| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Regional Development Agencies
3. Mr. Ian Pearson (Dudley, South): What steps the Government are taking to promote economic development in the west midlands through regional development agencies. [107308]
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Advantage West Midlands has produced a well-balanced regional strategy for economic development in the region. We await detailed action plans and look forward to working with the organisation as we begin to implement the strategy.
Mr. Pearson: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his long-standing commitment to the regions. All the signs suggest that Advantage West Midlands will make a big impact. Does he agree that one cannot download a fridge or a hi-fi, and that we therefore need to ensure that goods ordered through dotcom companies are manufactured in areas such as the west midlands? Does he agree that we
need the world-class infrastructure--road and rail links--that would allow those goods to be delivered quickly to the market? Will he ask his Department to examine conditions in the west midlands, where the transport infrastructure is clearly the worst around any major conurbation in Europe?
Mr. Prescott: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend said. In particular, I believe that regional development agencies play an important part in developing prosperity in the regions. Such agencies were successful in Scotland and Wales, and we cannot see why the English regions should be denied them. They will play an important part in the transport strategies being developed with regional planning bodies and assemblies. I accept that transport could improve a lot in Birmingham, and we are giving that point considerable attention and taking advice from people in the regions.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on his appointment. He is my third shadow in less than three years, and I hope that he stays in post a little longer than his predecessors did, although his first appearance suggests that that might not be so. We shall wait and see. The job's previous occupant came out with a flurry of punches, but did not last long.
May I ask the hon. Gentleman to confirm the statement that I read in the--
Madam Speaker:
Order. Question Time is for the Opposition.
Mr. Prescott:
It is Question Time, Madam Speaker, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) asked about regional development agencies, and the Conservatives, having previously stated that they would abolish RDAs, have said today that they intend to keep them. Perhaps the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells could let the House know what the Tory position is.
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire):
The Deputy Prime Minister will know that I am no fan of regionalism. May I ask him carefully to consider the strategy produced by Advantage West Midlands? It is written in incomprehensible English, and is so bad that the Plain English Campaign criticised the agency for falsely claiming that it had the campaign's blessing. It is also a facile document that contains no substance. He should consider what that says about the quality of the agencies that he has, in my view mistakenly, put in place.
Mr. Prescott:
I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. Wide consultations were held with people in the regions, including Tory councillors and the local authorities, all of whom played a major part in the development of the strategy. It has now been refined by the Government to determine priorities. Perhaps he will tell the House whether he still believes that the RDAs should continue to play a part in the regions.
4. Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East):
If he will make a statement on Government policy in respect of housing directly managed by local authorities. [107309]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin):
The Government continue to attach the highest priority to housing and are committed to a policy that promotes decent and affordable housing for everyone. Local authority housing is an essential resource in achieving that objective.
Dr. Iddon:
As Bolton is a band 1 housing authority, and in view of recent press rumours, will my hon. Friend say whether well-managed housing authorities will be able to continue to manage their local stock as they always have done? More important, will adequate funds be made available for the maintenance and management of that stock?
Mr. Mullin:
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The recent press reports are inaccurate. It is up to each local authority, in consultation with its tenants--I emphasise that point--to decide on the best way to manage its housing stock. There are some advantages to voluntary transfers that we should expect local authorities to consider, but the process is not compulsory.
As for resources, the Government have already provided £5 billion extra for housing during this Parliament, so we have made quite a good start.
Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne):
Will the Minister confirm that the housing Green Paper has been delayed yet again? It was due to appear last autumn and then this spring. Will he confirm that it will now appear in July? After almost three years, is it not time that the Government had a proper housing strategy? As the Green Paper will not appear until after the comprehensive spending review, does not that mean that, yet again, the Treasury has scored a victory over his Department and that he and his colleagues have backed away from any meaningful reform of housing benefit?
Mr. Mullin:
It is not true that the Green Paper has been delayed, because we gave no undertaking on when it would be published. However, it will be published shortly and will set out a clear statement of our vision for housing policy. As I pointed out, we have already committed an extra £5 billion for housing during this Parliament, so no one can say that we are neglecting the subject.
Dr. Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak):
Will my hon. Friend explain why the Government continue to treat local councils differently from registered social landlords when it comes to raising commercial investment for improvements in the same housing occupied by the same people?
Mr. Mullin:
We are anxious to encourage local authorities to consider the best ways to manage their housing stock and not to think that there is only one way of doing so. We want them seriously to examine the possibility of transfers. However, as I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), there is no compulsion and they must always consult their tenants.
6. Mr. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington):
If he will make a statement on progress in achieving a public- private partnership for London Underground. [107311]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill):
Excellent progress has been made, which will enable us to tackle the £1.2 billion investment backlog on the tube that we inherited from the previous Tory Government, and to achieve our objective of a massive £8 billion of new investment to modernise London's underground network.
Bids for the two deep-tube public-private partnership contracts are due back by the end of next month. There has been strong interest in the sub-surface lines and property PPP competitions as well. Submissions to pre-qualify for those contracts are due back later this month.
Mr. Brake:
I thank the Minister for his response. Has he read the report by University college, London on the funding of the tube? Does he agree with its findings that the PPP will cost £1 billion more than a bond issue to raise the investment that is needed? Does he agree that the PPP will not allow for expansion of the tube network, that it will leave a shortfall between passenger fares and the infrastructure service charges of between £110 million and £175 million per year, and that that will have to be funded either by the Government or by the mayor and the Greater London Assembly?
Mr. Hill:
I know that the hon. Gentleman follows these matters carefully, but he must not believe everything that he reads in academic reports. The academics have got it wrong again. If the PPP competition leaves a funding gap, that will be allowed for in the grant that we pay the mayor; we shall not leave London to pick up the bill. The PPP is all about obtaining best value. Public sector bonds would cost £4.5 billion more over 15 years.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood):
The travelling public in London do not need to read academic reports to know that they have been short-changed by the Government. Their manifesto promises are no nearer to being realised now than they were almost three years ago. Is it not the case that daily the delays persist and that there is no sign of the investment that was promised at the last general election? In other words, Labour's promises were fraudulent.
Mr. Hill:
The hon. Gentleman might bear it in mind that the Government have invested hundreds of millions of pounds more in the tube system than was ever planned for by the Conservative Administration. Currently, £1.8 billion of new investment is going into the tube system overall. Let me also remind him that in the autumn, the Government announced a massive extra £50 million for London's bus system.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |