| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Environmental Services
14. Gillian Merron (Lincoln): What steps he is taking to encourage initiatives by local authorities to improve the quality of their environmental services. [107320]
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Local Government Act 1999 imposes a duty of best value on local authorities. It requires them to secure continuous improvement in the quality and effectiveness of their services and provides them with a major opportunity to drive up standards, including those for environmental services.
Gillian Merron: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Lincoln city council on its excellent initiative in establishing a graffiti hotline, which actions the removal of offensive and racist graffiti within 24 hours? What plans has he for ensuring that that best practice and determined action is mirrored across the country?
Mr. Meacher: I am aware of the good example that Lincoln has set by establishing a 24-hour telephone anti-graffiti service and a policy of removing offensive graffiti--particularly racist graffiti--within 24 hours, which my hon. Friend described. That is another good example of a Labour-controlled council improving local environment services and driving up standards.
We are keen to disseminate best practice. This is a good example of precisely how it can be done better. The Government regard graffiti vandalism very seriously. There are significant penalties, particularly where the damage is severe, in excess of £2,000, with a maximum penalty of up to 10 years. We want to see that enforced.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford):
If the Minister is serious about giving local authorities a bigger role in
Mr. Meacher:
We are concerned about ensuring that local authorities have greater control over all their services. That is why this Government have made a major change compared with the previous Government, in releasing local authorities from the excessive and unreasonable bureaucratic controls that they had under that Government. That is why we have made a change, in particular, from compulsory competitive tendering to best value, which enables local people to have much greater control over the quality and cost of services, including housing services.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley):
Has any environmental services department yet come forward with a solution to the problem of discarded chewing gum that we experience everywhere? It really needs to be solved.
Mr. Meacher:
I am certainly not stuck up on these kinds of problems.
Depositing chewing gum on pavements, or on any surfaces, is a particularly disgusting habit. We intend in both the urban and rural White Papers to come forward with proposals to deal with litter as well as graffiti. I am in touch with one of the major manufacturers of chewing gum to see whether it can find a way of producing biodegradable chewing gum.
15. Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury):
If he will make a statement on the levels of traffic congestion in Great Britain (a) today, (b) a year ago and (c) two years ago. [107321]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill):
It will be of interest for the House to learn that no Government of any political hue have ever published a measure of congestion. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, therefore, is that no estimates of congestion currently available would allow an assessment to be made of changes year on year. However, since the general election, this Government have begun work on measures of congestion, which could be used to monitor these changes in the future. Although we may not yet be able to measure congestion, we clearly know that it exists. Our report, "Tackling Congestion and Pollution", published last month, showed that, with widespread support from local authorities, businesses and the general public for the measures in our integrated transport White Paper and Transport Bill, currently before the House, we can reduce congestion over the next decade.
Mr. O'Brien:
With the glaring evidence before you, Madam Speaker, and indeed all hon. Members, of the most appalling traffic congestion daily in Parliament square, it is no comfort to hear from the Minister's answer that the present Government accept that they have failed to deliver yet another pre-election pledge, to
"reduce and then reverse traffic growth".
8 Feb 2000 : Column 115
-
Will the Minister confirm that the Government's failure is because they have slashed the roads programme while cutting spending on public transport? Does he now realise that most people in this country use their car out of necessity? Is not the Government's failure yet another example of the great Labour lie?
The hon. Gentleman said that there was no evidence of a reduction in traffic growth. That is simply not true. The evidence is that we are beginning to turn the corner on traffic growth. Last year in London, for example, the number of people entering the central area by car in the morning peak decreased by 2 per cent. Moreover, for the country as a whole, provisional traffic statistics suggest that since 1997 the volume of traffic has grown by about half the rate it did during the 18 years of Tory rule. That is a remarkable achievement in a period of strong economic growth. The trends are moving in the right direction, and will be reinforced by the Government's policies for reducing congestion and increasing public transport use.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough):
Is the Minister aware that the busiest road junction in Europe--the junction between the M4 and the M25--is on the edge of my constituency? Is he aware of the application for the building of a so-called rail freight transport station there, and is he aware that 80 per cent. of movements will be by road? When the proposal is submitted to him, will he consider it carefully with a view to saying no, in the light of the impact that such a development would have on the M3, the M4, the M25 and the M40, which are already congested?
Mr. Hill:
My hon. Friend is, as ever, an outstanding advocate for her constituency, but I am afraid that quasi-judiciality prevents me from making any comment about that specific proposal.
Mr. Don Foster (Bath):
Does the Minister agree that one way of reducing traffic congestion would be to take robust action in respect of tour buses? Especially at the height of winter, such buses travel around historic cities such as Oxford, Chester, York and, indeed, Bath, clogging the roads, when almost or completely empty. The only purpose of the drivers is to make themselves eligible for the fuel duty rebate. Will the Minister conduct a review of the rebate as it applies to such vehicles?
Mr. Hill:
I am tempted to ask whether the hon. Gentleman is talking about the Liberal battle bus, empty as usual; but I appreciate his concern. As he will know, the traffic commissioners have certain powers in this respect, which are strengthened by the current transport legislation. Moreover, the fuel duty rebate is paid only on the basis of compliance with a number of conditions.
The Commission for Integrated Transport is currently conducting an inquiry into bus subsidies, and we await with interest the report that it will produce later in the year.
Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South):
I am sure that the Minister realises that far more people are stuck up in traffic each day than are stuck up in chewing gum. Will he consider, in particular, the number of vehicles carrying goods in transit, often travelling through cities two or three times before the goods end up back in the shops? Will he and his ministerial colleagues give thought to specific measures that might encourage a reduction in food miles? Perhaps local partnerships could be established between urban consumption centres and rural producers, both to shorten food miles and to strengthen and shorten lines of food accountability.
Mr. Hill:
I assure my hon. Friend that the Department is doing a great deal of work on precisely those issues. I shall ensure that his observations form part of its considerations.
16. Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate):
What assessment he has made of the potential for development on brownfield sites in the south-east. [107322]
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford):
The Government are fully committed to the re-use of land for development in preference to greenfield sites, and have set a national target that 60 per cent. of additional housing should be built on previously developed land. Over 50 per cent. of dwellings are already built on recycled land in the south-east. Our national land use database indicates that over 10,000 hectares of land are available for recycling in the region.
Mr. Blunt:
Is not the harsh truth that in Surrey, for example, there simply are not enough brownfield sites to meet the Government's 60 per cent. target, if they accept the Serplan figures or, worst of all, the Crow report figures for the number of houses to be built in the south-east? Unless the Government attack the factors underlying the household growth projection figures and change those figures, the Minister's policy can end only in the concreting over of the countryside.
Mr. Raynsford:
Concreting over the countryside is a phenomenon that the hon. Gentleman will be well familiar with because it took place repeatedly throughout the 18 years of Conservative Government, when there was a laissez-faire approach to private developers building houses throughout that area. It is sad and sobering that, until the Government were elected, there was no record of how much brownfield land was available. Until our national land use database was published, no one knew the potential for achieving what the Government are determined to achieve: a focus on development on brownfield sites within not just the south-east, but the whole region.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |