March Column

Written by Malcolm Bruce on Mon 3rd Mar 2008

****************************************************************************************************

Hope for 2010 rail freight deal

****************************************************************************************************

I had a very useful meeting with Transport Minister, Jim Fitzpatrick about support for switching freight from the North East to the south from road to rail.

Malcolm Bruce has discussed with Transport Minister Jim Fitzpatrick the need to extend incentives for companies in the North East to switch to rail freight services.

Under the present arrangements grants are available for loads travelling from the south and being redistributed from Grangemouth. However, loads returning south to England (where most of our markets are) without being offloaded in Scotland do not currently qualify for support.

As a result the present service, which has been supported up to now by ASDA, is in danger of folding.

I was accompanied to the meeting by neighbouring MP Sir Robert Smith and Aberdeen North MP. Frank Doran has also given support to our representations.

It became clear that the present arrangements were negotiated by the central belt without proper consideration of the needs of the North East. Had these been taken into account it is possible the outcome may have been different.

Because the scheme requires the support of the European Commission there is no chance of amending it. However a new scheme to be brought into effect by April 2010 is currently being planned and the Department have told us they would be very willing to work with North East freight companies on the criteria and how they could meet them.

We have passed on the relevant contacts to the local companies involved and very much hope they will be able to persuade the department of the strength of the case. We will also make representations to the European Commission in support.

The reality is that the north east of Scotland is an economically productive area producing a range of high quality goods for markets in the south and abroad.

However rising transport costs are a major challenge and we pressed the minister to recognise how they could help reduce our balance of payments deficit and help the environment by ensuring our quality goods get to markets competitively by rail.

****************************************************************************************************

Fair Trade good - but not the whole answer

****************************************************************************************************

Consumer support for Fairtrade has increased rapidly and continues to play a valuable role in helping to assist development in countries and communities.

I was happy to attend the launch of Fair Trade fortnight early this week. I have already written to all the schools in the constituency urging them to take part in the fair trade campaign. I know many of them already do.

The rise of consumer support for Fair Trade products has been phenomenal growing by over 80 per cent this year. Ellon is already a Fair Trade town and other communities are following suit.

Seven million producers across the developing world are receiving income boosts through supplying fair trade products.

Of course this is no substitute for fair trade deals and reaches only a fraction of the 2 billion people living on less than a pound a day. Nevertheless it does give hope and gives us ordinary consumers a chance to do something in our daily lives to help at least some poor people in the world.

Ironically, world food prices have risen sharply making the poorest people even poorer while giving some hope to small farmers in developing countries of a rise in incomes. The trick is to bring these things together to raise the living standards of all poor people.

So buy and promote all fair trade products and keep pressing the Government and international institutions to do even more to tackle poverty.

****************************************************************************************************

Outrage at Speaker's ruling

****************************************************************************************************

I share the outrage of my Liberal Democrat colleague, Ed Davey MP, that the Speaker of the House of Commons refused to allow a debate on an amendment proposing a referendum on Britain's future membership of the European Union.

What made it worse was that the Speaker who has presided over the opening stages of each day's debate on the Lisbon Treaty absented himself from the chair on this occasion leaving it to his hapless deputy.

A number of my colleagues had worked long and hard with the clerks of the House to formulate an amendment that was entirely in order and available for debate.

Yet the Speaker chose to deny 63 MPs representing at the last election almost a quarter of the vote debating a crucial and distinctive position.

This would not be allowed in most democratic institutions I know. Ironically in the unelected House of Lords for example every amendment that is in order can be debated and voted on. Otherwise there is usually a business committee where these issues are thrashed out beforehand.

Only in the House of Commons is it left to the discretion of the Speaker who kowtows almost entirely to the Government and the official Opposition.

On the issue let me say I campaigned in the last election to support a referendum on a European Constitution that subsumed all the existing Treaties from the Treaty of Rome, through the single European Act, Maastricht and Amsterdam. The Treaty of Lisbon does not do that but adds to the existing treaties,

The Treaty cannot be amended only accepted or rejected. If the UK by Parliamentary vote or referendum did not ratify the treaty the other member states would move forward without us leaving us marginalised.

Therefore the issue we have to take to the British people is given it is more than thirty years since we last voted on it should we not decide whether our futures lies fully in or fully out of the EU. There is no space for a semi- detached member.

There is much that can and should be done to improve the EU, although there is also much to commend it. But the UK cannot lead Europe from the touchlines as we found the last time the Tories were in Government.

All parties in Parliament are entitled to our view but we should also be allowed to debate it.

****************************************************************************************************

No Plan B on capital spending

****************************************************************************************************

The SNP are getting very hot under the collar about criticisms by me and other Liberal Democrats at the crisis they are creating in capital investment by local authorities which threatens our school building and leisure development programmes. I guess we have touched a raw nerve.

The SNP rant and rave at the massive strides they claim to be making and keep saying nothing happened when the Liberal Democrats were in Government when in reality we had new schools, transport upgrades, health centres etc.

The point we are concerned about is that the SNP have decided to develop a new way of funding capital developments which they hope will unlock capital more efficiently than the old PFI systems.

Well, I wish them well in that but I have two major concerns. The first is that they have suspended all new capital bids (while claiming the credit for the ones that were already in the pipeline). Secondly, their new scheme needs approval from the Treasury who have indicated that it will not be forthcoming.

There appears to be no Plan B (other than the prospect of a synthetically created SNP-London row) so that we could end up after two years of no development with no plans for restarting it.

For a growth area like the North East this has serious consequences. We urgently need new and upgraded schools but everything is on hold. The SNP want swimming lessons for all children but there is no prospect of replacing our overcrowded swimming pools.

So, we will continue to ask the questions looking for answers not the bluster which is all we are getting so far.

****************************************************************************************************

Brazil has own agenda as climate change confuses

****************************************************************************************************

There is concern from Brazil that they are accused of destruction of the Amazon rainforest in a bid to produce bio-fuels.

The challenge of climate change is complicated and multi-layered. As a founder of the G8 plus 5 climate change dialogue I was in Brazil last week to discuss the prospects for international agreements that could meet the needs of the developed and developing world.

The complication came from India and China who are experiencing their coldest winter for years which, they believe, defies the warnings of global warning. However, this is entirely compatible with the climate change predictions.

Brazil, however, has a different message. Brazilians feel angry that the world is attacking them over bio-fuels and the destruction of the rain forest.

Brazil has spent more than 20 years developing sustainable production of ethanol from sugar cane waste. Now with 100m dollar oil they are ready to take it to the world market but bio fuels are being condemned because of practices in the USA and Indonesia.

Brazil insists that they are not destroying the Amazon rain forest and they are trying to promote sustainable development of their other forests consistent with giving land to their poorest people.

We in Europe can barely comprehend the size of Brazil. The whole of Europe would fit inside the country with a margin to spare. I visited the Pantanal in Matto Grosso, itself one state in Brazil (not the biggest) which measure s2000 kilometres in all directions.

An overlay map showed Belgium, Ireland and Switzerland not quite covering the whole Pantanal just a small area of the province.

President Lula da Silva gave us some robust figures to show Brazil can produce food and bio fuels and protect the forests. They would like understanding and support. Will they get it?