House of Commons
Tuesday 8 February 2000
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Tuesday 15 February.
ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
The Secretary of State was asked--
New Deal
1. Ms Oona King (Bethnal Green and Bow): If he will make a statement on the progress of the new deal for communities. [107305]
8. Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East):
What steps the Government are taking to provide a new deal for local communities. [107313]
The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong):
We have now made offers of funding to 10 new deal for communities pathfinder partnerships to help them to deliver sustainable change for some of our poorest neighbourhoods. Seven more pathfinders will submit their proposals at the end of March. The success of the pathfinders has encouraged us to launch a second round of the programme in 22 further areas of England.
Ms King:
I welcome that statement. My right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that Tower Hamlets is one of those pathfinder areas. Will she be able to issue guidance to other Departments--in particular, the Benefits Agency--so that they can work more closely together in delivering the objectives of the new deal?
Ms Armstrong:
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the close interest that she is taking in the new deal for communities in her constituency on the Ocean estate, a community that has had many difficulties. She has agreed to chair the partnership and is working very hard to pull all the different groups together, for which she is to be commended. I reassure her that the Government take the fact that it is a whole Government programme very seriously--it is not simply a programme from our
Mr. Snape:
I thank the Minister for the £56 million recently received for the Greets Green area of the borough of Sandwell. Together with the funding for the new bus station and the town centre redevelopment in West Bromwich, it will go a long way to making up for nearly two decades of neglect in Sandwell. I am sure that I speak for you, too, Madam Speaker, when I say that making up for those years of urban decline and poverty in a town such as West Bromwich will require similar initiatives in future and we shall press the Minister along those lines again.
Ms Armstrong:
My hon. Friend is right. We offered the Greets Green partnership £56 million to implement its long-term strategy over the next 10 years. It is a good strategy backed with a real determination to increase the number of jobs; to improve the skills and educational attainment of people living in the area; to reduce ill health; and to tackle crime. I hope that he continues to take a close interest and ensure that we do whatever possible to turn the area round and make people proud to live and bring up their families there.
Mr. Archie Norman (Tunbridge Wells):
It is a particular pleasure to stand in front of the Deputy Prime Minister, and I look forward to maintaining the tradition of robust exchanges established by my illustrious predecessor. In the light of the last few days' revelations regarding my interests, I wish to make an apology. I apologise for the fact that my 20 years of real-world experience of planning, the environment and transport means that I have some practical grasp of the subject, which is not a problem that afflicts the Deputy Prime Minister.
As the new deal for communities is the Government's flagship programme to tackle deprivation in our cities, can the Minister tell the House whether the number of priority homeless cases has fallen under Labour; whether brownfield development in our cities has risen under Labour; what happened to inner-city crime last year; and how much hard cash has been delivered to the communities after nearly three years of Labour government?
Ms Armstrong:
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. We, too, have real-world experience. Mine has been in working in areas of deprivation to build up local communities and work with them. Under the previous Government, that was an extremely difficult task. We are determined on all those issues to give the right sort of support to enable local communities to work effectively to turn their areas round. I wish to goodness that his Government had been slightly interested in that.
Mr. Norman:
Now we know what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) meant when he said of the Government that minor functionaries give a wholly erroneous impression of what is going on. Are not the facts that under this Government, homelessness has risen by 3,500, brownfield development in our cities has fallen and crime is rising? Is it not also true that less money is
Ms Armstrong:
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will learn to work out what questions mean. These questions are about the new deal for communities. It is one of our regeneration programmes; there are many others. Perhaps he would like to add them up--then he might get the right figures. This Government, unlike his, will work for the whole country: north and south, east and west, rural and urban. If he really is worried about the north, why did he support the closure of steelworks, pits and shipyards that did far more to undermine the north than anything else that his Government did?
Mr. Hilary Benn (Leeds, Central):
Will my right hon. Friend join me in extending an invitation to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) to visit my constituency to see the real-world deprivation that exists, largely as a consequence of his party's policies for 18 years? In that respect, will she review the eligibility criteria for the new deal for communities so that some parts of my constituency can put in bids for the new deal communities? They would like to benefit from the fortune that places such as West Bromwich are enjoying.
Ms Armstrong:
I echo my hon. Friend's concern about the lack of knowledge of Opposition Front Benchers about some of our northern cities. Perhaps some day they will learn about them. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that Leeds is in fact able to bid for the new deal for communities in the next round.
2. Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere):
If he will make a statement on the timetable for the partial privatisation of National Air Traffic Services. [107306]
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott):
Powers to create the public-private partnership for NATS are being sought in the Transport Bill. We intend to secure the benefits of the public-private partnership soon after those powers have been granted. This could be as early as 2001.
Mr. Clappison:
Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the Government's proposed golden share in the public-private partnership for NATS is legal under European law?
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
If we were to go ahead without the acquiescence of the airline pilots, the British Air Line Pilots Association and the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, which represents the air traffic controllers, and unfortunately there was a
Mr. Prescott:
Those who were guilty, and I do not necessarily accept my hon. Friend's assumptions.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex):
Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that, contrary to the assurances that he has given to his Back Benchers, the so-called public-private partnership envisages that NATS may be split up at some future point? Will he confirm that several different companies may provide air traffic services and that there will be several strategic partners? Will he confirm that the Government's shareholding could be reduced to 25 per cent, a point that has just been included in the Transport Bill? Will he confirm that the Government envisage circumstances in which NATS could be floated?
The Deputy Prime Minister ducked the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), so will he now confirm that he has received an opinion from the European Commission that suggests that the golden share in BAA is illegal? That implies that the golden share in NATS will also be illegal. Does he deny the existence of that opinion, and will he come clean on his negotiations with the Commission on this crucial matter? Will he confirm that the opinion suggests that the concepts of national security and national interest are not recognised by the European Commission?
Mr. Prescott:
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman continues to misunderstand the situation, just as he does in the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill. The BAA case is not the same as that of NATS, and that is why I was so easily able to tell the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that there was no conflict. The PPP, involving a strategic relationship with a private partner, is the best way to go. We have explained to the Standing Committee--and will continue to explain on Report--that it will mean long-term investment, that safety will be properly maintained and that the advances and growth that we require from NATS will occur.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |