Previous SectionIndexHome Page


Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made it quite clear that he is not giving way at the moment. I should also be grateful if we could have fewer interventions from a sedentary position.

Mr. Redwood: We are against Labour's poll tax on wheels--about which there have already been many rows

15 Jul 1999 : Column 597

in Scotland. There will be many more such rows, as Labour has bizarrely decided to introduce the poll tax on wheels in Scotland first. After all that the Government, when in opposition, said about the original poll tax, it is a bit rich that they should decide to experiment with a new and deeply unpopular set of taxes first in Scotland, trying out their new Scottish Parliament for that purpose. I think that it means that we shall have a lot of good opposition in Scotland ahead of us, and we shall rally the Scottish people to our side because of the anger that will be expressed there about having congestion taxes and parking taxes foisted upon them first.

The motorist had certainly better watch out--Labour has not finished yet. The Government plan further massive raids on the purses and pockets of drivers. Labour's latest hopeless document, entitled "Road to Ruin"--it is their road, not ours--states that its proposal for extra fuel duty, congestion taxes and cuts in the road programme amount to between £10 billion and £20 billion extra. That is a massive sum. So my message today to motorists is, "Beware: the Government do not like you, and they are going to hit you so hard it will hurt even more."

The Government are really planning a further massive tax raid on the motorist and are slashing the road programme at the same time. Most of the additional motoring taxes are being siphoned off to pay for their disastrously expensive welfare policies.

Several hon. Members rose--

Mr. Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Redwood: I shall, just this once.

Mr. Winterton: May I support the argument being advanced by my right hon. Friend? He has been criticised and challenged on whether a Conservative Government would invest in roads. As the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) will know, one of the final acts of the Conservative Government and the former Minister, John Watts, was to put into a priority road programme the Poynton bypass, the Manchester airport eastern link road and other roads linking to it. One of the Deputy Prime Minister's and the Government's first acts was to remove those roads from the priority programme. Those roads will serve Manchester airport, which, in about 12 months, is to open a second runway.

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend has made his powerful point in his own inimitable way, and I agree with what he said. He has given another example of the damage that the Government are doing.

The Opposition propose better car parking and better arrangements for motorists to leave their cars at stations and close to bus routes, so that more journeys, and more of a journey, may be done by public transport when the roads are busy. Will the Government act on such proposals proposal? Do they have any money left after the mess they have made of London Transport investment--created by their stubborn refusal to privatise the tube and free the money that is needed? Does the Deputy Prime

15 Jul 1999 : Column 598

Minister understand that people need to use their cars, or need a better alternative if they are to be persuaded out of them?

Does the Deputy Prime Minister understand that the railway industry has been plunged into uncertainty by his refusal to make decisions and by his delay in setting a new statutory framework for it? His famous legislation was cancelled last year, delayed this year, but may arrive late in the next parliamentary year--if he is lucky.

The real problem, of course, is that the Secretary of State has now fallen out with practically everyone. I do feel sorry for him in his wars with the Prime Minister, but hope that they are able to patch it up in good time for the summer holidays. I look forward to seeing whether the right hon. Gentleman is left in charge when the Prime Minister goes on holiday, as that will be a test of how lethal the relationship has become.

The Prime Minister did serious damage to the bash-the-motorist policy with his journey up the bus lane, which became an understandable cause of anger among all those motorists who did not have that privilege. Ever since, it has been rows between Prime Minister and Deputy--over everything from transport to the future of the public sector. Presumably, the delay to the Railways Bill is part of the row over what the role of the public sector should be.

Worse still for the Secretary of State, there are persistent rumours from sources close to the Prime Minister that he wants to take his Deputy's closest aides away from him. The few Ministers that the Deputy Prime Minister does like, clustered around him at the Department, are under threat of eviction from the DETR, as the Prime Minister is clearly suspicious of this grouping. There could be a high price to pay for the Deputy Prime Minister falling out with the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who still seems to pull a lot of strings--surprising for one who resigned in disgrace.

I do not feel so sorry for the Deputy Prime Minister in his rows with the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Trade and Industry. They have reason to be vexed by the way in which he has behaved over the haulage industry and regional assistance.

Mr. Geraint Davies: As the great jammy dodger, how does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his commitment to reducing jams with his commitment to abolish the fuel escalator--thereby encouraging jams by making fuel cheaper, with the result that billions of pounds less will be available for investment in public transport? How can he have it both ways?

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening to the argument. The extra money that Labour is raising is not going into transport. We had a better record on transport expenditure than the Government. We are making a commitment to the right kind of selective investment in roads and car parks to encourage people to take a better option.

We have shown where the money is coming from--we will save the money on London Transport investment by privatising the tube. As a result, we will increase investment in London Transport, because the private sector will do a much better job than the Deputy Prime Minister is allowed to do. The hon. Member for Croydon,

15 Jul 1999 : Column 599

Central (Mr. Davies) really must listen and learn--he has wasted two minutes of the House's time. I was obviously foolish to give way--I was too generous.

The Minister for Transport does not look too happy in her brief, either. Transport Ministers have a short shelf-life under the Deputy Prime Minister, who seems to get in the way of their doing their job properly while not doing it properly himself. No wonder the chaos on the roads and at the stations gets worse.

Our new document is based on five important propositions: freedom to travel; choice of travel; care for the environment; supporting enterprise; and enjoying lower taxes. Those are the five crucial principles which would produce a much better answer. Unlike the Government, we do not want to frustrate travellers and attack motorists, but we do want a cleaner world. That means more incentives for cleaner and more fuel-efficient cars. It means fewer traffic jams--congestion is causing pollution, and the policies of the Deputy Prime Minister are causing a great deal of pollution, as well as frustration among the travelling public. Our policy means encouraging more use of other forms of travel by offering something better and working out what it is that people need to encourage them to leave the car at the station and to get on the train.

Let us take the case of the tube. We would not close down lines for weeks at a time in the way the Deputy Prime Minister has done. We would get the work done in the quieter times. We would put forward a much bigger investment programme, as we did when we were in office, thanks to privatisation.

Instead of spending money on reducing the amount of road space available with dangerous projects such as the M4 bus lane, we would free up the main roads and spend the money on safer routers to school and work for pedestrians, away from the main road.

The Government wrongly claim that we want to make things less safe. [Hon. Members: "You do."] Labour Members are so silly. The document states clearly that there is a role for traffic-calming safety measures in the right places, such as on residential roads and near schools. However, the document makes it clear also that there should be main routes into principal cities and towns where the traffic can flow more freely and at a better speed. We need to segregate pedestrians from fast-moving traffic. We should not stop all traffic moving at a sensible speed, as the Government want to do. It is because they are so muddled up, and because their policy is disintegrating, that we have frustrated motorists. However, they have not made things as safe for pedestrians as they should have done.

We are offering these positive suggestions, and we are offering 10 pledges to the motorist and traveller in our document. [Interruption.]

The Minister for Transport (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The right hon. Gentleman does not know his own pledges.


Next Section

IndexHome Page