| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Rail Freight
5. Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): What action his Department is proposing to mitigate the environmental nuisance caused by increased levels of rail freight movements through residential areas. [54329]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): Overall, rail freight causes less pollution and noise than road traffic. It can, however, cause local environmental problems, particularly in terms of noise. We expect Railtrack and the freight operating companies to minimise the environmental impacts of their operations on their neighbours.
Mr. Brady: I thank the Minister for his helpful response. While I welcome increased freight moving on the railways, as I am sure all hon. Members do, real problems are caused in certain communities, including one in my constituency, where rail freight is causing vibration, which damages properties, and noise, which wakes people up in the middle of the night. In many instances, the effects can be mitigated by using different types of wagon or other measures. I impress on the Minister as powerfully as I can the importance of addressing those concerns.
Mr. Meale: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his efforts, and especially for corresponding with me to let me know about the problems. I am aware of the noise problems in relation to rail freight traffic generally and in particular in respect of the Brunner-Mond chemical plant. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that Railtrack has entered
into discussions with English, Welsh and Scottish Railway, the freight company involved, and the local authority to try to solve the problem.
Dr. Rudi Vis (Finchley and Golders Green): EWS took over the transport of spent nuclear fuel on rail privatisation. It has now been taken over by Direct Rail Services, a wholly owned subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels plc. Is my hon. Friend aware that BNFL wrote on 25 September to the London borough of Barnet, without any negotiation or prior information, saying that it was going to use Cricklewood sidings to park spent fuel?
Mr. Meale: I was not aware of that detail. I will gather information when I return to the Department and give my hon. Friend a full response.
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes): While it is right to minimise the environmental impact of rail freight movements, is not far more environmental damage caused by the movement of freight by road? The Government's priority should be--as I think it is--to secure a shift of freight from road to rail, which causes less pollution and noise. I am happy to have more rail freight move through Newhaven.
Mr. Meale: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I can enlarge on what he said. Moving freight from road to rail creates major environmental benefits. In our 18 months in power, the Government have effected a 5 per cent. growth in that transfer.
Regional Development Agencies
8. Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney): What plans he has to encourage sub-regional structures within regional development agencies. [54332]
The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): In our guidance to regional development agencies on their regional strategies, we will encourage them to address the needs of the whole of their regions, but we will not prescribe what sub-regional structures they should adopt. We are publishing a draft of the guidance today; copies are in the Library.
Mr. Blizzard: Is my hon. Friend aware of the eastern region of the Norfolk and Waveney enterprise partnership and its economic development strategic forum, which is called "Shaping the Future"? As it is a well-established body already well supported by industry, does he agree that it is ideally placed to work with the RDA for the eastern region in addressing the problems of the north and east of the region, where unemployment is highest?
Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend knows that, when I visited his area, I met some people from that partnership, which was impressive. Although I have not seen a document, I am sure that "Shaping the Future" reflects the partnership that I encountered. I hope that the RDAs will look seriously at sub-regional partnerships. We want to build on them. We do not want to reinvent the wheel, but to develop the best in the regions to ensure that the bottom-up process starts to address the regions' real problems.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): Is the Minister aware that, in rural areas such as Shropshire,
there is real alarm that RDAs will be dominated by urban interests? Can he assure the House that, in constructing these new institutions, the Government will give a strong voice to rural areas so that they will not be swamped by the urban majority?
Mr. Caborn: We gave that, assurance on many occasions during the passage of the Regional Development Agencies Bill. We have ensured that every RDA board will have one person with responsibility for rural areas. As my right hon. Friend said, we will address rural areas as we are addressing urban areas in a White Paper. An announcement will be made on that in the near future.
Ms Margaret Moran (Luton, South): Will my hon. Friend ensure that sub-regional arrangements within the regional development agencies will reflect the fact that some areas such as Luton have interests that cross RDA boundaries? For example, although we are in the eastern region, we share a great deal with London and the south-east. Will he ensure that sub-regional arrangements reflect those interests?
Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend has raised an important question. I want positively to encourage that relationship between the regions. In a few weeks, my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction and I will meet the Thames Gateway partnership to make sure that it continues in the positive work that it has done. That partnership crosses three RDAs. We shall be positively encouraging such co-operation. Administrative boundaries, not Chinese walls, surround the RDAs.
Housing Development
9. Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton): When he last met representatives of the construction industry to discuss future housing developments; and if he will make a statement. [54333]
The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): My colleagues and I have frequent contacts with the construction industry to discuss a wide range of matters, including future housing developments.
Mrs. Winterton: Bearing in mind the high level of public concern about the location of future housing development, should not the Minister, as a matter of urgency, have talks with the housebuilding industry to discuss how best it can help to regenerate our towns and cities? Would that not be better than waiting for months for Lord Rogers's task force to report?
Mr. Raynsford: I have had frequent meetings in the past 18 months with the housebuilders and other interests to stress the importance of building as much as possible on brown-field sites.
Mrs. Winterton: When was the last occasion?
Mr. Raynsford: The last occasion was yesterday evening. I have to put it to the hon. Lady that, especially by comparison with the previous Government, who failed entirely in their period of office to ensure coherent
planning for the housing needs of our country, this Government have done more in the past 18 months than any Government could have been expected to do.
Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North): Is my hon. Friend aware of the problems encountered by those home owners who apply to leasehold valuation tribunals for the right to manage their own homes? Is he aware that, earlier this summer, one tribunal could not tell the difference between a manager and a managing agent, as a result of which the people concerned were forced to contract with the person who was in prison at that time for defrauding them? Will he investigate the quality of leasehold valuation tribunals and undertake to look into the backlog, which at present in London is running at more than 90 per cent?
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend has shown great ingenuity in extending the boundaries of the construction industry to embrace issues of leasehold reform, but I do not begrudge him that, because he has been an assiduous supporter of leasehold interests and has advocated reform most persuasively throughout the past 18 months. The Government are very serious about this issue. They have given extremely serious attention to it and expect to publish in the near future detailed proposals for consultation, which will deal with a range of issues relating to leasehold, including the future remit and role of leasehold valuation tribunals.
Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford): Will the Minister confirm that, yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister issued a statement saying that he strongly welcomed the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's report on housing? Is he aware that the Select Committee said that the Government must support local authorities when they restrict the use of green-field sites? How does he square that with his right hon. Friend's decision to force West Sussex to build 13,000 extra homes, despite the opposition of even Labour councillors and his own officials? Does he understand that the rhetoric of the Government has failed to be met by their actions, and that their green credentials are torn to shreds as a result of their ludicrous building programme?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman knows only too well that the issue of West Sussex is subject to legal action. West Sussex challenged the Secretary of State unsuccessfully, but, because it may pursue an appeal, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am not at liberty to say more about that. However, unlike the previous Government, who had a consistent record of allowing development, often against inspectors' decisions, on green-belt land--not just green-field land--this Government have extended the green belt and increased to 60 per cent. the target for development on brown-field sites.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |