| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.24 pm
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley (South-West Surrey): Unlike the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), I am no expert on transport matters, although I declare an interest in that I have a brother who is a railwayman and is as passionate about and obsessed with railways as the hon. Gentleman is--and, of course, I used to be married to a Transport Minister.
I know, however, that my constituents care more about transport today than they have at any stage since I have been their Member of Parliament. Among their heroes is my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). He visited my constituency--as did every Conservative Minister with responsibility for transport--to witness one of the most shameful problems, the A3 at Hindhead, which is the only single carriageway stretch between London and Portsmouth, and contains the only traffic lights that the four Scottish roads Ministers would encounter if they travelled from Scotland to Portsmouth.
My hon. Friend has identified and articulated my constituents' outrage at the fact that £17 out of every £20 that they spend on petrol goes to the Chancellor. My constituents include nurses, pensioners and school-run mums--people who have no option but to drive. In return for paying that exorbitant tax, they are asked to wait in their cars for hour after hour. It is a disgraceful situation.
The Government recently produced a Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. It has been met with a hollow laugh in my constituency. The land involved locally is a special protection area under the European Union birds directive--a site of special scientific interest. However, all my constituents are confronted with is what my hon. Friend described as the "Carry On Consulting" policy.
Local people were initially hopeful about the review of trunk roads. They were enthusiastic, and I myself participated, expecting the process to be straightforward. We thought that if the proper answers were given on safety, access, economic development, and routes to Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight--all of which had been held up by the situation at Hindhead--our position would be approved. During the 18 years of Conservative Government the rest of the A3 was improved, effectively to motorway standard, but the Hindhead problem is appalling. "Carry On Consulting", because what was announced in the review of trunk roads, means further reports and discussion of whether tolls should play a part in the A3 Hindhead problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex suggested that there were too few consultants to undertake the work. I am delighted to say that an excellent team, MVA, has undertaken it. It is clear that MVA will produce a textbook illustration of a place where tolls could never be used. Tolls would lead to more rat-running, and toll plazas would use more of what is internationally precious land. However, the Government have been given what they wanted--the opportunity for further delaying tactics. I am informed that even when the report is completed, it will
be submitted to the south-east England regional assembly. There will be more talking shops and more delay--and, presumably, the final result will land on the Government's desk shortly before a general election. My constituents are heartily sick of all this, and totally cynical about the device.Progress has been achieved in one respect. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and I asked, on a monthly basis, for one of the 10 environment Ministers to visit Hindhead. At long last, after three years, the roads Minister has visited it, but this is an example of the way in which the Government behave. They do not govern for the many; they govern for their friends. It is disgraceful that it took three years for one of 10 Ministers to visit the site of the most serious problem in the south-east. I believe that the Government have no credibility on this issue. People are being taxed more, and are getting less.
Those for whom I feel most sorry are people in the Highways Agency such as Paul Arnold, who has been there for 14 years, and Graham Hodgson, from Surrey county council, who have had to meet irate residents groups who were asking for traffic-calming measures and other palliative steps because of the Government's failure to discharge their responsibilities.
This is a crucial route. I ask the Minister not to offer more consultation reports or talking shops, or to refer the matter back. At a time when people are paying more than ever before, this is a Government responsibility, and the Government should discharge it.
9.29 pm
Mr. Robert Syms (Poole): I start by declaring an interest. In the Register of Members' Interests, it is stated that I am a director of a family business that has some interests in transport. We may stray into areas that may by affected, so I hope that hon. Members accept that.
We have had an interesting debate on a subject that is important for most of our constituents. It is a pity that more Back Benchers could not speak in the debate. All of us as constituency Members appreciate that the issue is dear to the heart of many Members because of the number of times that it comes up in surgeries and in letters, with people saying what they want.
The debate was ably started by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who set out an indictment of the Government's policies. It was chapter and verse; it was game, set and match. The Government have learned a lot about their policies from the impact that they are having.
The Minister for Housing and Planning did his best to defend the Government on a difficult wicket. I think that we all acknowledge that defending the Government's policies on transport is not easy. He did it in his normal way, and he did his best. He said in his peroration that the Government were spending more and taxing less than the previous Government--and he kept a relatively straight face, so he did a reasonable job.
The fact is that the Government are taking £36 billion from motorists. That is a lot of money--£8 billion more than when they came into office. One pound in every £7 collected by the taxpayer comes from motorists. As we have heard, of every £10 spent on petrol, £8 is tax.
For most people, a car is a necessity. Most people need one to work, to get to school, to go to hospital, to go to the supermarket and to undertake the ordinary tasks that hard-working families in communities must undertake. One gets the feeling in many of these debates that Members think that people with cars are fat cats with unlimited amounts of money, but many people find it difficult to run a car.
Being hit by higher taxes under the present Government is bound to have an effect on the family budget, and, indeed, on people who are not necessarily the richest; some of the poorest people, and many of those who live in rural areas, will be affected. Sixty-nine per cent. of households own cars, but 85 per cent. of households in rural areas own them. The Government have hit them hard. Under Labour, the average motorist is paying £270 more a year for petrol than under the previous Government.
Roads are key to any integrated strategy, because most people travel by road. Most goods travel by road. The Minister said that when we came to office, there were 70 cars per mile of road, and when we left, there were 100. That is a sign of Conservative success, of a more prosperous economy, with people able to buy cars. In many instances, those who in earlier times would not have been able to afford a car could do so. Many people have two cars.
Mr. Snape: If 100 cars per mile of road is a tribute to Conservative party success, and the allegation in the debate is that there are even more cars on the roads and even more congestion now, is that a hallmark of Labour success, too?
Mr. Syms: As we become more prosperous, it is evident that there will be more cars on the road. The way to deal with it is to increase capacity--to increase the value of the road system. People aspire to have a car. They work hard. They expect to be able to buy a car, so that they can have a better standard of living.
Mrs. Gorman: Is my hon. Friend aware that statistics on the use made by each family of their cars show not that every car is on the road all the time, but that one or other of the cars is on the road at any one time? It is not true to suggest that congestion is caused by more cars on the road. It is caused by the run-down condition of the roads, which have been getting worse under the present Government.
Mr. Syms: My hon. Friend makes a persuasive point. I hope that those on the Government Front Bench were listening. The fact is that £36 billion comes from motorists, but only slightly over £5 billion--about 15 per cent.--is being spent on roads. That is having a dreadful effect on our roads system. We experience log-jams and breakdowns. People who travel round the country to do their jobs have greater difficulty.
What is the Government's big idea? What have they decided to do to solve the problems? In their long awaited Transport Bill, they have proposed congestion taxes and workplace parking. Brilliant. What does that mean? It means that the answer to the problems of our nation is more tax--to raise more money from more people.
In the 1998 spending review, the Treasury assumed that £1 billion would be raised by that method by 2005-06. The Minister said that the charge would be voluntary. That is an interesting comment, bearing in mind the fact that the Government are underfunding local authorities' spending on transport. I suspect that if the Treasury is making the assumption that £1 billion will be raised by the charge, all the pressure in the world will be put on local authorities. The Government will say to them, "You have the right to introduce this charge, and if you do not, why should we give you the money?"
We have an interesting situation in London. The Labour party ran on a manifesto of no charges for four years. The Conservatives ran on a manifesto of no charges. At the first vote in the London Assembly, the Labour party took a different view. The public in London, especially those who voted, have been sold a false prospectus on congestion charging.
Those who read the Evening Standard, as most of us do, will have seen the article "Commuter Watch 2000" in Monday's edition. It clearly says:
- The new Mayor is considering a £5-a-day congestion charge . . . But the blunt truth from our 3-month CommuterWatch survey of train, Tube and bus services is that the majority are as poor or even worse than when we tested them in 1997 and 1998.
The Government are taxing more and delivering less. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) asked some extremely pertinent questions about congestion charging. I hope that the Minister will answer those questions when he winds up the debate, so that hon. Members can be better informed. I believe that congestion charging is a bad thing--but it will probably be a good thing for the Conservative party. We oppose such charges, and that will make a tremendous difference in the forthcoming election campaign. [Interruption.] There was a Green Paper and a discussion paper, but we never introduced charges.
Looking at the implications, and having served on the Transport Bill, I have no doubt that the proposal is bad news for motorists, and bad news for town centres and urban areas that will be blighted by the taxation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |