| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.9 pm
Mr. Keith Bradley (Manchester, Withington): I shall be brief, to allow as many Back Benchers as possible to speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on his Bill and I am able to be brief because of his eloquent introduction in which he gave so much detail as to why the House should support the measure. It is clear from the names of the Bill's sponsors and of the hon. Members of all parties who supported early-day motions on the issue that there is cross-party support. The Bill is also supported by organisations such as Friends of the Earth and other environmental organisations, and by the many people who have written to hon. Members. I shall not list by name and address the constituents who have written to me, because it would take too long. They are a measure of the wide-ranging support for the Bill throughout the country.
Within its existing budget, Labour fully supports the Bill's principles and aims, which are consistent with Labour policy as set out in our policy document
24 Jan 1997 : Column 1216
In introducing the Bill, the hon. Member for Bath gave clear details of the problem. He quoted statistics and it is worth repeating that congestion is currently costing business about £19 billion a year and that that figure could rise to more than £40 billion in 10 years. It is forecast that, by 2005, which is one of the key dates in the Bill, one third of the motorway network will suffer chronic congestion for most of every day, and all but one of London's major roads will become gridlocked. We cannot ignore those statistics.
The effect on health, and the cost to the health service of environmental damage and air pollution, is massive. The hon. Member for Bath gave the estimates and all hon. Members will agree that whether the direct health cost is £3 billion or £4 billion, we cannot ignore it: action must be taken. The Bill is a step in the right direction.
Local authorities have a crucial role in regenerating local transport and should be given increased power to set priorities and to produce and implement local plans in line with a national strategy. The Bill is a move towards that goal but, as the hon. Member for Bath said, it is not in itself the solution, but part of a range of measures, mentioned by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), which will form an overall strategy to address the problem.
The Bill will allow for decisions by those who have a detailed knowledge of local needs. At local level, the development of strategies should be based on clearly defined objectives that adopt the package approach. That takes into account all modes of transport, incorporating bus and rail services, roads, cycling and walking, and places a strong emphasis on better management of available facilities. Effective public transport has a crucial role in that package approach and at local level must provide a realistic alternative to the car. From a wider perspective, the effective use of road space is important for the success of local transport plans. We therefore require a coherent set of objectives for our future use of roads. That should focus primarily on the maintenance and better management of existing roads, both nationally and locally, rather than being a first step in the development of new roads.
In addition, it is important that we build on the many opportunities at local level to reduce the number of cars on roads. There are many good examples of good practice that can make a relatively rapid impact on reducing the number of cars. The hon. Member for Bath has already given examples. Throughout Britain, there are many good practices, such as in York, where a road user hierarchy has been successfully introduced, which prioritises pedestrians and cyclists by providing them with better space and conditions. There has been extensive pedestrianisation of roads and the creation of cycle route networks, together with bus priority and park-and-ride schemes.
Similar initiatives have been taken in cities such as Nottingham, Edinburgh, Manchester and many other parts of Britain, to try to find out what is appropriate to local
24 Jan 1997 : Column 1217
As I said, I intend to be brief because I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to speak, but I want to ensure that the support from the Labour Front-Bench team is clear. We recognise good practice throughout Britain, and those good practices will be the backbone of the local plans that will be drawn up to meet the aims and aspirations of the Bill.
We support the Bill because, in the existing framework, it allows local targets for traffic reduction or for a restraint on traffic growth to be set. It allows for consultation with people, businesses and environmental and other organisations, to ensure that plans meet local needs. The proposals will allow for the encouragement of cycling and walking and better public transport provision, and they will speed up the reduction in the use of the car.
As the hon. Member for Bath said, this is not an anti-car Bill, but it considers alternative ways in which people can travel round their community, to limit the environmental damage of car use. It will take into account the way in which funding can be made available to local councils because of the strength of the local plans that they introduce. It allows the Secretary of State to monitor the plans and to co-ordinate good practice throughout Britain. It enables guidance to be forthcoming from the Department of Transport, to ensure that all parts of Britain recognise the opportunities and the way in which good practice is being developed in other parts of Britain, so that they can replicate it where it is appropriate to local needs.
Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester):
I realise that to express reservations about the Bill is probably like expressing reservations about motherhood and apple pie, but I want to put some words of caution into the debate. I agree with much of what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, but the Bill falls victim to the delusion that legislation can help to perfect the world. I accept all that has been said about congestion, pollution and the adverse consequences for my constituents and for Britain, and I bow to no one in my determination to drive people back on to the railways. I am a great enthusiast for boosting rail travel. However, I still sniff the smell of an anti-car Bill, despite the reassurances of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who introduced his Bill so effectively.
24 Jan 1997 : Column 1218
The car offers a degree of personal mobility that is almost comparable in its democratic importance with the freedom of speech, for which we fought in earlier generations. It has enabled a social revolution in terms of mobility of labour and consumer choice. It has also enabled families to take holidays and to maintain links, given the increasingly disparate nature of extended families. It has also provided safety for children on the school run, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman).
I accept, of course, that those who have been left behind by those who own cars, especially those marooned in rural communities, need alternative forms of public transport. That is why I am an enthusiast for the privatisation of the railways--a process that is currently improving rail links in my constituency. That is why I am also an enthusiast for the Local Government and Rating Bill, which gives powers to parish councils to develop alternative means of transport in their area. To me, however, the personal mobility offered by the car is a good thing.
The car is also important to the economy. In my constituency of Worcester and throughout the county of Worcestershire, hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs have been generated by car manufacture at Rover and Land Rover, as well as by component suppliers. Only this week, Opposition Members have criticised Ford in the Chamber because of the jobs lost at Halesowen.
Mr. Luff:
I am sorry about that; I meant Halewood.
We have unanimously welcomed the inward investment made in this country by Honda, Nissan, Toyota and BMW. Car manufacture is an important part of our economy, with which we must not tamper.
Let us consider some of the issues facing my constituents in relation to the car and shopping, which are more relevant to the Bill. People go to shop by car not just because that is convenient or because the buses do not run at the right time, but because they want to make bulky purchases. It is difficult to cycle home with a heavy weight on the handlebars.
Worcester is in fierce competition with neighbouring towns such as Cheltenham and shopping centres such as Merry Hill, or merry hell as it is sometimes known by the locals. The Merry Hill out-of-town shopping centre depends on the car to get people to it. It is hugely popular. There are plans to expand it, and an inspector's report is now before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Worcester city council has written to me to ask me to oppose that expansion, because it recognises that it will damage the vitality of the city--it may or may not be right.
The problem is that the city council's Labour colleagues at the county council have been developing plans for the transport and traffic management of my city that will have exactly the same impact. That is why I am delighted, if I may say so in public, that my hon. Friend the Minister rejected the Worcester package bid for the coming financial year. He did so following representations from myself, Nicholas Bourne, the Conservative prospective parliamentary candidate for Worcester, and Derek Prodger, who is leader of the Conservative group on Worcester city council.
24 Jan 1997 : Column 1219
My hon. Friend the Minister was not convinced that that package would have done more good than harm. Clause 4 refers to regional consideration, and I accept that in relation to Merry Hill and Worcester, it might be possible, should the Bill become law, for my hon. Friend to do something to control the traffic to those two locations. As a result, perhaps there would be equality of treatment--one city doing the wrong thing by driving cars away might not damage it as much as it might at present.
I am concerned about how the plans were drawn up in my area, and that is what concerned my hon. Friend the Minister when he rejected the package bid. The best laid plans of mice, men and Hereford and Worcester county council can go wrong, even if they are well intentioned. The first phase of the Worcester package has been disastrous. It has failed largely because of the failure to consult. The Worcester Civic Society and local businesses were not effectively consulted. I am glad to see that today's Bill includes statutory provision for such consultation. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bath will consider including parish councils as a statutory consultee, when that is relevant. Their expertise would be useful when considering traffic reduction plans.
In Worcester, we have two bus priority schemes. I am all in favour of such schemes, but one of them has been introduced in a narrow part of the main access road from the north of the city, and there is just no room for it. I was involved in a near-accident two or three weeks ago, when a lorry swerved out to avoid a cyclist, which meant that I had to swerve into the bus lane to avoid the lorry--fortunately, there was no bus coming up on the inside.
The Worcester city package bid has had the effect of frustrating cycling from the north of the city into and out of the city centre. As a result of the package, there is now no good northern route in and out of the city. Therefore, although bus priority schemes are a good idea--there is nothing wrong with them--they must be well planned and well operated. The situation is equally bad in the Lowesmoor area of Worcester, where massive traffic chaos and congestion have been created--which I sometimes think may be a conspiracy to make my surgery inaccessible, as it has been very badly affected.
I can cite many examples of how good ideas have had the wrong effect in practice, and I fear that the Bill could pressurise local authorities to rush in hastily with ill-considered schemes that have similar detailed problems. My concerns are shared by national organisations, including the Confederation of British Industry--which the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) quoted in his speech. The CBI describes the Bill as focusing on the wrong goals, as inflexible and unrealistic, and as possibly damaging to the competitiveness of the UK economy.
Therefore, although the Bill contains good intentions, we must be absolutely sure that it provides the right answer to the problem. The Automobile Association shares that concern. It stated that the Bill
"completely ignores the complexities of people's lives and the transport system in the late 1990s."
The Road Haulage Association stated:
"capacity restraints on the movement of goods by road and on road transport based consumer services will only harm industrial
24 Jan 1997 : Column 1220efficiency and impair the quality of life of the vast majority of people in the UK."
The Bill is well meaning, but is it the right approach to the problem? My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington suggested some specific alternative mechanisms. There are many other options which, if I had the time, I should have liked to bring to the attention of the House. I shall not oppose the Bill, but I have severe reservations about it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |