| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Housebuilding (Hertfordshire)
4. Mr. Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford): What representations he has received from councillors concerning housebuilding targets for Hertfordshire. [5570]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): My right hon. Friend has received no representations from individual councillors since comments were invited in November 2000 on the proposed changes to housing distribution, although local authorities made representations. There have been no representations since the final figures were announced in March 2001.
Mr. Prisk: Given the Government's clear commitment to reduce social exclusion, can the Minister confirm that in Hertfordshire and elsewhere she will not allow housing intended for affordable homes to be replaced with more expensive market housing?
Ms Keeble: The Government's approach is to ensure that there is an element of affordable housing in any housing application. That is clearly set out in the guidelines. We have also set out figures for housing densities. Our proposals will ensure that we provide for good-quality housing in urban areas and for people in all income brackets and that we protect greenfield and green belt areas.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West): I confirm to the Minister that councillors in Milton Keynes and the business community take a similar view
to that expressed by Hertfordshire councillors—we need greater emphasis on affordable housing. In particular, will she ensure that the current study of housing need in the Bedfordshire-Northamptonshire-Milton Keynes triangle considers the successful model of Milton Keynes and its development corporation as a way to carry forward plan-led development, including affordable housing to the north of Milton Keynes?
Ms Keeble: The Government are well aware of the need to ensure that there is adequate affordable housing. That point has been raised by Members on both sides of the House. We shall certainly ensure that all the lessons that can be learned from the study in the Northamptonshire-Milton Keynes area are considered carefully and applied nationally.
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden): Is the Minister aware that the urban capacity study commissioned by the incoming Conservative-controlled Hertfordshire council administration shows that there are enough brownfield sites in Hertfordshire on which to build all the houses needed not only up to 2016, but up to 2024, without needing to build on the green belt? Will she therefore take steps to rescind the approval disastrously given by the Deputy Prime Minister when he was Secretary of State for the Labour-Liberal plan to build an unprecedented number of houses on the green belt in Hertfordshire—an approval which will damage every county in the country with a green belt to protect?
Ms Keeble: I am aware of the capacity study being done by the new administration and I understand that it is studying the figures and deciding how best to take matters forward. I am also aware that the capacity study shows that the administration can provide for its target housing in the space that it has. It is not possible for me to comment on individual planning applications.
Ms Claire Ward (Watford): Is my hon. Friend aware that the sites that Conservative-controlled Hertfordshire county council has identified in my constituency are bits of green verge and small sections of greenfield land in an already congested town? It wants to protect areas in other parts of the county, but the need for the development west of Stevenage is clear. It is absolutely essential, as otherwise problems will be caused in my own constituency.
Ms Keeble: I repeat that I cannot comment on an individual planning application. Part of the proposals in policy planning guidance 3 provide for a sequential test, which would mean that the most appropriate sites for development should be taken first. It is important that that consequential test is properly applied to protect both greenfield areas and existing communities.
Congestion Tax (London)
5. Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South): If he will exercise his veto over the introduction of the congestion tax in London. [5571]
10. Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central): What assessment he has made of the impact of congestion charging in London on rail capacity. [5576]
The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the Mayor is required to seek the Secretary of State's approval only to his 10-year expenditure plan for the use of revenues from the scheme. I understand that the Mayor will submit the plan when he has considered the results of the recent public consultations.
When he does so, one of the issues that will need to be resolved is the provision for diverted commuters and the financing of that provision.
Richard Ottaway: I am surprised by that answer. If the Minister reads section 143 of the 1999 Act, he will find that he has powers to make directions. I am surprised that he does not make such directions. It was only last May—if I may have the Minister's attention—that the Labour party was campaigning against the congestion tax in the elections for the Greater London Authority. Will not the hon. Gentleman accept that the fundamental premise of the congestion tax has changed with the introduction of season tickets, which is likely to increase traffic and not decrease it? There will be a tax on congestion, not a congestion tax. I suggest that the Minister should return to the drawing board and adhere to his election pledges.
Mr. Spellar: I shall clarify the constitutional position. The Mayor and Transport for London are able to draw up the plan. The Department's discretion relates to the use of moneys obtained and financing in terms of commuters who may previously have travelled into London by car and who have now been diverted to other forms of transport. That is tied in with financial considerations. Considerable consultation is taking place. In some instances, it has been increased at the request of certain local authorities.
There are differing views throughout London within parties as well as within other groups. Issues are arising that stem possibly from some of the consequences not only on the periphery of the congestion charging area but further out. Those are issues on which there will have to be consultation. They will have to be drawn together and resolved. When that has happened, the Mayor will present his plan. It will need to be both practical and acceptable to the people of London.
Geraint Davies: When celebrations over the demise of Railtrack have subsided, will my right hon. Friend give careful consideration to building on the tripartite body of the Strategic Rail Authority, Transport for London and the Government in providing strategic investment for railways in London, and to extending that programme to operational management so that, alongside congestion charges, we can move towards a truly integrated system of buses, trams and trains enabling Londoners to move about more easily?
Mr. Spellar: Although it is north of the river, the tripartite body has made considerable progress with crossrail, which is of huge interest to the City and the business community. We are moving on and we have appointed Sir Christopher Benson as chair of crossrail.
My hon. Friend must acknowledge that many of the rail lines and routes originate from outside the London area. To put that system into the control of Transport for London, where accountability lies with voters in London, might cause considerable concern in surrounding areas of the south-east development area and the eastern region. There are broader issues that would have to be resolved. Integration of transport modes is extremely important, and co-operation between the various bodies is not precluded.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet): Is it the Government's view that Members should be charged the congestion tax? If so, does that not breach the Standing Order about the right of free and unfettered access from constituencies to Westminster, especially for Members travelling daily from their constituencies? If not, will the public at large not rightly resent an unacceptable privilege?
Mr. Spellar: I do not suggest that the hon. Gentleman try that argument with the next cabbie he rides with.
The question of exemptions is a serious one, which the Mayor is examining in consultation with a number of bodies, including major employers and services—not only the emergency services but many other essential services. The hon. Gentleman has highlighted—in slightly quixotic fashion, as is his wont—the difficulties that arise when exemptions create a demand for further exemptions. Transport for London and the Mayor are well aware of those difficulties, which will apply not only to congestion charging in London, but also where such proposals are being considered by authorities elsewhere in the country. There may need to be at the very least a minimum list of exemptions, but we shall need to see the outcome of the consultations and consider the feasibility of financing that will arise as a consequence of the level of exemptions.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West): My right hon. Friend encouraged Transport for London to set aside some of the revenues that it might receive from congestion charging. Perhaps those could be used for any innovative tram schemes that might be proposed in attractive, highly desirable, northern outer-London suburbs, such as Harrow?
Mr. Spellar: That is certainly a request that my hon. Friend and the London borough of Harrow—whose excellent leader is a mutual friend of ours—would do well to put to Transport for London. We already have the Docklands light railway and the extremely successful Croydon light railway, and other proposals are being examined. Bringing all those together and examining the allocation of transport funding for London is the role of Transport for London, but the allocation of moneys collected from congestion charging—if that is the route that London decides to take—will be a matter for the Mayor, who will put forward a plan, and it is for us to decide whether it is appropriate and adequate.
Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar): With regard to the second part of the question put by the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies), surely the rail regulator will have an important role to play in increasing the capacity on the railways. Does the Minister believe that, in an independent market, the independence of the regulator should be paramount? If so, will he explain why
it was necessary to threaten the regulator, Mr. Winsor, with emergency legislation—apparently already drafted—if he sought to exercise the right to obtain an interim financial review of Railtrack? Does the Minister not trust the regulator's judgment? Or did he fear that the regulator would come up with an option that was cheaper and more viable for the public purse than the Government's?
Mr. Spellar: We have concern for the public purse, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was Railtrack that sought relief from the regulator. We had to have a range of contingencies—which I am sure will be examined in the debate that is to follow—in which we examined the various possibilities that might arise, and that we should have to handle in the event of a decision being made that Railtrack was unable to continue. One such consideration was that we could not have unlimited liability on the public purse, and that was the basis of our decision when we had to apply to the court. I hope that in our later debate the hon. Gentleman or one of his colleagues will be able to explain how much their unlimited liability on the public purse would cost, and whether the shadow Chancellor has signed off on it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |