themselves and others at risk. I applaud the efforts being made by Devon and Cornwall police using the current law. My hon. Friend will not have to wait very long before the Government make an announcement on the matter, which is of great public concern.
Low-cost Air Travel
11. Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge): If he will make a statement on the change in low-cost air (a) passenger numbers and (b) traffic movements in the last five years. [119412]
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): Passengers on low-cost carrier flights through UK airports, both domestic and international, have increased substantially in recent years, from 7.7 million passengers in 1998 to 35.4 million last year. Air traffic movements increased over the same period from 86,000 in 1998 to 308,000 in 2002.
Mr. Randall: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does it not indicate to him that some of the projected growth in air movements and air traffic might mean that the issue comes down to the small regional airports associated with low-cost flights, rather than the major airports?
Mr. Darling: Up to a point. Interestingly, although there has been a dramatic growth in the low-cost no-frills airlines, many of whose services are point-to-point between regional airports either in this country or continental Europe, there is still a growth in travel on conventional scheduled airlines. What we have to do is reach a judgment on whether this recent rapid development of low-cost airlines is likely to change the whole pattern of air travel in future or whether it will add to the pressures on the conventional hub-and-spoke operation at Heathrow, for example. We will address that issue during discussions prior to the publication of the White Paper at the end of the year, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been a phenomenal increase in low-cost airlines in the past five years in respect of airports that many people had thought until now were almost doomed to closure. That is one of the issues that we will need to take into account.
CABINET OFFICE
The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—
Sunset Clauses
19. Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): What his policy is on the use of sunset clauses in subordinate legislation; how many such clauses have been introduced since June 1997; and if he will make a statement. [119452]
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): Revised guidance on regulatory impact assessments was published on 28 January 2003, advising officials to consider time-limiting or sunsetting regulations and encouraging use of those tools where appropriate. While the Cabinet Office actively promotes the better regulation agenda, it does not collate the specific information centrally. My Department has introduced no legislation containing sunset clauses.
Dr. Cable: I congratulate the Minister on his promotion in the Cabinet Office, but I suggest to him that whatever he did to earn it, it probably has very little to do with his less than stellar performance in the field of deregulation. Does he recall that, of the seven major achievements touted to business last year in respect of deregulation, one involved lifting restrictions on the sale of electric kettle descalers while another involved liberalising the sale of methylated spirits on Sundays? Would he not make faster progress if all new legislation incorporated a sunset clause from the outset?
Mr. Alexander: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his characteristically warm words of congratulation. I shall make two points on the substantive issues that he raised. First, the sunset clause is only one of the tools available to advance the regulatory reform agenda that this Government are pursuing. Secondly, I would rather focus on the recent comments of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which said:
- "The U.K. is at the forefront of regulatory reform in the OECD, it has already made major improvements and has planned more."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |