THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
OFFICIAL REPORT
IN THE FIFTH SESSION OF THE FIFTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT OF THE
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
[WHICH OPENED 27 APRIL 1992]
FORTY-SIXTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF
HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II
SIXTH SERIES
VOLUME 292
NINTH VOLUME OF SESSION 1996-97
House of Commons
Monday 10 March 1997
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
TRANSPORT
River Thames
1. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received on the establishment of regular passenger services on the River Thames.[17753]
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. John Bowis): My Department is in regular contact with boat operators, the millennium exhibition organisers, the Port of London Authority and other interested parties about the possibility of introducing new passenger services on the River Thames. I met my hon. Friend, with representatives of the Transport on Water Association, to discuss this subject last September.
Sir Michael Neubert: Is my hon. Friend aware that during the Festival of Britain, 5 million people took to the river for transport? Does not the millennium exhibition at Greenwich represent an outstanding opportunity to establish a regular passenger service on the Thames?
What is the prospect of public funds for piers, the essential infrastructure if this long-awaited and much to be desired service is to become a reality?
Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right persistently to draw attention to the need to attract more passenger traffic to the Thames, particularly in the context of the millennium exhibition at Greenwich. Bids can be made to support the building of piers, and in the recent capital challenge allocations we have been able to support a pier for Bankside which will serve both the Tate and the Globe. The pier for the millennium exhibition, which will be at north Greenwich, is within the plans of the millennium company. I hope that it will attract a great many people as a result of the park-and-sail opportunities at the pier and at the sites at Barking and Woolwich.
Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that the concept that I have presented to him, along with the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) and the Transport on Water Association, has the advantage over the London First scheme in that it would be integrated with the transport network and would not result in tourists paying £5 or £10 a go? The Minister has received the correspondence and should be aware that no fewer than 10 piers could be constructed between Vauxhall and the Tower for a third of the cost of the London First proposals, and that those could be used not only by passenger services but by other vessels. Would not such a public investment be good value for money compared with the £80 million to £100 million being spent on two platforms of the Jubilee line--albeit, of course, that that could interchange with passenger services such as I have described?
Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Jubilee line extension will carry many more people to the millennium exhibition and the other stations on the route than could possibly be transported by water. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that he has consistently supported travel on water. With his twin interests, I suspect that he will one day press us to introduce a Thames pedalo. We have taken on board his points, and he and my hon. Friend the
Member for Romford have written to me. We have passed on their information and calculations to the cross river partnership, the organisation that we are part-funding to carry out an in-depth study of the possibilities of cross-river transport.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I welcome the Government's keen interest in regular passenger services on the Thames? May I remind my hon. Friend that the Thames does not stop at Greenwich--or even at the great barrier--but extends all the way to Gravesend, where we have excellent piers and much maritime industry and tradition? I welcome what he says, and I give him all encouragement to make greater use of our great river.
Mr. Bowis: I am happy to acknowledge my hon. Friend's support for extending the use of the river right along to the mouth of the Thames, and he will know that the Thames gateway initiatives are working on that in terms of road and rail links. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue promoting the interests of north Kent for many years to come.
Millennium Festival
2. Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what road improvement measures he proposes to improve access to the site of the millennium festival at Greenwich.[17754]
The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): The completion of the Hackney-M11 link road and the provision of an escape ramp for lorries at the southern end of the Blackwall tunnel will help coaches get to the site and help cars get to off-site car parks. The only additional roads needed for the exhibition are the local access roads, linked to the A102(M) by improved sliproads. We have made it clear from the outset that access to the exhibition site itself will be by public transport and river, not by car.
Mr. Timms: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. He will know that the organisers' plans entail only 1 per cent. of visitors reaching the festival site in their own cars. That means that there will need to be a great deal of parking elsewhere, almost certainly including sites over the river and north of the river in Newham. Does he share my concern that, to make that possible, there will need to be road infrastructure improvements? It is now getting rather late for some of them to be put in place. For instance, if Newham docklands is to be used for parking, there will need to be a new bridge on the A406 over the A13, and it will take 18 months to build; and if the Stratford rail lands are to be used, there will need to be new bridges over both the rail lands and over the River Lea.
Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to plan ahead to avoid traffic chaos around the time of the millennium festival; and will he consider carefully what needs to be done now to ensure that the necessary road improvements to facilitate off-site parking are in place in time?
Sir George Young:
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there will be a large number of park-and-ride and park-and-sail sites. Of course it is right to plan ahead for
Mr. Hawkins:
My right hon. Friend may or may not be aware that I had the opportunity this very morning to visit the site of the proposed millennium festival at Greenwich. It was very interesting to see how little opportunity there has yet been for hotel development. Does he agree that if the promoters on Greenwich council and in Millennium Central are to be able to fulfil their ambitions to have hotels, there will need to be a great deal of improvement to road access and car parking?
Will my right hon. Friend also look into the matter of the pier mentioned during exchanges on the first question today? The Port of London Authority needs to take a careful look at the standard of that pier and at road access to it.
Sir George Young:
I shall certainly pursue the point about the end of the pier. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Jubilee line extension will access the millennium site and open up a large number of sites for development in the part of London in question, which urgently needs fresh investment. I am sure that hotels also have a role to play. But their location, and whether they are to be developed, are matters primarily for the local planning authority.
3. Mrs. Bridget Prentice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the estimated cost to business of traffic congestion in London in the last year for which figures are available.[17755]
Mr. Bowis:
There is no agreed measurement of the cost of traffic congestion to businesses, but we have in place a programme of road and rail improvements designed to reduce congestion to enable buses and bicycles to move more freely and to encourage greater use of rail services.
Mrs. Prentice:
Does the Minister agree with the London Pride partnership, which recently said that London cannot succeed with a deteriorating transport system? If he does, what does he have to say to the millions of London commuters who have been told in the past month that the maintenance and renewal programme, worth up to £400 million, has been scrapped as a result of the Government's incompetent handling of the network?
Mr. Bowis:
I would say to them: unlike the Labour party's programme of no new money, no new lines, no new roads, and no privatisation--for ideological reasons--we have in place a programme of about £200 million for London's trunk roads, £22 million for the red routes, over £100 million for the transport supplementary grant and capital challenge network enhancement projects, about £47 million for bus improvements, and hundreds of millions of pounds for rail
Mr. John Marshall:
Does my hon. Friend agree that the only answer to traffic congestion in London is an improved underground system? He and I have both successfully driven one of the new Northern line trains, but does he agree that the privatisation of London Underground is the only hope for increased investment and that it is absurd of the Labour party to oppose it for purely doctrinal reasons?
Mr. Bowis:
My hon. Friend is 100 per cent. correct. We have a programme of renewing investment in London's underground over the years leading up to privatisation and thereafter, within five years, completing the task of bringing the system up to date, in addition to the work and investment in new lines. Privatisation will come with all the guarantees in terms of fares and travelcards that the public expect. Any party that stands up in London at the general election without a policy to match that does not deserve the support of Londoners.
Mr. Tony Banks:
Traffic congestion in London and the south-east costs billions of pounds every year. It is no good for the Minister to say that the problem will eventually solve itself: it can be solved only by proper traffic-restraining measures. We should stop private cars coming into central London, enforce parking regulations and have a decent tramway system. Those are all positive proposals and I hope that my Front-Bench colleagues will endorse them when they are in government.
Mr. Bowis:
I am tempted to give way and let the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues endorse that, if it is new Labour's policy to stop cars moving at all in London. I have already described to the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) our investment in a range of policies for road and rail, as well as the underground. Much of the road investment is aimed at improving traffic movement and includes traffic calming. Congestion in London is a result of the continuing improvement in London's economy, which we can be proud of, but to manage the increased traffic and to encourage greater use of public transport we shall have to take the steps that only the Government are prepared to take.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |