| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Public Transport
3. Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to enlarge the network and improve the efficiency of public transport.[30603]
The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): The Government are seeking to increase private sector involvement in the funding and operation of public transport, which we believe will provide the modern, efficient systems that this country needs.
Mr. Hughes: How much money will be saved as a result of the slashing of the roads programme? And how much, if any, of the money saved will be spent on new and improved forms of public transport? Or is the whole exercise merely a device to try to appease the green lobby and to store up money for tax handouts in the run-up to the next election?
Sir George Young: The Government set out their priorities clearly in the previous public expenditure round. Against a background of the need to contain public expenditure, we safeguarded investment in public transport and took the reduction in the publicly funded road programme. However, as a result of our commitment to the private finance initiative, we were able to carry forward about £1 billion worth of roads through the
design, build, finance and operate scheme to make progress with necessary investment in the road infrastructure.
Mr. Sims: Does my right hon. Friend agree that anybody who travels on one of the newly privatised train systems, as I had occasion to recently, is immediately aware of the improved reliability and increased efficiency of such services? Will he give an assurance that I and many of my constituents who commute daily on South Eastern trains to London will be able to enjoy the benefits of privatisation before too long?
Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend knows, we are making good progress with the franchising of South Eastern trains. He and his constituents will be pleased to know that, as a condition of awarding the franchise, the bidders will have to renew the rolling stock. That is a good example of the benefits of privatisation--once the investment programmes take place outside the constraints of the public sector borrowing requirement, one can meet needs such as those of my hon. Friend's constituents without exerting any upward pressure on the PSBR.
Ms Short: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the fact that in the recent Green Paper the Government have understood that to deal with the growing problems of congestion and pollution it is essential to enhance the quality and reliability of public transport and to persuade people to use their cars more selectively. The House will welcome the fact that the Government have seen the error of their ways. As the Minister for Transport in London said, it is always good when a sinner repents. Will he apologise to the country for 17 wasted years, during which the Government exacerbated congestion and pollution problems by planning and then cancelling a massive roads programme and by their prejudice and hostility to public transport? Will he apologise for the damage that deregulation and privatisation have done? Does he agree that for there to be true repentance, there must be an expression of real remorse?
Sir George Young: The Government have nothing to apologise for, and therefore no remorse. We have published a clear transport strategy for the future. In particular, we have a clear vision of a modernised railway and we have identified the sources of finance for that modernisation. The hon. Lady and her party have totally failed to come up with a vision of the railway for the year 2000 and beyond, or any sources of finance. With some humility, I must tell her that it is she and not I who should apologise.
Road Tolls
4. Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received urging the introduction of road tolls at the entrance to cities.[30604]
Mr. Norris: In response to representations from the local authority associations, we set out in the transport Green Paper our intention to discuss with them the case for taking the legislative powers necessary to enable interested local authorities to implement experimental charging schemes.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that he does not intend to introduce road tolls into London? My constituents in Sutton and Cheam would be alarmed if their freedom of movement were hindered. Road tolling would penalise the elderly, the infirm, the disabled and those less able to pay. In short, it would be a tremendously unfair city tax.
Mr. Norris: There is currently no technology available that would allow such a system to be introduced, whether it was required or not, and I doubt whether such technology will be available for at least 10 years. More importantly, while recognising the various academic arguments in favour of charging systems, the Government have been alive to precisely the issues that my hon. Friend raises. Huge social and economic issues are raised by urban congestion pricing, not least its impact on marginal car users--those people who need a car to access a job, whatever the quality of public transport. It would be a tragedy if a result of such a policy were to put those people out of their jobs. It is interesting that both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have bought the urban congestion charging proposition uncritically and are intent on introducing it in London and elsewhere. The Government are rightly more sanguine and cautious.
Mr. Dalyell: Before anyone says anything more about road tolls, will they come to my constituency between 7 am and 9 am and between 4 pm and 6 pm to see tolls in operation on the Forth road bridge? These are, in effect, tolls for entering the city of Edinburgh, and congestion is caused to the extent that people are talking about a second bridge, although that is completely unnecessary. If these tolls--for a bridge that has been paid for--were done away with, congestion would be much alleviated.
Mr. Norris: The congestion is not caused by the tolls, but by the fact that people have to stop before they cross the Forth road bridge and pay the toll at a toll gate. Modern tolling systems abolish the need for toll gates, as the tolling is done automatically by reference to a smart card in the vehicle. Such a system is up and running and available to regular motorists in Dartford. One of the propositions at the forefront of the technology trials on tolling systems generally has been the idea that we could not possibly afford to introduce toll booths on every access road to every city. It would be wholly impractical. The proposition that the hon. Gentleman quite understandably puts forward is not at odds with the concept of tolling; it illustrates vividly and graphically that there should not be physical toll booths at which vehicles have to stop. That is the way in which technology is moving and it will not be many years before it is taken for granted.
Sir Donald Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for his cautious approach. May I remind him that market towns are not cities and often need people to come by car to shop and then to go away? If people cannot do that, they will use out-of-town shopping centres where parking is free.
Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That would be a counter-productive response. In any event, it would overlook the fact that local authorities can take a great many measures to alleviate town centre congestion--such as bus priorities, traffic calming, park
and ride, and cycle improvements, all of which can produce the result that my hon. Friend would want for his towns and villages without the expensive infrastructure and the real difficulties to which he has just referred.Trans-European Transport Networks
5. Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to ensure that environmental considerations are included in the guidelines for the trans-European transport networks.[30605]
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): The common position on the guidelines adopted by the Council of Ministers in September 1995 identified
- "the integration of the environmental concerns into the design and development of the network"
Mr. Hain: That may appear to be an encouraging answer, but may I press the Minister more forcefully to ensure that the Government fulfil their international obligations to sustainable development and that strong environmental protection measures are included in the guidelines for each trans-European network, such as a strategic environmental assessment or a corridor analysis for each scheme? In addition, because the Council meets in secret, it is quite possible for it to thwart the pressure from the European Parliament under the co-decision procedure for that environmental protection and for the Government not to own up to that. I hope that the Minister will press for those environmental protection measures at that meeting.
Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman misses the point that existing legislation requires rigorous environmental assessment for any transport infrastructure project. Hon. Members will have seen the extent of that assessment in the channel tunnel rail link project, for example. Schemes on a trans-European network comprise individual schemes and, if they are cross-border, individual member states, all of which are subjected to rigorous environmental assessment under existing legislation.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Bearing in mind people's entitlement to a reasonable environment, as set out in the report, does my hon. Friend agree that the Transport Select Committee report advocating that Northolt airport become a satellite of Heathrow would be totally unacceptable to the people of Northolt, Ealing and the surrounding area and would destroy their lives, given their proximity to Heathrow airport? Will he give an assurance that it will be thrown out, as it should be?
Mr. Watts: The Department has only recently received the report from the Select Committee, which is being given careful consideration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be replying to the report in due course in the normal way.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |