House of Commons
Tuesday 29 June 1999
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
City of London (Ward Elections) Bill
Order for consideration read.
SCOTLAND
The Secretary of State was asked--
Road Upgrading
1. Mr. Tom Clarke (Coatbridge and Chryston): When is the forecast completion of the upgrading of the A8 from Baillieston to Newhouse and the M73 serving Gartcosh. [87514]
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): The proposal to upgrade the A8 between Baillieston and Newhouse is one of the schemes being considered in the strategic review of trunk roads. Responsibility for completing the review transfers, along with other trunk road matters, to the Scottish Parliament on 1 July. The scheme at Gartcosh on the M73 will be completed in September.
Mr. Clarke: My constituents and I are extremely pleased at my right hon. Friend's confirmation of those necessary roadworks. Those of us who have seen the horrors of congestion and the burdens of bottlenecks and who recognise the need for sustainable infrastructure to encourage industrial investment welcome what my right hon. Friend has said. May I take this opportunity to ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that no decision has been taken about charges and that that will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament, which will no doubt take on board in its consultations the views of road users, local authorities and those who want decongestion on roads within the excellence of a new environment?
Dr. Reid: On the upgrade between Baillieston and Newhouse, my right hon. Friend will know that two alternatives are under review. One is an on-line upgrade and one an off-line alternative. Both would involve the upgrading of that section of the A8 to motorway status. On the road charging proposals, I can confirm what my right hon. Friend said. No decision has been reached
by the Scottish Parliament on that matter. Of course, there will be widespread consultation before it decides on the way forward.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): In view of the right hon. Gentleman's comments about road tolling, does he agree that it would have been far better, if he was seeking to make friends and influence people, if the question of road tolling charges had been left until after the transfer of powers? The consequence of the announcement of the policy has been to cause great resentment in Scotland and to give the impression that the Scottish Executive is acting as a little Sir Echo of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Dr. Reid: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. In the spirit of generosity that normally marks these occasions, I also welcome his boss, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who, if my memory serves me correctly, was the father and mother of road charging--the man who invented road charging and introduced it in a Green Paper. I am sorry that he happens to be sitting on the Front Bench to be embarrassed by his colleague's attack on such charging.
I note what the hon. Gentleman says about congestion charging, but I am surprised that he has not been watching the debates in the House in the past year. It is not true that the Scottish Parliament may be the first to consider road charging. In fact, road charging powers are already being considered in the House as part of the Greater London Authority Bill. Therefore, I am afraid that by taking any opportunity to attack devolution from his side of the fence, he is perpetrating the same myth as those on the Scottish National party Benches who take every opportunity to attack devolution. Both parties are wrong. Road charging is being considered as part of the GLA Bill, and no decision has yet been taken in Scotland.
Glasgow (Competitiveness)
2. Mr. David Marshall (Glasgow, Shettleston): What plans there are to introduce measures to improve the competitive position of the Glasgow metropolitan area; and if he will make a statement. [87515]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): We have introduced a number of measures to improve the competitiveness of Glasgow. We are supporting the Glasgow Alliance by providing running costs of £700,000 per annum and have drawn up a wide-ranging strategy for the city. From I July, these will be matters for the Scottish Parliament.
Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that there are more than 1,000 acres of derelict land in the city of Glasgow, a great deal of which is in the east and south-east of the city, in particular in my constituency? Does he agree that that land could hold the key to the future prosperity and competitiveness of that great city and that the best way to develop it would be to complete the last six miles of the M74 motorway from Tollcross to the Kingston bridge? Will he therefore agree to
recommend that as an urgent priority to the appropriate people in the new Scottish Parliament, who will make decisions on such issues after 1 July?
Mr. Macdonald: As my hon. Friend knows, the M74 is being considered as part of the roads review. An important criterion for assessing roads within that review is, of course, economic impact. That is being looked at hard, not merely by officials but by Ministers in the new Scottish Executive. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important to use derelict land to maximise economic development; and that is an important task for the Glasgow Alliance, of which my hon. Friend is a notable member.
Rail Freight
3. Ms Rachel Squire (Dunfermline, West): What plans he has to encourage the increased carriage of freight by rail in Scotland. [87516]
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): The Government have committed £18.3 million for the freight facilities grant scheme in Scotland over the next three years. That scheme provides capital grants to assist companies to take freight off the roads and on to rail.
From 1 July, Scottish Ministers will assume responsibility for that scheme and also for the related track access grant scheme, which provides revenue support.
Ms Squire:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous Conservative Government failed miserably to develop rail freight, despite its clear advantages for the environment, for employment and for industry? Will he tell us a little more about the progress that has been made on the freight facilities grant? Will he consider the future use of that grant to develop combined rail and sea freight facilities on short sea routes from an area such as Rosyth?
Dr. Reid:
I agree with my hon. Friend that the previous Government's record on freight was shameful. We saw 40 years of decline in the rail freight industry. The House will welcome the news that not only have we reversed that decline with a 12 per cent. increase in rail freight last year, but that this year we are heading for a 16 per cent. increase. That is good for the environment, good for the economy, good for the reduction of congestion and good for transport in general.
As for the freight facilities grant scheme, I confirm that we intend to extend the facilities and the financial support not only to rail freight but to short sea, coastal shipping. That will be done as soon as there is a legislative opportunity.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley):
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are now reviewing their integrated policies--all of them, including the dreadful bus lanes that are respected by every motorist in the country apart from the Prime Minister? On freight, will he confirm that the Government will not be using the stick to clobber freight carriers, who have already been heavily penalised by the Government with the most expensive diesel almost anywhere in the world, or certainly in Europe? Will the Government encourage
Dr. Reid:
I think that the hon. Gentleman has a bit of a cheek. If 85 per cent. of the current cost of diesel is taxation, 79 per cent. of that amount was inherited from the Conservative Government, whom he supported year after year. The Conservatives introduced the fuel duty escalator on diesel, and maintained and increased it. The Conservative party's green manifesto, published just before the last election, stated that the escalator should be increased and extended even further than the Labour Government want to do. To try to make cheap, populist points by reversing everything introduced by the Conservatives during the past 10 years does no credit to the hon. Gentleman or his party.
Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East):
The Secretary of State lives in Scotland and, unlike Members sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, knows what goes on there. He will be aware that there is a major rail freight terminal at Grangemouth. Does he share the dismay of the rest of Scotland that companies such as Shell, BP and others have stopped using the Bishopriggs terminal and the Fort William transport depot for rail transport for oil? They are now unnecessarily running lorries throughout Scotland.
Will the Secretary of State give a commitment to the House that he will work with the Scottish Parliament so that companies such as BP, whose aspiration is to make more use of rail freight to ship petrochemical products, and Mitchells of Grangemouth, which wants to set up a major road to rail terminal at Grangemouth, can get heavy freight traffic off the roads? That will make the roads less congested; and rail can be used, which is most efficient for bulk movement.
Dr. Reid:
Yes, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that I will work in partnership with the Scottish Parliament in the devolution settlement. I believe that that will be good for Scotland and for the Scottish people. Equally important, it will be good for England; it will strengthen our unity through the recognition of the diversity of this United Kingdom.
I also confirm that I shall be willing to encourage and to work with any major company that wants to reduce congestion on the roads by taking advantage of the generous rail freight schemes that we have introduced. For instance, only yesterday, Safeway introduced a scheme to carry its freight between Inverness and Glasgow that will take about 5,000 lorries off the roads this year--largely assisted by £580,000 from the Government.
Mr. Michael Moore (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale):
The Secretary of State will be aware of the Scottish Office working party report on the future of the borders economy, especially the strong recommendations regarding the reopening of the Waverley line and the issue of rail freight raised therein. Will he confirm that he is, in principle, in favour of reopening that line through the Scottish borders and into England? Will he also confirm
Dr. Reid:
As the hon. Gentleman might know, not only have we given support to an alternative study of that case but we have actually financed it. That we have given such financial support shows that we have an open mind on that question. It would be wrong to prejudge the outcome of the study that we are financing, but the fact that we support it demonstrates that our mind is not closed on the subject.
Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries):
If Scotland's railways are to expand and thrive, they will require investment and effective regulation. Will my right hon. Friend assure the people of Scotland that he, in his capacity as Secretary of State, will put pressure on the United Kingdom Government and the railway regulators to ensure that we do all in our power from this place to put our transport system on the right track?
Dr. Reid:
There is common agreement across the country that we need to concentrate minds, especially that of Railtrack, on ensuring that there is adequate and commensurate investment in rail infrastructure, not only in the Scottish rail system but throughout the United Kingdom rail system. However, it would be churlish not to acknowledge that we in Scotland are comparatively well served in terms of our railway system. In addition, ScotRail consistently comes at the head of the league in terms of performance and other criteria by which we judge the railways, and it is right to put that on the record.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |