| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Driving Tests
3. Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the new theory test for learner drivers.[34684]
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I am confident that the new theory test, which has received wide support from motoring and road safety organisations, will improve road safety and reduce the accident rate among newly qualified drivers.
Mr. French: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the introduction of the new theory test, which will make an important contribution to road safety. Will he ensure that standards are kept high so that it is regarded as an important part of the preparation for driving? Will he further ensure that the test makes it clear to those taking it that speed is dangerous and that they must be careful in their first few months and years of driving?
Mr. Norris: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's endorsement of the new theory test; his views are shared by all hon. Members and by people outside. He is right to say that if the theory test is to have any value it must be sufficiently stringent to ensure that new motorists are aware of the important issues that it covers, such as attitude, road awareness, road signs and hazard perception. The key to success is to indoctrinate people with the right attitudes to speed at a very early age. The tragedy is that 1,000 people a year die in accidents where the driver is between 17 and 25. The theory test addresses that key group.
Mr. Pike: Although the theory test is a move in the right direction, does the Minister agree that it fails to address the problem that in most parts of the country a driver can pass the test at 11 o'clock and at 12 o'clock drive on the motorway without any experience, because they cannot gain such experience as an accompanied driver before passing the test?
Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman identifies a worrying problem which he will appreciate is not capable of immediate resolution. If learner drivers are allowed on motorways, they will be a potential hazard not only to themselves but to other road users. However, it will be possible to develop interactive technology--some examples already exist--to enable us to give drivers experience of motorway conditions without necessarily exposing them to unwarranted danger.
Central Railway
4. Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the impact on passenger rail services of the proposals of Central Railway plc.[34685]
Mr. Watts: We have received more than 13,500 representations in total, many of which refer to the effects on existing passenger services.
Mr. Lidington: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the managing director of Chiltern Railways has said that Central Railway's proposals are incompatible with the present level of passenger services and, indeed, with assurances given under franchise arrangements for the minimum level of passenger services in the future? Will he undertake to bring the order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 before the House as quickly as possible so that we can dispose of Central Railway's half-baked proposal and send it where it belongs--into oblivion?
Mr. Watts: My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has announced that he hopes to arrange a debate on the proposal before the House rises for the summer recess. I confirm that we have received a representation from Chiltern Railways about the effects of the proposed new railway on passenger services on the line. Central Railways should urgently contact Chiltern Railways to see whether the concerns that have been expressed can be allayed.
Mr. Soley: Is it not strange that a company which is already blighting property from the channel tunnel to the midlands is not, so far as I can make out, financially viable to pay the compensation that it will need to pay if the proposal does not get the go-ahead? I understand that it will have to pay compensation after a certain period has elapsed. I received a letter from it a few days ago in which it refused to answer that point. Is it not time to review the 1992 Act to stop companies going ahead with such proposals when they have neither the capital for the project nor the capital to pay for blighting compensation?
Mr. Watts: As this is the first substantial proposal to be introduced under the Transport and Works Act 1992, it may be a little premature to consider a review of the legislation.
From the date of the application made by the company it is obliged to meet the full blight provisions of the legislation. Anyone who feels blighted by the proposal is entitled to serve a blight notice. The hon. Gentleman--and the House in general--will have an early opportunity to decide whether or not the project should be allowed to proceed to public inquiries.
Sir Michael Shersby:
Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has received many representations from my constituents about the effects of the proposals on the environment, particularly problems arising from noise pollution?
Mr. Watts:
I can confirm that I have received representations of the sort to which my hon. Friend refers.
Ms Short:
I hope that the Minister will agree that it would be helpful to the House, and to the large number of
Mr. Watts:
I thank the hon. Lady for clarifying at least one aspect of Labour policy.
5. Sir David Knox:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on motorway and major trunk road construction in each of the past three years at constant prices.[34686]
Mr. Watts:
At constant 1994-95 prices, £1,479.4 million was spent in 1993-94, £1,459.9 million in 1994-95 and £1,254.2 million in 1995-96. These figures relate to the construction of all trunk motorways and all-purpose trunk roads.
Sir David Knox:
In view of the congestion on motorways and major trunk roads, does the Minister agree that those figures fall short of what is required? Is he in a position to tell us the cost to industry of road congestion?
Mr. Watts:
There is no absolutely accurate assessment of congestion costs, but many people will have heard the Confederation of British Industry estimate, which is in the range of £18 billion. As to the adequacy of the provision, my hon. Friend will be aware that decisions on priorities for public expenditure are taken by the Government looking at all competing claims in the round. It is the job of the Department of Transport to target the available resources on improving conditions where they most urgently need such improvement.
Mr. Allen:
Anyone who gets stuck in congestion on our roads experiences the truth that the Conservatives have slashed central Government spending on road maintenance and new roads by a third, and have savaged local authority spending on the roads programme by a third as well--all to help pay for a puny pre-election bribe. Will the Minister admit to the House, and especially to Conservative Back Benchers queuing up for their bypasses, that the roads programme is a con? It includes 114 schemes, but only one scheme went ahead last year. Instead of such fantasies, will the Minister use his last few months in office to devise an honest roads and maintenance programme and then stick to it, so that the construction industry and drivers may have some certainty about the future?
Mr. Watts:
It is easy for the hon. Gentleman to come up with what he calls an honest policy because the Labour party's policy as set out in "Consensus for Change" is to impose a moratorium on new road schemes and to scrap plans to widen the M25.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will write to me and explain how his views on a moratorium square with those of his party leader, who said in a speech on 4 July:
Mr. Watts:
In the past three years there has been little expenditure on "design, build, finance and operate" schemes because they were not in the pipeline. We now have 37 main trunk road schemes in the three tranches of DBFOs, and they will be carried forward much more rapidly using private finance than if they were procured conventionally.
"Part of our policy will be the upgrading of road and rail".
Mrs. Lait:
What percentage of the past three years' spending on motorway construction has been funded by the private finance initiative and what percentage does my hon. Friend expect in the future? Is the Minister simplifying and speeding up PFI procedures so as to provide us with a good, modern road infrastructure?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |