Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

Is the right hon. Lady aware of testimony from British Airways staff that British Airways has run commercially unviable flights in periods of industrial action, with low to zero numbers of passengers, to give the impression that it is unaffected by industrial action? Will you condemn any carrier for such environmentally unsustainable behaviour and investigate any report from BA staff?

[Mr Speaker]

I will neither condemn nor investigate, but the Minister might.

[Mrs Villiers]

It is clear that this Government are determined to provide encouragement to airlines to fly greener planes and to switch to flying fuller planes. That is what is behind the proposals we will make on reforming air passenger duty, and it will help to address the concerns around so-called ghost flights.

Turning to the hon. Lady’s specific example, that is primarily a matter for British Airways. I understand from the airline that some planes flew with low passenger loads, some were freight-only, and some had only crew on board, to ensure that the aeroplanes were in the right place to resume passenger operations once the dispute ended. That is a concern to us because of the environmental impact of empty flights. Unfortunately, that is another negative consequence of the industrial dispute and another reason why I urge the parties to get back round the table to ensure that it is resolved as soon as possible to prevent a recurrence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

Although we want to continue to increase passenger usage of the railways, we have to operate within a tightly constrained public spending environment. Our first priority must be to maintain and improve the trunk railway network that we have already. I will consider any proposals for reopening branch lines, but I have grave doubts about whether it is likely to be affordable in the foreseeable future.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently point out that we need to make better progress, so short questions and short answers would be appreciated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do apologise, but the questions are still too long. We are getting mini-essays. I want short questions.

[Mr Hammond]

I can tell my hon. Friend that we will be happy to consider proposals from local authorities and the Highways Agency for improvements, but he will understand that they will be affordable only once the deficit has been eliminated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

Yes.

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to the Secretary of State.

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

9. Whether his Department’s value for money evaluation of the proposed Surrey Canal Road station on the East London line extension has been completed.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

We recognise the importance of Heathrow as the country’s international hub airport—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that the Minister has the wrong brief. I may be mistaken—if I am wrong, I apologise to her—but she is answering a question about the Surrey Canal Road station on the East London line. That is what is of interest to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock).

[Mrs Villiers]

I apologise, Mr Speaker.

A value for money assessment of the proposed Surrey Canal Road station was carried out by Transport for London and Lewisham council last year. The Department for Transport has some concerns regarding the business case. I have asked officials to provide full advice on the matter and expect to make a decision in the near future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

Yes.

[Mr Speaker]

Excellent! Things are getting better.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

10. What guidance his Department issues to local authorities on the provision of subsidised bus services.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 12 and 15 together. The Government will not provide—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am happy to allow the questions to be taken together, but this is the first that I have heard of it. The normal courtesy is that the Government notify me of this in advance. I shall let the Minister off on this occasion, but I do not want to see a repeat performance.

[Mike Penning]

I had been informed that these questions had been grouped, and I apologise to you if I was impertinent, Mr Speaker.

The Government will not provide any more money to local authorities for new fixed speed cameras. If authorities want to put up new fixed cameras, they are free to do so using their own resources, but we strongly encourage them to use other methods and effective safety measures.

[Mike Penning]

There are now three times as many speed cameras in this country as there were in 2000, and the public must be confident that speed cameras are there for road safety, not as a cash cow. Under this Government, they will be.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Richard Harrington. It appears that not only was I unaware of the grouping of questions 12 and 15, but the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), whom the grouping directly affects, was also unaware of it, as he is not present.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Does the Minister not accept that the very good progress made in recent years in reducing the number of deaths and injuries on our roads is partly due to speed cameras, and that the income generated has been less than the money spent by the Government on speed cameras? Will he consider the introduction of more average-time distance speed cameras and making the existing speed cameras less conspicuous?