§ Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes)I am pleased to have this opportunity to initiate a debate on a matter that is vital to my constituency and, as I shall try to shows, to the economy of a much wider sub-region.
This is a critical time for Newhaven. The port is at a crossroads, if the House will forgive the mixed metaphor. It has the potential to become a major success story of the next century, but might also slip away, leaving a shell of derelict buildings, rusting metal and high unemployment. It could go either way, and which way it goes will depend, at least in part, on the events of the next few months. The Government, local councils and, crucially, the private sector must all deliver if we are succeed, and I see it as part of my job to ensure that that happens.
Let me deal with the port's potential. First, there is the its geographical location: it is not, as some tend to portray it, at the periphery, but well inside the triangle that takes in London, Paris and Brussels; if one draws a line from London to Paris, Newhaven is the port closest to that line. The port's potential is shown by the fact that 1.2 million people live within an hour's drive of Newhaven. However, when people think of channel ports, they think of Dover, Southampton and Portsmouth, and consistently underrate Newhaven's potential.
Secondly, there is the Newhaven Economic Partnership which, as the Minister will know, is a private company, limited by guarantee, set up to revitalise the port. All the town's major employers are represented, including Sea Containers, which owns the port; P and O Stena, which operates the ferry service; James Fisher and Sons, which has in Newhaven the largest cold store for imported fruit and vegetables in the country; and companies such as Parker Pen and Concord Lighting, which are major employers in Newhaven.
All three levels of local council are represented—the county, the district and the town—and so am I, as the local Member of Parliament. In addition, Lewes tertiary college is also an active member, giving valuable help on employment training.
The NEP has been successful in securing single regeneration fund money from the Government, capital challenge funding for a new port access road and Interreg money earmarked for local schemes. In addition, the partners, especially the local councils, have committed funds to the partnership's pot. That has helped with several valuable local projects, such as saving the Hillcrest centre, which is a focal point for the community.
Thirdly, there is the unique and strong relationship with Dieppe. The ferry crossing between the two ports goes back well into the last century. In recent years, Dieppe has had a huge amount of investment in its port, and the French now want the same to happen in Newhaven. To that end, a joint action group was formed between Dieppe chamber of commerce and Lewes district council. More recently, the chamber became a full member of the NEP, which is the first time a French chamber has voluntarily put itself under the jurisdiction of English law. Dieppe believes in the crossing and in Newhaven; it is now time to show clearly that people on this side of the channel also believe in Newhaven.
That leads me to the current situation. An improved port is absolutely essential to the future of Newhaven and to the wider sub-region, including Brighton. 325 The regeneration project in Newhaven is a complex jigsaw, which will not work unless all the pieces are in place. An improved port is the key piece, to which all others are connected.
The port in its current configuration is limited in capacity in a way which, if it remains unimproved, spells had news for Newhaven tomorrow. The present generation of ferries can only just negotiate the port, and, with bigger ferries coming on stream elsewhere, Newhaven faces a loss of competitiveness against other south coast ports if it cannot match any increase in size.
Furthermore, the depth of the port—only 5m—means that James Fisher and Sons is operating well below capacity, because boats are getting bigger, and now touch the bottom when they arrive. That in turn makes it difficult for shippers to obtain insurance cover, with the result that business goes elsewhere. Time and again, contracts have been won by Fisher, only to be lost at the last minute because of the insurance problem. Put bluntly, there must be a possibility that Fisher, a major employer in the town, will close and the ferry operation be scaled down, with the loss of numerous jobs, if an improved port cannot be provided soon. It was that fact that provided a major impetus for the setting up of the NEP.
The good news is that many of the jigsaw pieces have been assembled, and some are fixed together. Planning permission has been achieved for a new outer port, subject to a few final details being ironed out by the district council as the planning authority. Planning permission has also been granted for a new port access road, which will link the trunk road network with the port. Those two proposals are inextricably linked to the port's future. Formal withdrawal of outstanding objections to compulsory purchase orders has been achieved, so that obstacle is out of the way.
The existing road winds around residential streets, passing a nursery school and local shops. It is the most inappropriate port access imaginable. The new road will not only solve that problem and link the trunk road network with the new outer port, but also open up access to the biggest unused piece of land identified for industrial purposes anywhere along the south coast—at least between Eastbourne and Worthing, and probably further. The land will be used to provide an Eastside business park. The road scheme is estimated to cost £7.8 million, with £6.8 million coming from a successful capital challenge bid and the rest from Interreg funding.
It is worth noting that East Sussex county council has already spent around £500,000 on design and securing planning permission for the road. The council also says that it is prepared to shoulder the debt payments from servicing the capital challenge funding, which will come to another £500,000. The county council tells me that it is fully committed to building the road, and I and the people of Newhaven intend to hold them to that commitment.
That is the background; I apologise for the fact that I have taken some time to set it out, but I thought it best to put matters in context. I come now to what I should like the Government to do to help Newhaven.
First, it would be helpful if the Minister could set out exactly what the Government's strategy is for ports, especially their vision for the south coast. The hon. Lady will no doubt be aware of the European Union Green Paper on sea ports and maritime infrastructure, so I 326 presume that she has already given that key matter some thought. Currently, 80 per cent. of cross-channel traffic goes through Kent. Does the Minister agree that it is sensible not to put all one's eggs in one basket? The benefits of diversity alone suggest that Newhaven should be protected and enhanced—small ports have an important role to play. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are committed to a diversity of ports, and that they will oppose any contraction of the number available on the south coast?
Given that Newhaven is already on the trans-European rail network, will the Minister undertake to help to put together a case for EU funding for Newhaven port, which might well be available under the proposals in the Green Paper, as I understand them? In short, I am asking for an assurance that the Government, like people in Newhaven and Dieppe, believe that Newhaven port has a solid future in the next century. If the answer to that is yes, I ask the Minister to put that on the record today, because that assurance alone will help in the current circumstances. In addition, it is unclear what is to be the role of the regional development agencies in port policy and support, so some clarification would be helpful.
I said that the trans-European rail network includes Newhaven, and I ask for the Minister's help in that respect. Is she aware that Railtrack's published plans for the next 10 years do not even mention Newhaven? That is despite the trans-European link, despite the fact that major redevelopment of the port would give an opportunity to combine the current three railway stations—which are a shambolic first sight for visitors arriving in Newhaven from the continent—into one brand-new one, and despite the fact that there is considerable potential for moving freight by rail from Newhaven. The infrastructure from decades ago still remains, and the rail lines literally go down to the quayside.
There is still plenty of land for expansion, and, as the Minister knows from our correspondence, English, Welsh and Scottish Railfreight has expressed considerable interest in the site. Indeed, the company's No. 2 in this country, Julian Worth, has met me and others from the Newhaven Economic Partnership on site to discuss the potential. He went away interested in Newhaven port.
The Government are rightly committed to shifting the bias of transport away from the private car and lorry and on to more environmentally friendly transport, including rail. Does the Minister therefore share my view that plans for a new port in Newhaven provide a wonderful opportunity to achieve the Government's objectives? If a new port were almost totally dependent on private road transport, a great opportunity would have been missed.
My requests of the Government in respect of rail are as follows. Will they continue to support Newhaven's place in the trans-European network? Will they give support today for the principle of rail freight movements from and through Newhaven? Will they make representations to Railtrack in order that it assesses the potential for Newhaven, with a view to putting the scheme in its forward programme?
Will the Government please reconsider their decision not to stop the sale of so-called redundant rail land in the town, the loss of which might jeopardise the development of rail freight in the port? I apologise to the Minister for raising that yet again, but I am working on the basis that, 327 if I raise it frequently enough, I may get the answer for which I am looking. Even limiting sales to companies with rail interests would help. The policy of disposal of land that was identified as surplus by the Tories, who were not interested in rail and are not present for today's debate, is so out of line with the Government's mainly refreshingly sensible transport policy.
On the wider transport infrastructure, will the Government examine what is being done in Dieppe to see how improvements in Newhaven might dovetail? Will the Government undertake to consider the A26 and the parallel rail line as part of a corridor study on the route north of Newhaven, in line with proposals for such studies in the Government's forthcoming White Paper on transport—if newspaper stories are to be believed?
I return to the key aspect of the debate: proposals for an improved port and a new port access road. The start of construction on the port access road has slipped due to uncertainties over the new port and the merger of two ferry companies. The merger has also made it very difficult for P and O Stena Line and Sea Containers to reach a long-term agreement, given the merger's restrictive conditions.
Under those circumstances, it is being discussed whether, in the interim, it may make sense for the road to access a new deeper berth in the existing harbour rather than a brand new port immediately. That could well cut through some of the problems, deliver an improvement in time to safeguard the port, and achieve the aims that the Government originally set out when approving capital challenge funding. I am advised that such a modified route for the road would not require a new planning application.
I ask the Government for time and flexibility to tie up negotiations among the various partners. In the past few days, as the Minister will imagine, I have spoken to several partners in the public and private sectors to assess progress, and I believe that a solution is in sight and achievable. It is therefore crucial that the rug is not pulled from under our feet by rigid adherence to a timetable that was set under different circumstances.
The Government office for the south-east has been constructive and entirely helpful in the process, but can obviously go only so far without a ministerial steer. Will the Minister use her contacts to put pressure on the private sector in particular to reach agreements that will enable investment to proceed? The public sector locally has, by and large. delivered its part of the bargain.
Newhaven has suffered from years of under-investment. The merger of P and O and Stena Line, although representing a strengthening of the position in Newhaven, has nevertheless caused short-term uncertainty. The forthcoming loss of duty-free trade has added to that, and could be bad for the town. I cannot emphasise enough, however, that Newhaven's potential is enormous as a cross-channel ferry port and railhead, a back-up to the channel tunnel—the only potential one—a major import-export location, and an economic engine for the entire sub-region as far north as Haywards Heath and East Grinstead.
Like a game in a Christmas cracker, this matter is a question of getting all the silver balls into the holes at the same time. The Government's attitude to Newhaven, how flexible they are in funding the port access road, 328 how seriously they take the potential for rail freight, how hard they are prepared to lean on those in the private sector, the signals that they send out and the stance that they take, are all crucial. I ask the Minister to respond positively and helpfully to my points—I am sure she will—in order to let the people of Newhaven know that the Government are on their side and will help them.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson)I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on obtaining this Adjournment debate. As he so rightly says, the topic of Newhaven port is of importance not only to his constituents but to the entire region.
The port of Newhaven is a major local employment provider through companies such as P and O Stena Line and James Fisher, employing several hundred people. As the hon. Member pointed out, it plays an important role in linking the south-east region with the markets of continental Europe, and, like neighbouring Shoreham, is a key port in handling marine aggregates for the construction industry. As the hon. Gentleman also pointed out, it handles a variety of traffic, including passengers, fruit and vegetables, forest products and fish. As he further pointed out, there has been recent investment in a cool storage facility for fruit and vegetable traffic. In all, the port handled 1.3 million tonnes of cargo in 1996, with a passenger throughput of 841,000 and about 160,000 vehicles.
In December 1996, East Sussex county council was awarded credit approval of £6.8 million under the capital challenge towards the £7.8 million cost of the port access road. The road, as the hon. Member for Lewes also pointed out in great detail, is seen as the key to the regeneration of Newhaven. The wider regeneration scheme for Newhaven amounts to more than £80 million, which includes £6.5 million single regeneration budget challenge funding. Most of the private sector investment—Sea Containers Ltd. and P and O Stena Line—will be in the renewal of Newhaven port, including the construction of the outer harbour. The road, the harbour and the wider regeneration of the town are inextricably linked.
East Sussex county council has also submitted a bid through the European funding programme, Interreg, for a £1 million contribution towards the port access road. The application has been received, and is being considered by the Government Office for the South-East and my Department.
In addition, Lewes district council has applied to the Ministry of Agriculture for grants to aid the fisheries aspect of the port's modernisation. Up to 50 per cent. grant is available from MAFF for work including rebuilding the fishermen's jetties and a new fish market building. The application is under consideration by MAFF. Grant for a feasibility study for the development of the port has already been made available under the PESCA scheme for restructuring fishing dependent areas.
Although I am aware of such plans for a major redevelopment of the port facilities at Newhaven, and cognisant of the pleas of the hon. Member for Lewes, I cannot comment on the detail of the plans, because they may be subject to approvals from my Department, 329 for which formal applications have yet to be made. The environmental impact of such a project will be carefully considered as part of the approvals procedure.
As well as raising several detailed points about Newhaven port, the hon. Member raised a number of points about the Government's general policy towards ports and port development. As he will be aware, and as the House knows, we are shortly to publish a White Paper setting out the Government's integrated transport policy. We fully recognise that our ports are a vital link in the supply chain. Some 95 per cent. of our international trade by volume, as well as considerable domestic traffic, goes through them. We must ensure that they are integrated into our transport networks in ways which contribute to the aims of a more effective and more environmentally friendly transport system.
It is important to recognise that our ports are competing vigorously both in the United Kingdom and the European market. We therefore support measures to develop a level playing field throughout Europe, and we will continue to support policies that encourage competition and efficiency in the ports industry on a fully commercial basis. In doing so, we will also seek to ensure fair employment standards and better, more effective regulation of safety issues and environmental safeguards.
Our broad aims are to ensure that ports play a full role in supporting the competitiveness of their regions: that any port development is sympathetic to the surrounding natural environment and local communities. Ports can enhance sustainable freight distribution by their connection to more environmentally friendly modes, and increased port efficiency can increase the attractiveness of those modes.
Newhaven, like almost every other port, depends for its business on freight movements by road—but, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it is one of the many that also has rail access. We agree with him that we must try to ensure that in future advantage is taken of that fact wherever possible in encouraging the transfer of freight from road to rail.
The context for those broad aims is a forward-looking integrated transport policy that supports a strong economy, contributes to a sustainable environment and helps to create a just and inclusive society. That is a huge challenge, and one of the encouraging aspects of an ambitious task is the degree of consensus throughout the nation on the need to change.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in good access to the port of Newhaven. He will know that we are carrying out a review of the role of trunk roads, including the A27. We have involved a wide range of advice and expertise, including local authorities, businesses, trade unions, transport professionals and transport users. As he also knows, we are developing a new appraisal methodology that takes a wider view of accessibility by all modes in terms of the economy and the environment.
Against the background of increased congestion, we have three broad options for roads. To make better use of existing infrastructure is the obvious first choice. It has been provided at substantial cost in both financial and environmental terms, and we must make the best use of that investment. We need, however, to be realistic about what the various options can deliver.
We must also look seriously at other harder options, such as managing demand and providing new infrastructure. Managing demand is a vast topic. 330 It encompasses reducing the need to travel, an assessment of the extent to which a shift to other modes can be encouraged, and, inevitably, the question of controlling demand by pricing or rationing mechanisms.
Providing new infrastructure is a difficult option, both financially and in terms of the impact that it may have on the environment. Our starting point is that we will not proceed with major new road construction unless we are satisfied that there is no better alternative; even then, there will be difficult choices to be made within the limited resources available.
We have held regional consultations to elicit views on whether the schemes in the inherited roads programme address the most important transport problems, or whether other problems deserve greater priority. We envisage two outputs from that part of the review—a firm short-term investment programme and a programme of studies to look at the remaining problems, out of which the medium and long-term investment programme will emerge.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the proposed access road to the harbour. As he said, that scheme, designed to link the trunk road network to the proposed new port and ferry terminal, received credit approval of £6.8 million through the capital challenge pilot scheme in December 1996. Capital challenge is a three-year pilot, and all funding is programmed to terminate at the end of March 2000.
Cognisant of the plea that the hon. Gentleman has repeated, I must tell him that there are no plans to extend that deadline at present. Proposed changes to the scheme, resulting from any revision of the development plans, would have to be consistent with the initial aims of the capital challenge bid. I understand that to date no firm proposals have been received, although there have been some preliminary discussions of different options.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about the possibility of the scheme's slipping. I understand that the county council has resolved not to proceed with the road until there is valid planning permission for the port and a firm commitment from Sea Containers to proceed with the port improvements. Of course, as he rightly pointed out, the road network is only one piece of the transport jigsaw. He also mentioned freight to and from Newhaven port.
The Government are determined to encourage greater use of the railways for passengers and freight. We want to see improvements in existing rail services. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we inherited a fragmented rail system with no strategic vision for the development of the network, a confusing regulatory system, and a need for leadership and direction.
The Government have already demonstrated their intentions by conducting a fundamental review of rail regulation, including the Rail Regulator's inquiry into the rolling stock leasing market. We have also taken action within the existing regulatory constraints. Last November, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport announced an interim package of measures designed to boost regulation of the railways, which included new objectives for the franchising director. Those require him to manage existing franchise contracts tightly in the public interest, by making sure that train operators live up to their contractual commitments.
We have made it clear that our overriding goal is to get more freight on to rail. We are currently considering what further action we may take to boost rail freight in the 331 context of the integrated transport policy White Paper. Action has already been taken to encourage more freight on to the railway by overhauling the freight grants scheme. Shortly after coming to office, we doubled the grant available for moving freight from the roads, and we have increased it by a further £10 million for the year 1998–99. An initiative to publicise the system has resulted in nearly all last year's £30 million being taken up, and £28 million of this year's grant money is already accounted for.
Railtrack is investigating the scope to develop several major routes for freight, and, with a group of local authorities, is studying congestion on the south coast rail route from Weymouth to Dover with the aim of improving services to encourage more use of the route. We are watching that study with interest. The new freight companies have adopted positive attitudes and ambitious targets that would quadruple the proportion of freight tonne kilometres by rail over the next 10 years. Rail freight volume has already shown a 5 per cent. growth in tonne kilometres over 1996–97—the first such increase in many years.
We acknowledge there is more to be done. We are committed to the creation of a new rail authority, and will announce our proposals in the White Paper. The authority is likely to have responsibility for, among other things, managing and enforcing existing franchise contracts, developing a strategic vision for investment in the network, promoting integration between rail and other modes of transport, and balancing the needs of passengers and freight users, as no one body currently can.
I understand that a community partnership venture between the operating company Connex South Central and Newhaven Economic Partnership has been set up, as a result of which the station at Newhaven will receive a face lift later this summer. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the bad state not only of the network but of stations in his area. We too recognise the importance of clean, smart, comfortable and safe public transport facilities in helping to encourage people to switch from their cars to using public transport.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the abolition of duty-free sales, and its anticipated effect on the port of Newhaven. I can only say that the decision to abolish intra-European Union duty-free sales was taken unanimously by the Council of Finance Ministers in 1991 as part of the single market programme. It is primarily a 332 fiscal matter, and not a matter for the United Kingdom in isolation but subject to unanimity among the 15 member states.
We have said that we would not oppose any move by the Commission to set up a study into the effects of the abolition of duty-free sales. There is, however, no consensus of support among the member states for a continuation of duty-free sales, or even for a study of the impact of abolition. We are, through Customs and Excise, in discussion with UK trade interests and the Commission to explore the practicalities of implementing the successor regime after June 1999, when abolition takes effect.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing Government support for Newhaven port to the attention of the House. As I have said, more than £13 million in Government funding has been committed so far to assisting the regeneration of Newhaven, and I can assure him that the Government are fully aware of the importance of Newhaven port to the local, regional and national economy.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that many of the specific issues on which he wanted a direct commitment on my part will be covered in our White Paper on an integrated transport system. They will also be covered in the more detailed documents on regional development. He rightly raised the subject of the sale of railway land, and, from a sedentary position, I responded by referring to the "drip, drip" technique. He is well aware that, when the railways were privatised, the land deemed most essential for the future expansion of our railway system went into Railtrack's ownership—that is, the remaining lands in Railway Properties Ltd.
All such land is advertised before sale, and the freight companies are advised of proposed sales. I understand that the piece of land that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is shortly to go out to tender, and I know that Railway Properties Ltd. has made it abundantly clear to interested parties that it is available. I well understand his argument that such land should be reserved, but I am sure that he will understand that freezing the land could have a most deleterious effect on the market for such properties, and that Railway Properties Ltd. has a duty to ensure that such sales are for the benefit of the public purse.
Although I cannot give detailed responses to many of the pleas that the hon. Gentleman made in a most interesting speech, I assure him that the Government are fully aware of the importance of Newhaven port—as he rightly said, it is important to the economy not only locally, but regionally and nationally. I have little doubt that, when he sees our White Paper, he will be very pleased with its content.