| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Railtrack
8. Mr. Khabra: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department will conduct an environmental assessment of Railtrack's recent decision to require staff to use cars rather than trains when travelling to certain business appointments; and if he will make a statement.[24723]
Mr. Khabra: Railtrack's senior management are considering forcing their staff to switch from the railways to the roads, which will cause more pollution and more congestion on the roads. That is a savage indictment of the operation of Britain's railway system, which talks money while we choke. Britain's roads will become more congested and more polluted. How can Minister--or the Secretary of State, with his well-known commitment to the environment--justify that when rail privatisation is directly causing more pollution and will lead to an increase in traffic on the roads, which will be disastrous?
Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman should not believe his party's propaganda. There is no change in policy. Just as
with British Rail, Railtrack's predecessor, there are no specific instructions regarding any mode of travel in preference to another. Railtrack does not require travel by car, but, like any other sensible and well-managed business, it requires its staff to consider cost-effective methods of travel.Speed Limits
9. Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the advantages of a statutory 20 mph limit in urban residential areas.[24724]
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): Properly constructed 20 mph zones, with "self-enforcing" speed-reducing features such as road humps, have reduced casualties by 56 per cent., and child casualties by 74 per cent., on average.
Mr. Robathan: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. He will already be aware that the introduction of a 20 mph speed limit is desirable in reducing danger, especially the danger to children playing in the streets. Is he also aware that a recent study has shown that both fuel consumption and vehicle emissions are also reduced by a lower speed limit? Will he therefore look towards replacing the 30 mph speed limit more generally in residential roads, with a standard 20 mph speed limit that might encourage us all to drive a little more slowly and safely?
Mr. Norris: I understand the logic behind my hon. Friend's point. There is all-party agreement that we have seen the value of 20 mph speed limit zones, about 250 of which are now in place, but, from experience, I am sure that the key to limiting speed is setting the limit at a sensible level that is appropriate to the surrounding conditions. For example, when it is patently obvious that a 20 mph speed limit could safely be exceeded, such a limit is likely to lead to more abuse of the system and less regard for the sensible levels at which speed limits are normally set. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that I greatly welcome his support for the concept, but I believe that the way in which we are introducing a lower speed limit--in selected areas in which it will make a real difference--is right.
Mr. Flynn: Although the Government and all the others responsible deserve congratulation on the considerable reduction in the number of fatal accidents, especially those involving children, the Minister knows that a car, even if travelling at 20 mph, will fatally injure a child if it is fitted with a bull bar. After hearing representations from his own side, has he changed his mind about my Bull Bars (Prohibition) Bill? Will he now allow it to go through Parliament? Can he tell us when his favourite alternative to that Bill, the European ban, is likely to be enacted, and what percentage of bull bars it will remove?
Mr. Norris: I have seldom encountered an exercise more cynical than that mounted by the hon. Gentleman in support of his Bill, the contents of which, as I suspect he knew perfectly well, were already entirely covered by the Road Traffic Act 1988. I therefore welcome the opportunity to reiterate the fact that I entirely share his view on the principle that aggressive bull bars are not only unnecessary
but should be banned. The hon. Gentleman will know that I reported to the House when I had received some proposed wording from the Commission for amending the external projections directive--and that I look forward to being able to agree a suitable form of words with the Commission in the near future, and to ensuring that that is implemented as soon as possible. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is the right way to proceed, rather than trying to use spurious legislation that would add nothing whatever to the United Kingdom's ability to make the change that both he and I wish to bring about.London, Tilbury and Southend Line
10. Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made over the privatisation of the LTS line.[24725]
Mr. Watts: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that bids for the LTS franchise were submitted on 17 April.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Minister is aware, Southend is one of the few areas in Britain in which, because of the wholly inadequate service that we have had in recent years, people are looking forward to privatisation. Can he give us some idea of when he expects the new operators to come forward and how they will communicate to the public the benefits that will accrue? Finally, does my hon. Friend see any merit in the idea of holding a public meeting in Southend to enable the new operators to explain their proposals?
Mr. Watts: The award will be made as quickly as possible; my hon. Friend will have noticed that such matters are processed with considerable speed. In considering proposals, the franchising director will have particular regard to contractual commitments to improve the level and/or quality of service beyond that which he specifies. An approach from my hon. Friend inviting the new franchise operator to attend a public meeting to explain the proposals will probably be welcomed by that operator--although of course I do not yet know his identity.
Roundabouts (Safety)
11. Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve safety at roundabouts.[24726]
Mr. Norris: In line with the Government's policy of reducing all road traffic accidents, safety at roundabouts is kept under constant review.
Mr. French: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in recent years, many roundabouts have been decreased in diameter? Is he conversant with research that shows that, while that may increase the flow of traffic, it also increases the chances of vehicular collision? Will he seriously consider reviewing that policy?
Mr. Norris: Our research suggests that the number of collisions at roundabouts is declining in line with the reduction in collisions generally. I shall, of course, consider the research to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention, but I am satisfied from the evidence that I have seen so far
that safety at roundabouts is being dealt with as part of an overall road traffic strategy and that no significant safety issues are involved.
Mr. Pike: Will the Minister consider the use of mini-roundabouts, which are over-used and often cause more safety problems than did the measures that previously existed at junctions?
Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman points to the importance of local authorities, which are responsible for such traffic schemes, bearing in mind the most appropriate way of dealing with traffic problems when they plan schemes. I suspect that, in many cases, he is right. The greatest enemy of common sense in such matters is the assumption that a particular method is a panacea, when it patently is not. An array of traffic calming and directing techniques is available. The hon. Gentleman is right--it is important that local authorities should seek the one that fits the circumstance, not a technique that replaces one problem with another.
Mr. Fabricant: Mini-roundabouts or major roundabouts, will my hon. Friend pay tribute to whoever invented the roundabout? Is he aware that many states in the United States are investing in roundabouts and have renamed them circulatories? Despite the odd name, does not that demonstrate that Britain still leads the way in many things?
Mr. Norris: No, I am not sure that it does. I can claim neither authorship of the roundabout nor the slightest insight into its lineage. I should not be surprised to find that Roman charioteers worked out how to circumnavigate Gates's corner, but in the absence of positive identification, I fear that I must resist my hon. Friend's blandishments.
River Thames
14. Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial decisions he has made arising from the work of his Department's working party on the use of the River Thames.[24730]
Mr. Norris: The River Thames working group was set up to provide advice on ways of maximising the use of the river for transport purposes. I shall consider sympathetically any proposals that may be put to me for furthering that objective.
Mr. Spearing: Has the working group considered the support of provision and maintenance for piers? Does the Minister agree that that would be a major way of reviving the Thames, which we all want? They would cost less than some recent estimates have suggested and could help with seasonal traffic from Greenwich to Hampton court and the central London riverbus service proposed by Transport on Water. Would not such an investigation be superior to the possible sell-off of the piers proposed by the Port of London Authority?
Mr. Norris: I thought that the Labour party was in favour of abolishing peers. To revive passenger transport on the Thames, it is important to ensure that people can access the services sensibly and that services call at the places that people want to go to and from. That is one
of the major inadequacies of the present arrangements. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman understands that the river's meandering route through the capital and its tidal rise and fall make passenger transport on it less viable than we would like. The work that his Transport on Water organisation has done on that is bearing fruit and is being paralleled by, for example, the recent KPMG-London First report that showed that a hopper service for passenger transport on the Thames was practical. I look forward to hearing more about ways in which that can be translated into reality. If that requires support, then, without giving any commitment at this stage, I would certainly be prepared to consider it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |