House of Commons
Tuesday 9 March 1999
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
The Secretary of State was asked--
Homelessness (London)
1. Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park and Kensington, North): What progress has been made in establishing a designated unit to tackle homelessness in London. [73412]
The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The new London rough sleepers unit will be operational from 1 April. It will have the tough target of reducing the number of people sleeping rough in London by two thirds by 2002. Louise Casey, currently deputy director of Shelter, will head the unit.
Ms Buck: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to study "Safe in the City", a research report which identifies the 10 risk factors associated with youth homelessness? Is she aware that the South Kilburn estate, into which I look from my front window, is associated with the highest youth homelessness in London? Can she assure me that support will be given to the agencies, including not just housing authorities but schools and GPs, which aim to cut youth homelessness by tackling its causes?
Ms Armstrong: The "Safe in the City" project is funded by one of the largest single regeneration budget grants ever given--£6 million. It specifically examines the causes of youth homelessness and targets the most vulnerable areas in London. I helped to launch the research report to which my hon. Friend refers. It gives us clues as to what should be done with vulnerable children, who may be as young as 11 or 12. The new unit will work with us to make sure that we prevent vulnerable young people from becoming homeless. That is the most effective way to tackle youth homelessness. I am determined that we will work with all organisations to meet that end.
Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne): Was it really necessary to waste thousands of pounds advertising for a so-called streets tsar to head the unit? Does the Minister remember that the previous Government managed to reduce dramatically the number of rough sleepers on
London's streets without the need for a £90,000 tsar? Should not that money be used to change people's lives, not to create more bureaucracy?
Ms Armstrong: Exactly the opposite is happening. We are cutting through the bureaucracy to make sure that the most vulnerable in London get the assistance that they need to ensure that we reduce rough sleeping by two thirds by 2002. That is an incredibly tough target. It involves Government Departments working effectively together, and it demands that we work effectively with the voluntary sector. One person co-ordinating those efforts will, I believe, make a real difference. I hope that the Opposition will join us in our determination to cut the number of rough sleepers and to do whatever the House can to ensure that the problem does not return.
Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton): Recently, my local authority, the London borough of Enfield, carried out a spot survey and discovered, somewhat to its surprise, 14 rough sleepers. In the borough's budget for the coming year, it has allocated an additional £1 million for homelessness. Will my hon. Friend remember the outer London boroughs and the difficulties that they are beginning to face in dealing with homelessness?
Ms Armstrong: We know that homelessness is not just a problem in inner London. It is prevalent across London and throughout the country. The Government are taking tough action--throughout the country, but particularly in London--to meet the target. I assure my hon. Friend that we are considering applications from across London and the rest of the country in our determination to reduce the number of people sleeping rough in our cities.
London Underground
2. Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): When Transport for London is planned to assume responsibility for London Underground. [73413]
The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): Transport for London will take over London Underground on completion of the public-private partnership.
Mr. Wilkinson: Does not that remarkably brief answer betray the fact that the Government have totally failed to fulfil their pledges to the electorate of London, both at the general election and in the campaign for the referendum on the Greater London Authority last year? Were not the Government guilty of issuing a false prospectus, inasmuch as they are unable to say when the private sector will take over the infrastructural assets of London Underground, which is necessary to provide the finance to modernise the system? We have increasing strikes and increasing fares, but no real progress.
Ms Jackson: Madam Speaker, my reply to the hon. Gentleman was in response to your diktat on speedy replies.
The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was a million miles from the facts. I am sure that, as a member of the Committee considering the Greater London Authority Bill, he is aware of that. The Government have made it abundantly clear that we will not be driven by
empty political ideology, as was the previous Administration, and that we will not be tied by an artificially imposed deadline. Completion of the public-private partnership will be based on best value, in terms not only of taxpayers' money, but of delivering a high-quality underground system to the people of London.
Mr. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington):
Can the Minister confirm that the timetable for the public-private partnership has slipped to at least 2002, as suggested by today's Financial Times? Can she also say how the Government will fund the investment in the tube that is needed in 2000 and beyond, given that that budget has been reduced to zero?
Ms Jackson:
The timetable for the public-private partnership has not slipped and it is regrettable that the hon. Gentleman has to support his arguments with mere speculation reported in a once-admired newspaper. In respect of the public-private partnership, I repeat that the Government will be driven by ensuring best value for taxpayers' money and best value for a high-quality service to Londoners.
Mr. Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South):
First, can the Minister clarify the confusion about London Underground fares? Who is right--the Minister, who says that fares will rise by 1 per cent. in real terms until 2001, or London Underground, which says that they will continue to rise until at least 2002? Secondly, will she recognise that, by the Government's admission, not the admission of a newspaper, public money may be needed to subsidise the partial privatised underground--[Interruption.] Public money may be needed to subsidise the partial privatisation of the underground, and that has thrown the whole process into chaos. Is not the public-private partnership simply a maintenance contract propped up by the taxpayer? It is not a third way; it is not a second way; it is the return of old Labour.
Ms Jackson:
Given the number of times that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question, I should have thought that he would be able to deliver it without any kind of stumble or pause. He is aware that I cannot answer for London Underground. I certainly stand by what I have said about fares and I repeat, yet again, that the Government have made it abundantly clear that we will not be driven by empty political dogma or by an artificially imposed deadline. The completion of the public-private partnership will be dependent upon what is in the best interests of Londoners and of taxpayers and upon what will deliver the best service for Londoners.
3. Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney):
If he will make a statement on the Eastern regional development agency in relation to (a) its location and (b) its budget. [73414]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale):
Decisions on the location of an RDA are matters for the agency itself. Initially, the eastern region corporate headquarters will be in Cambridge, with sub-offices in Bedford, Norwich and Bury St. Edmunds. RDA
Mr. Blizzard:
I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In view of previous answers to me from my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning and from my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, in which they expressed their belief in decentralisation within the regions, does my hon. Friend share my dismay at the decision to locate the headquarters of the eastern region RDA in Cambridge? Should not the agency lead by example and set itself up in an area that is in need of regeneration rather than at a place that has full employment? Does he share the frustration of those in the north and the east of the region? Having argued for so long for improved roads, we have been told that the RDA can be situated only at a place within a good road network.
Mr. Meale:
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that matter up yet again; hon. Members are well aware of the long campaign that he has mounted. I repeat that the agency will determine its own location, but I will let the chairman of the RDA in the eastern region know what has been said.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire):
Is the Minister aware that the choice of Cambridge as the location for the RDA will be welcomed? Less welcome is the fact that the Government have appointed to those bodies a large number of Labour party appointees, in the east of England and across the country. Will he explain why good nominations, such as those of business-aware candidates in the east of England, were rejected in favour of Labour appointees with local government backgrounds, but no business development experience?
Mr. Meale:
I must confront the hon. Gentleman on that. The membership of the local government section in the eastern region comprises two Labour members, one Liberal and one Conservative.
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge):
Does my hon. Friend recognise the importance of high-tech developments in and around my constituency, and the crucial part that the regional development agency can play in ensuring that not only the region but the whole country benefit from such developments? Situating the RDA in Cambridge will provide it with an opportunity to spread high-tech industry beyond Cambridge, so that all parts of the region benefit.
Mr. Meale:
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The Department is aware of the proposals that have been made. They will be subject to considerable discussion, but we shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said when, in due course, we deal with the matter.
Mr. David Prior (North Norfolk):
Can the Minister tell us why we need the development agency?
The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn):
Because of the economic deficit.
Mr. Meale:
As my hon. Friend says, we need the agency because we have an economic deficit following 19 years of misrule by the last Government.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |