---

Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

10 May 2000 : Column 936

A number of hon. Members may have been expecting the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) to move the new clause, but he is out of the country and unable to be with us. With the permission of the House, I shall speak in his place.

The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and I have not agreed on much, but I am grateful to him for not pressing amendment No. 412 to the vote, thereby enabling us to debate road traffic reduction targets and providing at least a few moments for the Minister to discuss proposals relating to school crossing patrols, on which I hope there will be good news.

Hon. Members will be aware that I am not new to the issue. Indeed, I was delighted to be able to take through the House the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997, which was the first Act to refer to reducing traffic on our roads. The original version proposed requirements not only on local councils to adopt traffic reduction targets, but on central Government to develop traffic reduction targets over 10 years. Unfortunately, in order to get the Act through the House, the second provision had to be deleted.

The Labour Government seem almost obsessed with targets. They began with five pledges at the general election; now there are thousands of targets for one thing and another. Indeed, there are even targets for achieving targets, so it will not be difficult to convince them to add yet one more to that long roll call. Introducing traffic reduction targets would be of great benefit to them as it would clearly show their commitment to tackling the traffic problem. It would also show that they have taken the advice that they sought and that has been offered to them.

On a number of issues, the Government have been keen to follow the advice of the Commission for Integrated Transport, which was set up by the Deputy Prime Minister. They will therefore be aware that they invited the commission to consider the issue of traffic targets and that paragraph 7 of its report states:

We recognise that it should be possible to derive national benchmark profiles for congestion and traffic, but, having been developed in this bottom-up way, they must always be seen as indicative, and not prescriptive. Nevertheless, recognition by Government of such a bottom-up benchmark would demonstrate its commitment to pushing forward the integrated transport agenda.

The Government's own advisory body has recommended that there should be national indicative targets for traffic reduction, and that is what is proposed in new clause 3.

The new clause would require the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to draw up a strategy to reduce traffic by 10 per cent. on the current levels by 2010, and to set an indicative level for traffic for each year between now and then. That would have the advantage of demonstrating the Government's commitment. It would show that they take note of the advice that they have sought and have been given. Equally important, it would enable the Government to redeem the Labour party's promises and commitments.

During the 1997 election, the Labour party promised to

reduce and then reverse traffic growth.

Those words appeared on the party's election website, in policy briefings issued from Millbank and in the Labour policy handbook. Reducing traffic growth means traffic reduction.

10 May 2000 : Column 937

The Deputy Prime Minister went a stage further and made clear what he understood that term to mean when he was reported in The Guardian of 6 May 1997 as saying:

I will have failed if in five years time there are not many more people using public transport and far fewer journeys by car. It's a tall order but I urge you to hold me to it.

That clear commitment was repeated on the Floor of the House during an exchange between him and me during a debate on the Queen's Speech on 18 November 1999. He made it absolutely clear that that was a clear commitment and a target that he had set himself. He said:

I readily set the target for myself and I am glad that we are on the way to achieving it.--[Official Report, 18 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 161.]

By setting indicative targets, the Labour party would have a real opportunity to redeem an election promise that was subsequently reiterated by the Deputy Prime Minister. It would also benefit many individual Labour Members. Early last year, 89 Labour MPs issued press releases to their local newspapers stating:

Traffic reduction is vital for human health, the environment, and social justice. It was an important Labour election pledge.

Perhaps more significantly, 300 Labour MPs have signed up to the Friends of the Earth campaign for road traffic reduction targets. Since Friends of the Earth first proposed a 10 per cent. traffic reduction target, more than 300 Labour MPs have publicly stated their support for that campaign.

New clause 3 merely repeats the words that were used by Friends of the Earth in its campaign. It merely repeats the words that 300 Labour MPs have signed up to and agreed to support. It merely repeats the commitment made by the Deputy Prime Minister. It gives voice to the commitments made by the Labour party in the run-up to the general election. I am confident that many Labour Members will be in the Division Lobby in a few minutes' time to support new clause 3. I can certainly assure the House that many Liberal Democrat Members will be there, because they, too, signed up to those commitments. They will honour their commitments by voting for new clause 3.

Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): I hope that the Liberal Democrats will not push the new clause to a vote, because we are on a tight timetable and we should have a proper Third Reading debate on this huge Bill. However, should they be minded to do so, my advice to the House is not to support the new clause. The hon. Gentleman's speech shows the dangers of Members of Parliament signing up to the programmes of pressure groups, thereby extinguishing their right to make a sound judgment. I have always believed that we should listen to pressure groups and to our constituents and then make a judgment.

There is a simple problem with this road traffic reduction strategy--it will not work. I speak from many years' experience in my constituency. We have been disappointed by Government after Government who have refused to address the traffic problems of a mediaeval city. We thought we were close, but in the short space of about a fortnight the incoming Labour Government decided to cancel the best hope we had in Salisbury of improving the quality of life for our people and preserving our ancient city by building a bypass. That hope has been dashed by this Government.

10 May 2000 : Column 938

8.45 pm

We are all in favour of reducing traffic--just as we are all against sin--so long as someone else is doing the reducing. That is the problem with soppy proposals such as this. There are various ways of tackling traffic problems. People can be taxed off the roads, or planned off the roads--which I think is probably the most effective method, speaking as a former Roads Minister. The Bill contains plenty of planning regulations in other guises that would achieve that aim. Public transport can be increased to an extent, and that will help, but it will never meet the needs of the rural constituencies represented by the Liberal Democrats who tabled this daft new clause. Alternatively, everyone can be condemned to gridlock, which is what is happening now.

In fact, only one thing will work. Before they get into their cars, people must ask themselves whether their journey is really necessary. In many cases it is not, and that consideration might enable us to make real progress.

I am worried about the idea of setting targets. In my experience, targets never work--there is always disappointment when they are not met, and it is always possible to find a reason for the fact that they are not achievable. There is another flaw in the new clause. Subsection (2) requires the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to

consult such persons as they see fit.

Whom will they consult? They will consult Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and all the other environmental groups--and so they should, and we should all listen to them. In the end, though, they might think of consulting their electorate. If they do so, their electorate will certainly not agree with them.

At the last general election, I was the only candidate who was in favour of a bypass. Guess who won? Guess whose election featured the second smallest swing against the Conservative party? I was deeply grateful to the Liberal Democrat candidate for supporting the anti-bypass proposals, because that ensured that I would be able to continue representing my constituents.

Proposals such as new clause 3 make nonsense of a sensible approach. Clause 92 says that local transport authorities should

develop policies for the promotion and encouragement of . . . efficient . . . transport.

The Government have got it half right, but they have got it half wrong as well. They refer to less desirable objectives which should be achieved, but certainly will not be achieved under Labour policy, such as the requirement for local authorities to

meet the needs of persons living or working in the authority's area.

I invite the Government to ask my constituents whether Labour's policy of cancelling the bypass is meeting their needs.

The new clause is not helpful, but we should not vote against it. Indeed, I hope that it will not be put to the vote. I hope that common sense will prevail--and common sense is what we need above all in our transport policy.

---