| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I begin by addressing the concerns raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), which are exclusively about the costs of the computerisation of the MOT test. Both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman entirely ignored the benefits that will accrue to motorists from the modernisation that will come from the scheme. These are benefits that relate to reducing crime and the potential for crime, including fraud. There is the possibility that in future we shall be able over the telephone, for example, to make the relevant arrangements that apply to our vehicles.
It is not unusual for Opposition Members to be concerned exclusively with the cost of everything and the value of nothing, and their overriding consideration is the cost of computerisation. As I am sure the House is aware, computerisation is being procured under a private partnership contract. We hope that the cost will be less than £22 million a year. However, we wish to ensure, as is par for the course with the Government, that the best possible value is gained from the contract. The taxpayer will not foot the bill. The costs will be met in their entirety through a moderate increase in the cost of obtaining an MOT test. It is estimated that the fee will increase by no more than £1 a test, which is one thirtieth of the existing cost.
Mr. Forth:
I am grateful to the Minister. She seems to be saying that the fees will be increased to cover whatever the costs may be. That is an important aspect of what my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire
Ms Jackson:
Given the record of the Conservatives, I have no doubt that, if they proposed a computerisation project, the charges would be open-ended and would run for ever. As I have made abundantly clear, the Government are driven by the ethic--I believe it is an ethic--of best value.
It is proposed, rightly, that after computerisation it will be possible for information to be sold. Of course the Government will ensure conformity to data protection legislation. In no case would information about vehicle presenters or vehicle keepers be available for sale, as such information cannot and will not be held on the database. In response to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, the selling of such data to prescribed persons will be under regulations. The income from the sale of information will be used to offset the costs of the computerisation scheme.
Another concern raised by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire was what he perceived as increased starting-up costs for MOT testing centres and costs for training inspectors. We estimate that the average start-up costs will be no more than £500.
The first part of the financial resolution dealing with expenditure is a standard provision authorising any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of any provision in the Bill. In response to questions from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, I have already touched on why such expenditure will arise. No new net public expenditure burdens are forecast to arise as a result of the establishment and running of the proposed MOT database. The costs will be passed on to the consumer, as I have said. We perceive the costs as being very small.
The increase will apply to vehicles run by local authorities as well as by private motorists, although many local authorities run their own MOT testing stations and therefore test their own vehicle fleets.
The second part of the provision dealing with expenditure reflects the possibility that local authorities may consequently incur additional expenditure. Another head of expenditure likely to arise as a result of the Bill's provisions will in future require organisations and people involved in MOT testing to meet the costs to the Vehicle Inspectorate of providing MOT training and authorisation for them. As I said, we estimate such start-up costs as being no more than £500.
As an increase in local authority spending could mean an increase in revenue support grant, and, as the grant is payable under local authority legislation rather than under the Road Traffic Act 1988, the provision needs to be included in the Bill. However, as I have made clear, any new burdens arising are likely to be extremely small in the context of local authority spending generally.
The first part of the provision dealing with potential sums likely to be received by the Secretary of State mirrors the existing provision in section 84(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as regards the destination of sums received arising in pursuance of sections 45 and 46 of the
Act, among others, as currently drafted. The destination of sums received by the Government in such circumstances is generally to the Consolidated Fund, and that is provided for in the Bill.
In practice, the income streams arising from the Bill--the most significant of which will simply be the replacement of income from the sale of blank pads of MOT certificates to testing stations with income from the notification by them of results of tests to the MOT database--will pass into the Vehicle Inspectorate's trading fund. It is standard practice for that to happen in respect of Government agency trading funds, in accordance with the Government Trading Funds Act 1973.
The second part of the provision dealing with sums that are likely to be received by the Secretary of State is directed to potential new sources of income. I have already touched on the most significant of those, and that income will, in turn, be used to offset the costs of introducing computerisation into the MOT scheme.
I regret that the promoter of the Bill is not present in the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
Mr. David Amess (Southend, West):
I beg the leave of the House to present a petition, which has been signed by 6,000 of my constituents in Southend, West and surrounding areas.
Mr. Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green):
Basildon?
Mr. Amess:
Yes, perhaps including areas of Basildon.
My constituents wish to express their distress at the closure of the Palace theatre in Westcliff. That beautiful Edwardian theatre was given to the town by Gertrude Emily Mouliott in 1943, and the 6,000 petitioners are very distressed that, having enjoyed productions for many years, the theatre remains in darkness.
The petition states:
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Hill.]
Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes):
This debate centres on contaminated land in the town of Barton upon Humber on the south bank of the River Humber. That market town has a rich history and boasts 200 listed buildings. On part of the riverbank, the Far Ings nature reserve attracts many visitors from all over the world, but a shadow has been cast over the local council's plans to regenerate the town and promote its wealth of attributes. That shadow is cast by a 35-hectare contaminated site. The soil and ground water are contaminated by heavy metals, following the closure of agrochemical factories on the site. The leaching of those metals into the River Humber is a cause of serious concern.
Although what is known as the BritAg site was owned by ICI, it has absolutely no responsibility for cleaning it up. That responsibility lies with North Lincolnshire council which, through no fault of its own, has fallen foul of the "polluter pays" principle. The crux of my case is, should that principle be extended to the council tax payers of North Lincolnshire because of indemnities signed many years ago by Glanford borough council, which no longer exists?
I hope to show my hon. Friend the Minister that my repeated requests for assistance for North Lincolnshire council to decontaminate the land are warranted. He and other Ministers in the Department have heard about this case many times, through my persistent representations. There have been equally persistent representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber.
Let me explain how North Lincolnshire ended up in such an invidious no-win position. Following the closure of the BritAg factory, Tory-controlled Glanford borough council purchased part of the site from ICI in 1991. The other part was purchased from MTM, which also operated on the site. The council paid £335,000 for the site, and almost £140,000 was paid in consultancy and administration fees. Some superficial works were carried out at the time to make the site secure.
In purchasing the site, Glanford indemnified ICI from any clean-up costs. ICI tells me that it will seek such indemnities wherever it can. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me that he will do all that he can to end such practices. They may be legally binding, but, in this day and age, we should not be letting polluters off the hook.
Having purchased the site, Glanford came up with an expensive plan for after-use, which would have cost £34 million. We are talking about hard after-use, involving more expensive reclamation and centred on industrial units. At the time, Glanford's existing industrial units were running at a vacancy rate of about 70 per cent., but it presented its plans with no firm guarantee of where the money would come from to carry out the work. A scheme existed enabling councils to bid for derelict land
grants to clean up such sites, but Glanford did not know whether it would qualify in connection with the £34 million scheme.
Worry set in. Glanford began sending letters to the office of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in Leeds, asking whether the site would qualify for a 100 per cent. reclamation grant. A reply dated 19 August 1993 stated:
Glanford thought that it would get the money, but, in fact, no one had ever approved the project. Local government reorganisation also came into the equation. Glanford was to be abolished; Humberside, the county council, was to go; and four new unitary authorities were to be created, including North Lincolnshire. Following the May 1995 council elections, Labour won control of the new authority, and, following a "shadow year", the new council was due to "go live" in April 1996.
Back at the ranch, Glanford purchased a further six acres of contaminated land on the site--the former MTM works which I mentioned earlier. It purchased the land for £1 in December 1995. Again, the polluters were indemnified. It astounds me that the council purchased the land knowing that its days were numbered, and that nothing was likely to be done on the site before the new authority took over about 12 weeks later. Such activities merit an inquiry to discover what Glanford was getting up to in the early 1990s. I reiterate that we must put a stop to indemnities that absolve polluters from paying for decontamination.
In April 1996, North Lincolnshire council inherited severely contaminated land and found itself--through no fault of its own--in the shoes of the polluter, and hence subject to the "polluter pays" principle. Wanting to get stuck in and to sort out the mess, North Lincolnshire deemed the former Glanford plans to be expensive and unsustainable, and devised a more practicable scheme for after-use. The current proposals will create a more attractive environment in Barton upon Humber by removing the contaminated land and water to create a country park known as Water's Edge. That is the key to the regeneration of the whole waterside area and crucial to single regeneration budget bids in the area.
Water's Edge park will mirror the attractive and popular Far Ings reserve further along the riverbank. Reedbeds will be restored, and woodlands and hedgerows established. Essentially, it will provide for a continuous Humber wetland environment on the riverbank at Barton upon Humber--a unique visitor attraction. It will provide a focus for nearby sites of historic interest in the town. The scheme is sustainable. For example, a windmill will act as a source of energy and the energy needs of the visitor centre will be met through solar power.
That Mr. Ernie Ross be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Dr. Phyllis Starkey be added to the Committee.--[Mr. Tyler, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
10.56 pm
To the House of Commons.
To lie upon the Table.
The Petition of the association known as the Palace Theatre (Westcliff)
Declares that the Palace Theatre (Westcliff) is closing and may not operate in the future as a predominantly producing theatre.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to take steps to ensure that theatres such as the Palace Theatre are able to remain open as predominantly producing theatres.
And the Petitioners remain etc.
10.57 pm
"We have been advised by colleagues . . . that the withdrawal of assisted area status can have no effect on a local authority's entitlement to grant at 100 per cent. where schemes have already been approved."
That is crucial to the argument, because the £34 million scheme had never actually been approved. A reply that I received today from my hon. Friend the Minister stated that, when English Partnerships was established in 1994, it took responsibility for the derelict land grant scheme, including projects such as this.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |