| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Thames Gateway
11. Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his priorities for transport investment in the Thames gateway area.[8775]
Mr. Bowis: The transport strategy for London described the Government's strategy for transport investment in the Thames gateway area. It includes construction of the channel tunnel rail link, with stations at Stratford and Ebbsfleet; improvements to the A13 and other trunk roads in London and Kent; the Jubilee line extension; and the proposed package of new river crossings.
Mr. Timms: Does the Minister share my concern about the threat to the prospect of regeneration of the Thames gateway arising from the current investment crisis at London Underground? Is it true, as the Evening Standard reports today, that the reopening of the East London line will be delayed for another two years? Does he deprecate, as I do, the deferral for two years of the planned refurbishment of District line stations in my constituency? The Minister saw for himself recently the condition of East Ham station and talked to staff about their aspirations for refurbishment. How will the Government address the serious crisis in east London and the Thames gateway area, which was precipitated by the catastrophic Budget settlement for London Underground?
Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was responding on the Budget question, because there is no such budget cut. For the coming year, the figure will be as planned. There is no reduction for London Underground. Indeed, increasing quantities of money will come from London Underground's operating surplus and from the private sector.
On the hon. Gentleman's specific points, as he said, I have visited his borough and many other boroughs on my urban rides to look at facilities, challenges and opportunities, and I have seen the station at East Ham to which he referred. Any decisions on that are for the management of London Transport. There is a lot of speculation about the decisions that may be taken but I am aware of no decisions having been made. Indeed, the board does not meet until next month, so no decisions can have been made. The Northern line river tunnel has been strengthened and has opened on time.
13 Jan 1997 : Column 14
Mr. Dunn:
Given that the Dartford constituency contains a significant number of projects associated with the Thames gateway concept, will my hon. Friend assure me that his officials will monitor rigorously and robustly the transport infrastructure developments as they take place so that my constituents and people from the south-east region as a whole can gain easy access to Ebbsfleet, Bluewater, and other north Dartford developments for commerce, leisure and housing?
Mr. Bowis:
I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that officials of the Highways Agency and the transport authorities look carefully at volumes and flows of passengers and at the various developments. A key development will be Ebbsfleet station, which will be looked at carefully in terms of its road and rail connections to the part of Kent to which my hon. Friend refers. As he knows, a number of road schemes are in the programme.
Mr. Spearing:
Is not one of the proposals for the Thames gateway the extension of the valuable North London link line from Silvertown across the river to Woolwich arsenal and along the North Kent line to the area of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn)? Is the Minister aware that the Government insist that that should be funded by the PFI? The revenue from about a mile and a half of track will certainly not pay for the capital, so they are effectively blocking an imaginative and sound public proposal.
Mr. Bowis:
Nothing has been blocked. The hon. Gentleman is referring to a package of crossings that were highlighted in the report. The Woolwich rail tunnel is one proposal; the Gallions Reach multimodal crossing is another; and the third Blackwall crossing is the third. Those are being considered carefully to see whether they are viable, and progress will be announced in due course.
Catering Staff
30. Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what estimate the Commission has made of the wages bill for catering staff in 1996-97.[8755]
Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): On current estimates, £4.1 million. Estimates for catering and administration staff within this total are not made separately, but there is a separate budget for banqueting and souvenir staff costs, which are borne on a House of Commons Refreshment Department trading account. The approved trading account budget for 1996-97 includes staff costs of £827,000.
Mr. Marshall: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. No Member of the House grudges a
13 Jan 1997 : Column 15
penny that is spent by the Refreshment Department on wages, but many of us feel that when the Department is investing in new facilities, it goes for the gold plated rather than the practical. Will he give us an assurance that that will be considered thoroughly before any new investment is agreed?
Mr. Beith: The details of schemes of improvement in the Refreshment Department are for the Catering Committee and the Accommodation and Works Committee. The Commission has regard to the overall cost, but it must also have regard to staff working conditions and health and safety requirements.
Mr. Faulds: Would it not have been wiser to have increased the poor wages of the catering staff in this place, instead of the ridiculous introduction of an extremely expensive and not very well functioning restaurant, when the previous arrangements were perfectly satisfactory?
Mr. Beith: The Commission was advised that the previous arrangements were not satisfactory from a health and safety point of view. They were not satisfactory in respect of the conditions in which we expect our staff to work. It is not sufficient to pay tribute to our staff: we must also give them satisfactory working conditions.
Disabled Employees
31. Mr. Corbyn: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many Commission staff are disabled.[8754]
Mr. Beith: Twelve staff of the Commission are registered disabled people, but there are other disabled staff employed in Departments of the House who have not registered.
Mr. Corbyn: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that 12 staff out of the very large staff complement in this building is an extremely low proportion? What steps are being taken to increase the number of registered disabled people who can work in this building? What is being done to improve access and other facilities so that disabled people can work on all floors in the building and in a much wider variety of jobs? Recently, people with disabilities, in a delegation to the Select Committee on Social Security, were given no fewer than three different routes to get from the street to present their case before the Committee, and went through a traumatic experience trying to get there. Is it not a disgrace that the Commission has failed to provide proper access to the building?
Mr. Beith: At 0.9 per cent., the proportion of disabled staff is lower than the Commission would like. The Commission would like to employ more disabled people on the staff of the House. It has a policy of showing the availability of all posts to people with disabilities, and of trying to make sure that the facilities available assist people with disabilities to take employment. It has pursued that policy vigorously. On access to the building for staff and visitors, the Commission has sought to implement all the advice that it has been given by the Accommodation and Works Committee and that
13 Jan 1997 : Column 16
Committee's consultants on ways in which access can be improved. The Commission will continue to look favourably at suggestions for improvement of access.Visitors' Facilities
32. Mr. Ainger: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what additional facilities are planned for visitors to the Palace of Westminster.[8753]
Mr. Beith: In its first report of 1992-93, the Catering Committee recommended that the area currently occupied by the Westminster Hall cafeteria should be converted to a visitor centre, but that that should take place only when a suitable alternative was found for the present lunchtime users. The House agreed to the Committee's report on 12 July 1994. The Catering Committee considers that, until the cafeteria in the new parliamentary building is operational, the recommendation for a visitor centre cannot be implemented.
Mr. Ainger: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's answer, but I think that he will agree that it is wholly unacceptable that, although the recommendation for a new visitor centre was accepted in 1994, the plans are no further advanced. Many hon. Members' constituencies are located some distance from London and, when school parties from those areas visit the Palace of Westminster, schoolchildren may catch buses as early as 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning, and they have no opportunity to take any refreshment until they arrive at the House. Will he bring forward plans for the visitor centre so that we can at least offer some refreshment to schoolchildren who travel many miles to visit Westminster?
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that is widely shared in the House. If he has some ideas about how the Catering Committee or the Accommodation and Works Committee could deal with the problem, I hope that he will put them to those bodies. At present, 500 people use the Westminster Hall cafeteria at lunchtime and there is a practical problem to be resolved.
Mr. Viggers: Other countries with lesser parliamentary traditions than ours have museums associated with their Parliaments that are well supported and attended. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that if there were a larger parliamentary museum than that housed in the Jewel House--which is not well advertised--it might reduce the number of visitors to Parliament, relieve the pressure and provide an additional attraction?
Mr. Beith: There could be new facilities to depict the history of this building, but I do not think that anything would take the place of schoolchildren and other visitors being able to see the House of Commons Chamber in which debates take place. Therefore, we must organise our affairs so that they can do so.
13 Jan 1997 : Column 17
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |