| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Rail Freight
6. Mr. David Watts (St. Helens, North): What plans he has to increase freight by rail in the UK. [138940]
13. Mr. Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton): What strategy he has to improve freight capacity in the United Kingdom. [138948]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): The Government have set out their long-term strategy for improving freight capacity in their 10-year plan for transport. We are also establishing the Strategic
Rail Authority, which will have a duty to promote rail freight. We are aiming for an 80 per cent. increase over the next 10 years. Only today, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport announced the biggest ever grant to the Bristol Port Company to refurbish a section of the disused Portishead branch line and a link into the Royal Portsbury dock, and to establish general cargo and port terminals. It is a good example of the progress that we are making.
Mr. Watts: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and congratulate the Government on their commitment to rail freight. However, the strategy will succeed in the north-west only if we have direct rail routes to Europe and good terminals. Can he assure me that the Government will support Central Railway's proposal to establish a direct line to Europe and the development of terminals in the north-west, especially at Parkside in my constituency?
Mr. Mullin: To take Parkside first, I understand that Railtrack's plans are in the early stages. It will, of course, need planning permission, and that is a matter for the local authority. As I have said, generous grants are available to potential customers to encourage them to switch from road to rail when it can be justified by environmental benefits.
As for the fast link to the channel tunnel and the Central Railway proposal, we have not received an application under the Transport and Works Act 1992, but when we do, it will be carefully considered.
Mr. Dobbin: My constituency is midway between the ports of Liverpool and Hull and the M1 and M6. The M60 goes straight through the middle of it, and it is surrounded by distribution parks. I have asked the local authority to carry out a feasibility study on the development of a rail freight terminal in that vicinity with direct access to and from the motorway to alleviate congestion. Is that in line with the Government's strategy for freight, and, if so, what are the possibilities of achieving it?
Mr. Mullin: It is certainly in line with the Government's strategy. As far as I am aware, there are no firm proposals for a freight terminal at Rochdale, but as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts), freight facilities grants are available for viable--and I stress viable--propositions.
Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion): Not one piece of freight is moved by rail in mid-Wales or rural Wales, despite the fact that that used to happen before privatisation. What plans does the Minister have to increase the movement of freight by rail through and to rural areas?
Mr. Mullin: As I said, it is certainly our aim to increase the movement of freight by rail. I am not complacent, but we have a reasonably good story to tell. After decades of decline, there has been a 22 per cent. increase since 1997 in the amount of goods moved by rail. In the same period, the volume of road freight has
remained virtually unchanged. We are heading in the right direction, but I readily acknowledge there is a great deal more to do.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): Will the Minister extend freight facilities grants to smaller operators, so that they are available not just to the big boys such as English, Welsh and Scottish Railways? As for extending freight facilities to rural areas, will he ensure that rail freight heads are built only on industrial sites, not on green belt land?
Mr. Mullin: I understand that such grants are available to small and large companies, but the hon. Lady should bear in mind the fact that they are available to customers--
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): Be gentle with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Mullin: I am always nice to the hon. Lady. Indeed, I try to be pleasant to all hon. Members. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]
The hon. Lady should bear in mind the fact that the grants are available to customers to encourage them to switch from road to rail.
Mr. Tom Clarke (Coatbridge and Chryston): Does my hon. Friend recall that the Coatbridge freightliner terminal in my constituency serves a number of industries and aspects of commerce throughout the United Kingdom that export their products, especially to Europe? Given the lack of development in the adjacent Gartcosh industrial park, does he accept that there is a need to invest in freightliner transport and in industrial development, which would be in the interests of jobs for the whole of the UK as well as in my constituency?
Mr. Mullin: I cannot comment on any particular project, but I repeat that we are keen to see investment in rail freight facilities where they are thought to be viable and sustainable. Those are the key objectives.
Local Government Structures
7. Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): What recent representations he has received from councils concerning the abolition of the committee system in local government. [138941]
The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Following the passage of the Local Government Act 2000, we have received a number of representations from local authorities about the implementation of part II of the Act, which makes provision for councils to adopt new constitutions involving either executive or alternative arrangements, depending on their circumstances.
Mr. Luff: Why do the Government refuse to allow Wychavon district council to include its leader's panel and streamlined committee system in the enforced consultation on new local government structures? Why,
as the leader of the council, Malcolm Meikle, says, are the Government refusing to give the citizens a real choice as to how their council is managed?
Ms Armstrong: I know that Wychavon is working hard to improve its performance, especially in planning matters, where it has a difficult history. In planning, it does not have to change the way in which it does things, although it is seeking to do that to achieve greater efficiency. Like every other council, it needs to demonstrate to its public that it has a system of operating that is efficient, but open and accountable. We are looking forward to working with Wychavon to ensure that it can get a system that delivers that.
Mr. Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent): The Minister will be aware that the Government have transferred to the Welsh Assembly powers over the structure of local government, and that the Welsh Assembly has gone out to consultation on the matter. Did the Government provide any system of appeal for local authorities that disagreed with the conclusions and recommendations of the Assembly?
Ms Armstrong: That is a matter for the Welsh Assembly, so it is not one on which I will comment.
Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne): Is it not true that, throughout the country, councillors of all parties resent being forced to abandon the committee system, as well as the extra cost of so-called modernisation--a cost estimated by the Local Government Association at £175 million? Can the Minister please explain precisely why a council with 85,000 or fewer residents is uniquely placed to deliver open and accountable local government without the new structures? What is the logic of her position, or is not the honest truth that there is none?
Ms Armstrong: The House had a full debate on that matter. I thought that the hon. Gentleman took part in it, but obviously he did not fully listen or take note. I do not like to upset him, but I have to tell him that councils throughout the land, Conservative as well as Labour and Liberal Democrat, are working with the new agenda because they want to open new ways of working with their public. They know that the public, if they are to appreciate and get the best out of public services, need a new relationship with their councils. Councils are therefore working to achieve that. Perhaps he would like to read Hansard to learn the answers to the rest of his questions.
Disadvantaged Areas
9. Mr. Anthony D. Wright (Great Yarmouth): What resources are being put into funding renewal of disadvantaged areas in the present financial year; and if he will make a statement. [138943]
14. Dr. Desmond Turner (Brighton, Kemptown): What funding his Department is providing to combat disadvantage in the most deprived communities.
The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): In addition to spending on key services such as health and education, £1.542 billion is
being spent on regeneration programmes in this financial year. By 2003-04, key services will receive an extra £33 billion a year, backed by new targets to improve outcomes in deprived areas. In addition, the neighbourhood renewal fund will provide an extra £800 million over the next three years for the most deprived areas and communities.
Mr. Wright: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Community groups and various organisations in my constituency are pleased with the way in which the Government have responded to the needs of areas such as Great Yarmouth, which is one of the most deprived in the country. It was one of the most deprived areas in the country when the Conservatives were in government, but they did not respond to the needs of such areas. The neighbourhood renewal fund, which provides a total of £4 million to my constituency, is also welcome, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that the way in which that money is spent will not be in the hands of politicians, but that the various community groups will participate fully in determining the future of the funds?
Ms Armstrong: I can confirm that although the money is to be given directly to local government bodies to address their most deprived areas, we recognise that local authorities and Government alone cannot effectively turn around areas and bridge the gap between the most deprived and the rest. We are asking local authorities to establish local strategic partnerships with their partners, including those from the community sector, so that everyone, including those who are most affected, has a part to play in ensuring that all people, wherever they live, get the same opportunities as others to prosper, to obtain educational qualifications, and so on. That is an important priority for the Government and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and his colleagues in Great Yarmouth to make real changes there.
Dr. Desmond Turner: My right hon. Friend will be aware that east Brighton has a new deal for communities partnership--indeed, she visited it early in its development. I am happy to say that the partnership is up and running and that there is already a feeling of development and change. That feeling is very--[Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members think that dealing with social exclusion is funny.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must put his question.
Dr. Turner: I defer to you, Mr. Speaker. I could not resist responding to the idiots on the other side of the Chamber.
It is too soon to be able to put numbers to the success of the new deal for communities, but it is clear from the spirit of the community that it is going to succeed. What I want to ask--[Hon. Members: "Hooray!"]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat while I am standing. His question should
have been brief, and I am sure that the Minister has picked up the point that he was trying to make. I call the right hon. Lady to reply.
Ms Armstrong: Brighton has indeed benefited from the new deal for communities; it will also receive money from the neighbourhood renewal fund. We are determined that all people, wherever they live--we have heard Members representing seaside towns put their case today--get real opportunities to share in the prosperity of this country. I pay tribute to the contribution that my hon. Friend has made to the east Brighton communities partnership. It is working well and I look forward to its turning areas of east Brighton around very quickly.
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch): Are not the Minister's words so much humbug? Why is she intent on creating a new area of disadvantage in east Dorset by imposing from the centre the burden of a concessionary fares scheme on the district council without giving it any grant at all, thereby going against commitments given to East Dorset and other councils by other Ministers in her team?
Ms Armstrong: There are people in east Dorset who are elderly and disabled and want to benefit from concessionary fares, and they will benefit. The Government have put aside £53 million within the grant to meet those commitments. I hope that the East Dorset council will fulfil its commitments to the elderly and vulnerable in its neighbourhoods.
Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South): Will the Minister ask her officers to be a little more flexible, understanding and realistic about the boundaries of deprivation, particularly in densely populated areas such as Portsmouth, where single regeneration funds are so tightly ring-fenced that facilities which are necessary to offer real benefits are left outside the area? Time and again, the Minister's officers have resisted the city's request to stretch the boundaries to include those facilities.
Will the Minister also seriously consider ways in which we can clean up many of the contaminated sites located in the hearts of inner cities such as Portsmouth? Without Government help, those areas will never be redeveloped, and we will never be able to offer hope, jobs or housing to those who live in them.
Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman raises a very difficult point. If we spread the jam too thinly, those who are really deprived will not benefit from it. We are determined to ensure that we concentrate effort among the most deprived in our nation, who have been neglected for far too long. The previous Administration gave them very little support.
We are putting not only effort but money into contaminated sites. Only this morning, I launched a land use database for contaminated sites, so that we know what they contain and thereby make development easier. In the pre-Budget statement, the Chancellor also created specific capital allowances enabling developers to make returns earlier when tackling contaminated sites.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton): I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. She will know that in Plymouth we were very concerned about the potential
impact of updating the area cost adjustment on our efforts to deal with disadvantage, just as we are beginning to get to grips with it after a 20-year legacy of Tory under-investment. Will she confirm that when the type of specific grant that she has just mentioned is taken into account, the total gross settlement for local government funding in Plymouth will very specifically recognise the challenges that we still face? Additionally, has she made any estimate of the impact that £55 million worth of cuts--the Tory spending plans--would have on local government spending in Plymouth?
Ms Armstrong: I have not made such an estimate, but I have noted the considerable extra investment that the Government have made in Plymouth. Plymouth will benefit from the neighbourhood renewal fund. Additionally, it is receiving about £42 million from European structural funds, in the objective 2 programme, and, for the next two years, it will receive a share of the £120 million for the objective 2 programme for the south-west. Plymouth also receives special funding because of health and education action zones and the new deal for communities funding.
Moreover, because we have introduced the floor system in the local government settlement, Plymouth will receive a 3.2 per cent. increase, rather than the 2.1 per cent. that it might have expected if we had not provided that funding. The Government are putting substantial extra money into local government to ensure the provision of effective services, so that every citizen can recognise and know the extra value that public services add to his or her quality of life.
Mr. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham): Will the Minister confirm that spending on urban regeneration in deprived areas of £5.7 billion in the first four years of this Government falls short of the £6.1 billion provided in the last four years of the Conservative Government? Furthermore, will she confirm that, on close analysis of the pre-Budget report measures that form the centrepiece of the over-hyped urban White Paper, the number of flats over shops that will be created is estimated at only 1,000 per year over five years, out of the 3.8 million new homes that we supposedly need; that the number of homes derelict for 10 years attracting tax relief is so minimal that she is not able to calculate it; and that the biggest beneficiaries of stamp duty exemptions in the undefined disadvantaged areas are likely to be the £750,000 Georgian terraces owned by Labour luvvies in Islington?
Ms Armstrong: I never know whether to take the hon. Gentleman seriously; I certainly do not think that anyone else in the House does. He has once again got it wrong. Spending on regeneration programmes will be £1.542 billion in the current year, compared with £1.38 billion in 1996-97. The Government are demonstrating an absolute commitment to regeneration.
The hon. Gentleman should include in the figures programmes from other Departments that are clearly directed to urban regeneration. Education and investment in skills are part of that. If only the previous Government had understood the importance of education and skills development to some of our poorer areas, the would not
be in the state that they are in now. That Government had a shameful record and many of us are still paying for it in our communities. We are determined to reverse that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |