Westminster Hall
Tuesday 11 February 2003
[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]
Congestion Charging
[Relevant document: First Report from the Transport Committee on Urban Charging Schemes, HC 390–I]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Derek Twigg.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): I call Mr. Mark Field, who has arrived in the Chamber in the nick of time.
9.30 am
Mr. Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster): I have hot-footed it from the Upper Committee Corridor, you will be glad to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It may not surprise the Minister that, in securing this debate on congestion charging, I have elected as a central London Member to focus on the practical application rather than simply on the general principles. However, I am aware that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport is present, and no doubt she will wish to address the issues that go beyond central London.
There is no doubt that the clock is ticking. There are now six days to go until Ken's car tax turns London's already congested roads into utter chaos. Opposition Members have warned and warned again that this ideologically motivated assault on the freedom that comes with the ownership of a private car is being rushed through with woefully inadequate technology. I hold responsible not only Ken Livingstone and his absurd crew of sidekicks at Transport for London, but the Labour Government.
It is not good enough for the Prime Minister simply to wash his hands of the matter, as he did at Prime Minister's Question Time only last week. The new tax is a gross betrayal of the people of London by those who now think that they are capable of hosting the Olympic games. As the Member of Parliament most directly affected, I have had a huge mailbag in the past 18 months since the programme came on stream.
As the Prime Minister pointed out at Prime Minister's Question Time last week, congestion charging may well be part of devolved power, but, unlike this Government, whose Ministers will continue to use their chauffeur-driven cars and be exempt from the tax, I do not consider that our approach should be, "I'm all right, Jack." Residents in my constituency are appalled at the misleading claims of a 90 per cent. discount for those who live in the zone; angered by the discourteous and unprofessional service of Transport for London; and bemused by the amateurishness of the registration process. I understand that only last week Transport for London had to add 300 staff to the 500 in its call centre. They have been drafted in very much at the last minute.
The devolved government argument adopted by the Government seems to be flawed on two main grounds. First and foremost is the Treasury's refusal properly to fund London. I have said in a number of debates in the House on the underground and a range of devolved issues that I have some sympathy with Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, on that limited point. He is desperate to have ring-fenced funds. That is one reason why he is pushing ahead with the congestion charge.
When Ken Livingstone was elected almost three years ago, his manifesto made it clear that congestion charging would be brought in only after there had been measurable improvements in public transport. Now, even by the Mayor's admission—all 7 million people living in London would vouch for this—the London underground will require at least a decade of sustained investment before standards reach even a satisfactory level. That was clear before the Central line shut down. It has become apparent this morning that the Central line will not open until well after the 17 February start date for the congestion charge.
The argument is made about buses. Anyone who has used buses over the past couple of years will admit that there have been improvements. There is no doubt about that, and those improvements are to the Mayor's credit. However, the notion that a small increase in the number of buses will relieve our roads of the enormous congestion is clearly nonsense. That is only a small part of the answer.
Deliberate sabotage by Transport for London seems to have led to an 18 per cent. reduction in the number of private motor cars on London's roads over the past two years, yet congestion has got worse. Indeed, the raison d'être for the congestion charge is a further 15 to 20 per cent. reduction. Where will all the commuters, tourists and residents go? If the Minister had recently used the tube, he would realise that there is no capacity, not only in rush hour but through much of the day. I first suggested as long ago as autumn 2001 that the narrowing of bus lanes and altered sequencing of traffic lights was a deliberate attempt to justify the need for the car tax that is now upon us. That was vehemently denied at the time by the Mayor and Transport for London. They now admit that I was right all along. I still reckon that those measures will be reversed after 17 February and used to spin the notion that the new tax is a success.
The experiment is a test case for the principle of road charging in this country, yet, amazingly, no system is in place to measure its effectiveness in cutting congestion. The Mayor of London and Transport for London assure us that they have their own criteria on which to judge its success. Clearly that is important, because if we are to consider congestion charging beyond central London, we must know whether this big experiment is a success. Unbelievably for such a keen advocate of open government as Mr. Livingstone has been throughout his career, the guidelines for the success of the congestion charge are being kept secret.
I recognise the excellent work of my local authority, Westminster city council, and in particular the leader and deputy leader, Simon Milton and Kit Malthouse, who have highlighted five main tests for approval of the congestion charge. I am not sure where I have heard the idea of five tests before, but they will be readily
quantifiable. We will not have to wait till June. I suspect that it will be only a matter of weeks before we can determine whether the tests are satisfied.
Mr. Gareth Thomas (Harrow, West): The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is opposed to the principle of the congestion tax. What is his alternative to tackling London's congestion problems?
Mr. Field : I am opposed to this congestion charge being rushed in now. Having been in business, I approve of market solutions, so I do not rule out a congestion charge as the right solution. However, this charge, which is being rushed through before there has been any improvement in the public transport system—indeed the tube will get worse over the next 10 years—is the wrong way forward. As the hon. Gentleman says, congestion is a problem. Although the changes that Transport for London has implemented over the past two years have resulted in a reduction in the number of cars on the road, congestion has become ever worse. There are no easy solutions, but this charge is not the right way forward, not least because of the way in which it penalises some of the worst off.
There is no doubt that I have a considerable number of relatively wealthy constituents who will grin and bear it and pay their £5 a day, but the people for whom I have most regard are the relatively poor. Only yesterday I was at Knightsbridge barracks, where I met a young mother who was quite desperate. She has two young children; one is at school in the zone and one is at school outside it. There is no way that she cannot use a private car. A charge of £25 a week will blow an enormous hole in her disposable budget. No one seems to be taking any notice of concerns of that kind. Although we must ensure that there is less congestion on our roads, the charge is simply an ideological attack: it is being rushed through at the wrong time and in the wrong way.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington): I want to encourage the hon. Gentleman to speculate. If now is not the right time to introduce the charge, when does he think would be?
Mr. Field : I am with Professor Galbraith on that. Speculation is always a bad idea: one never knows what will happen. I am looking at the here and now. We must consider the problem that will beset Londoners in six days. That is what concerns me above all. There is no doubt that the tax is precisely the wrong way forward.
I was addressing some of the issues raised by Westminster city council's five tests. The council considers that cutting congestion is one of the most important tests. By that I mean—I am sure that it means this, too—congestion not just in the central zone but in the area around, much of which is also in my constituency. If the result of the tax is simply to displace traffic, it will have failed. The Mayor reckons that the deterioration in the life of those living around the boundary of the central zone will be a price worth paying, but they will suffer the double whammy of no discount and increased traffic. Again, the tax will have failed if there is increased rat-running and destruction of quiet in residential streets around the main central zone.
The third test is cost of living. A number of small businesses inside the zone will not only lose passing trade if the charge is successful in reducing day-to-day traffic by 20 per cent.; they will, indirectly, have to fund the cost of deliveries. According to a number of head teachers to whom I have spoken during the past six to nine months, teachers may have to use their motor cars to get into central London. There is therefore great worry about recruitment and retention of teachers in central London at an already difficult time.
The fourth test concerns the overcrowded tube, to which I have already referred. Will the tube be able to cope? Next week, when the Central line will still be down, we shall see ongoing problems. Even with a fully working Central line there is a question mark over whether the current underground and train system can cope with the increased traffic for which it is supposed to cater when people leave their motor cars and take public transport. If the tube and railways become a lot worse, there is little doubt that the tax will have failed.
Finally, I hope to see tangible evidence that the car tax will generate sufficient income to pay for the new transport schemes promised. Many of us appreciate that part of the raison d'être for the tax—this is one of the points on which I symapthise with the Mayor—is to use the £130 million or so raised annually to secure Crossrail and other transport projects. That is admirable in many ways, but we must keep an eye on precisely what is happening. Our great worry is that not only will the £130 million be a fantasy—net income may end up being considerably less—but that much of the sum raised will be squirreled away for other projects and the large infrastructure projects that we all want will not occur.
We shall no doubt hear more about the Olympic bid in the next 48 hours, but it is interesting that there has already been an attempt by the International Olympic Committee to decouple its bid from Crossrail. The great worry is that Crossrail will somehow fall through the middle because, on one hand, there will be insufficient funds from the Mayor and the congestion tax, and on the other, Crossrail will not be part and parcel of an Olympic bid.
I am also concerned about the prospect of civil disobedience in central London. I want to make it absolutely clear that, as a Member of Parliament, I do not support civil disobedience and people who break the law. However, one must contrast the actions of Mayor Livingstone today, who is a hardline, no-nonsense tax collector, with those 12 or 13 years ago when the community charge or poll tax came in and he was fined £600 for non-payment. How will he have the authority to uphold a law with which so many of his constituents disagree so vehemently? My own view is that an untried, untested and unready technology is likely to bring the scheme down. I suspect that many people will not be forced to pay, and there is a risk that the experiment will collapse in ridicule, which will make a great difference to any future schemes in other parts of the Untied Kingdom.
I appreciate that other hon. Members want to speak, so in conclusion I look to the Minister to answer a few questions today. I want to hear what he has to say to elderly folk who live within the zone in my constituency, many of whom will be unable to have so many visits from relatives and carers because the use of a private motor car will simply not be affordable and, for reasons
of infirmity, they might not be able easily to use public transport. What will he say to small business people in my constituency whose heads are barely above water owing to the difficulties in London and the south-east during the past year or two? What will he say to representatives of some of London's key bigger tourist industries—those industries are already depressed as a result of BSE during 2000 and 2001 and 11 September 2001—many of whom feel that the tax will have a devastating effect?The Minister, on behalf of the Government, cannot simply say that congestion charging is a matter for local government to decide and that it is devolved government. In central London, we are not talking about a small parish council; we are dealing with the most important commercial centre in our entire nation. We all know that if London catches a cold, it applies to the whole country within a matter of months and certainly years. I end this speech with great sadness because a nightmare is about to befall the city that I represent and love. The Government must take a share of the blame.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Before I call the next speaker I remind the Chamber that the Select Committee on Transport's first report of this Session on urban charging schemes, which was published on Sunday 9 February, is relevant to the debate. With the permission of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), it has been tagged on to this Adjournment debate, as is clear from the Order Paper. A number of Members want to speak; with self-discipline, I am sure that all of them will be able to do so.
9.46 am
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the Select Committee's report on congestion charging and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster for raising the subject. As he made clear, the matter is of considerable importance to us all. In a capital city, the movement of goods and people is fundamental to the way in which the economy operates. Any attempt to deal with the enormous problems of traffic movement must be of concern not only to the Government, but to the people who are involved.
The other Committee members and I decided that we would not debate in principle the right to apply congestion charging to an urban situation, because the principle had already been conceded by Parliament in the Transport Act 2000, in which it was agreed that, since we were obviously going to have to plan the movement of traffic, congestion charging was one way forward. However, we thought that we should consider in detail the scheme that was being proposed, because we were aware that certain difficulties had arisen. The report highlights not just the advantages, but some of the disadvantages. That is important.
The advantages to a congestion charging scheme are obvious. If traffic continues to grow at the present rate, we will not have to debate whether congestion charging is the alternative because, frankly, the entire city will simply grind to a halt. That already happens on
occasions—one can see what happens to the movement of traffic above ground if there is a problem on the London underground. If the city ground to a halt, it would have a direct effect not only on businesses, but on the quality of Londoners' lives.We know that we will have to face up to the problem of more and more people trying to work and live in a congested space, but there were things about the London scheme that worried the Committee. The fundamental worry was whether the Mayor had properly organised the scheme. Were the lines in the right place? Was the equipment efficient? Would it work? Would it be capable of doing the task for which it was employed? Above all, would we be able to explain to the public why such schemes are essential?
There were other things that worried us. For example, we were not at all clear whether the indicators currently used to measure congestion, which may be all right for national policy modelling, were any good at all in demonstrating the problem of congestion in urban areas. Anybody who listens to drive-time radio can say where the congestion points are, yet there do not seem to be a set of indicators that we can all use as a basis for transport planning.
Committee members were very clear that the scheme could contribute enormous amounts of money to improving transport systems, and the Mayor should have access to that revenue stream. However, we were also convinced more than 10 years would be needed. We could not understand why the Government are not taking the lead by saying that if the trial scheme works, those responsible for the 20 others that we have calculated will be necessary during the 10-year transport plan can learn from what happens and improve the operation of their schemes.
The Mayor's suggestion that one can run the scheme for two months and then decide whether it is a failure seemed to us not only unrealistic, but rather petulant. That is not the way to proceed. The assessment will take much longer than that. We were pleased that the Mayor said that he would allow an independent scrutiny body to review the scheme—that is absolutely essential. We must judge whether the scheme does what it is supposed to do and whether it offers lessons for the future.
Many of the likely difficulties will, no doubt, arise at the commencement of the scheme. Contractors are responsible not only for putting the number plate recognition system into operation, but for the way in which people will pay the charges and access information. If those arrangements work efficiently, it will very soon become clear whether the scheme is producing a result.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall): My hon. Friend mentions contractors. Is she aware of how everyone in Lambeth feels about contractors? Capita absolutely ruined the housing benefit system in Lambeth and its contract was eventually terminated. Many people in my borough cannot understand why that failed operator, which seems to fail at everything it does, has been given the job of congestion charging.
Mrs. Dunwoody : I would not disagree with that point of view. Frankly, if the company fails in this scheme, I do not how much longer it will be able to continue in
business. There is a limit to the tolerance that even the British are prepared to extend to people who are not capable of doing the jobs for which they are paid vast amounts of money.The contractor that operates the automatic number plate recognition system must be able to build up a robust database that matches the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database so that information is accurate. Nothing would destroy the scheme more quickly than large numbers of people being charged for journeys that they have not taken, or people successfully avoiding the system and messing it up in different ways. An accurate database is an essential precondition for efficient working.
The Government should give a very clear lead on their attitude towards congestion charging, but they are standing back. It appears that they are prepared to let whatever happens remain the responsibility of London's elected representatives. I have spent some 30 years having good fights with the Mayor, and I remind every taxi driver to whom I speak to that I did not vote for him—he is aware of the fact that I did not vote for him. However, in fairness, it is not only what happens to him that should be of importance, but whether the scheme works and whether the various alternative schemes that have been suggested would, in fact, work better.
It is vital that additional capital and revenue funding are made available to local authorities through local transport plan settlements. That is the only way in which they will be able to address the problems with the alternative services that must be put in place. Furthermore, electronic charging standards must be developed. What happens in London will determine what happens in many parts of the United Kingdom. If we get the standards right, the benefit will be felt by all.
I do not wish to take too much time in this debate, so I shall make just a few further points. Before the 1997 election, when it had a Conservative Chairman, the Select Committee considered congestion charging in other nations, many of which not only operate successful schemes, but do not experience the trauma and difficulties that we envisage. I shall not pretend that the population will enjoy being charged for the use of road space, but they will see positive benefits when the money is put into transport schemes. Many businesses benefit from such planning, because people are more able to visit those businesses when they are able to move more freely. They understand that that is possible only because of a form of controlled traffic movement.
However, the Committee made it plain that it was worried about the scheme. We highlighted the fact that there may be immediate problems for low-paid workers because of the way in which the lines had been drawn within the inner ring road. It is not a secret that many of the services provided to areas the north of the river come from people who live to the south, many of whom use cars because of the unsocial hours that they work or the difficulties that they have getting to and from their employment. Their cars may be very old or inadequate, but they need to use some form of transport.
We were concerned that it would be disastrous if the scheme acted as a deterrent to public service workers or teachers working in inner-city schools. The cost to the
community as a whole would be extremely high. We look to the Mayor to produce an immediate and flexible response to those difficulties as soon as they become plain, and to respond in the best way possible either by having differential schemes of charging, or by considering some other way of compensating those who are desperately needed to run our cities. We took evidence from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who not only highlighted those problems, but made it plain that she thought that they would exist from day one.I return to the matter that worried the Committee most, which was that the Government, having put the machinery in place, seemed to be standing back and saying to London, "Get on with it." I think that leadership in transport matters is tremendously important. It amuses me to see how transport schemes become ideological or non-ideological depending on what people happen to believe at the time. If they agree with a scheme, it is non-ideological; if they disagree with it, it is a barmy idea that no one should have had in the first place.
The London scheme may be a very brave attempt to face up to a real problem. We are not able to move around in our capital city in a way that makes our lives more pleasant and productive. The Committee has produced a report that should be taken seriously, not only by the Mayor but—I say this with the greatest respect—by Her Majesty's Government. That is not always the case with Transport Committee reports. Nevertheless, I commend the report because I think that Londoners deserve high-quality, day-to-day management of their lives. They suffer the disadvantages of being in a crowded, urban environment, and they should have the right to ask of those who plan their transport systems that their real needs be taken into account.
9.58 am
Angela Watkinson (Upminster): I should like to confine my remarks to what I perceive to be the purpose of the scheme. I submit that it has nothing whatever to do with traffic congestion. There can be no doubt that traffic in London is congested, but let us consider it in the grand scheme of things. If one were to go to Cairo or Tehran—or, a bit nearer home, to Rome or Paris—one would see real traffic congestion.
The scheme is simply a tax on drivers and driving. People do not drive in London just to annoy Ken Livingstone; they do it because it is necessary, and because they have no choice. They work unsocial hours, do shift work, or have to carry equipment with them. There are all sorts of reasons why people have to undertake all the component parts of their lives in the time available to them. The use of a car is necessary for them.
People also use cars because they want to. Some prefer to use a private car rather than public transport, and I defend their freedom to do so. The attractions of private transport are obvious. For a start, people can travel from door to door—from their own home to their destination. Private transport is clean, or as clean as an individual cares to make it, and safe. The safety of the vehicle is the responsibility of the owner. Driving in privacy means that one is safe from possible dangers from other passengers on public transport. I have met such dangers several times.
People driving are safe from the weather, can carry goods and can travel at unsocial hours, as do so many these days. Many such people are on modest incomes, such as postmen, who have to get up at an unearthly hour of the morning—I understand that 4.30 am is not unusual. Other people whose jobs require them to get up very early in the morning include cleaners, hospital workers, firefighters and police. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the Chairman of the Transport Committee, spoke about the possibility of differential payments, and I defer to her great depth of knowledge on transport matters. There could be so many exemptions that a system that takes them into consideration would have to be administratively very complex, and I wonder how on earth it could work.
The first great purchase of any young person once they have an income is their car. It gives great freedom. I defend the freedom to be able to travel.
Tom Brake : Does the hon. Lady not agree that the poorest people—I presume that she wants to represent them as well—do not tend to own cars, so are most likely to benefit from the scheme that Ken is introducing?
Angela Watkinson : I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, because I was just coming to it. I disagree totally that poor people do not own cars. Poor people often rely on their cars to a great extent. They are often old cars because those people do not have the capital investment to buy reliable ones. A comment made by Ken Livingstone some time ago is very telling. He said: "I hate cars". I understand that he has never owned or driven one. That demonstrates his deep lack of understanding of car ownership and use, and of how many people that involves.
How many of us cannot name non-drivers—those crusading, oh-so morally superior greens—who see no contradiction or offence to their principles in accepting lifts from people who own and run cars? They wear that like a badge of honour. I suggest that, if we all ceased to offer them lifts, there would be a few more cars on the road by next week.
I should like to examine the effects of the scheme, which are twofold. The first is cost. A charge of £5 per day can perhaps be shrugged off by someone on a comfortable income, but £100 from the net monthly income of someone on a modest wage is very serious. We have already heard reference to the groups likely to be affected. Mothers taking young children to school or to carers in the mornings will be caught in the net. I look forward to the day when I see the Mayor of London and his partner with their baby, pushchair, all the paraphernalia one needs for a child and 10 bags of shopping from Tesco, getting on to a bus.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire): Will my hon. Friend comment on another important group? I refer to essential workers who will be coming into or leaving the metropolis when the congestion charge is active. Many are on very low incomes, and many who might not be caught coming in at antisocial hours, when public transport is not available, will be caught going home. How will such people be able to fund the extra
£1,000 a year, or whatever sum they will have to pay, when as public sector workers their pay rise is some 2.9 per cent?
Angela Watkinson : My hon. Friend is right. There is already a crisis in attracting essential workers into London because of the high cost of housing. The additional cost of travel will exacerbate that problem, making it even more difficult to get teachers, hospital staff and a range of workers on modest incomes to come into London. Such people will look elsewhere for employment. It is also possible that the day will come when people on low incomes, who have to use their cars to get to work, are unable to pay their £5. They will have to take a chance, because they have to get to work, and they will incur fines that they are even less able to pay than the original charge.
There is also the inconvenience. The Mayor of London has kindly set out a range of ways in which people may pay the charge, all of which are highly inconvenient. If someone is going to work in the morning, the last thing that they will want to do is to stop and pay, get on the internet, or try any of the wonderful ways that have been devised to allow people to pay. If it is inconvenient, it is anti-motorist. I deplore the entire scheme.
I wonder what will happen to people whose cars have been stolen. My constituents whose cars have been stolen often contact me, because months afterwards they are still receiving fines for illegal parking. I foresee the same thing happening in the case of congestion charging. Car theft is not unusual in London—many cars are stolen every day. How will the system cope with people whose cars have been stolen? Those people may incur enormous rafts of fines if their cars are driven backwards and forwards through the boundary of the congestion zone? I hope that the Minister will enlighten us on that point.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): May I add to my hon. Friend's most telling point? There is a further argument that very poor people who notice every penny will have more incentive to go in for motor crime and stealing vehicles. That is already a serious problem, especially among young people in the capital. This is an utterly pernicious proposition.
Angela Watkinson : I should like to explore the purported desired effect of the scheme to reduce congestion in London. It is intended that many of the people who currently use their cars will be deterred by the charge and seek other modes of transport. As a regular user of the tube, I shudder to think what the Circle line, for example, would be like if large numbers of people decided to abandon their cars and joined me. It is not unusual, even at peak times, to wait more than 10 minutes for a Circle line train and for the carriages to be filled to bursting point when it arrives. There is no spare capacity at the moment, and certainly not on the underground, to absorb large numbers of disgruntled drivers. The tube is also unreliable and uncomfortable. Even the public-private partnership would support only sufficient growth to maintain passenger numbers and not—as is needed—embrace very many more.
It has also been suggested that there will be environmental benefits in terms of air quality. I understand, however, that experts have claimed that,
although there might be a minor improvement in the middle of the congestion zone, the area is too small for there to be any appreciable benefits. The outer edge of the zone would be adversely affected and prevailing winds would blow the fumes back into the centre, so the net effect would be nil. Even Ken Livingstone has conceded that:
- "We expect there to be no significant improvement in air quality directly as a result of congestion charging".
It will be easy to show measurable improvements in congestion by stopping all the diversions and road closures for which at the moment there appears no reason, and by re-phasing traffic lights so that the green phase is longer than the red one. Miraculously, congestion will appear to have improved overnight. If the scheme is declared to be a success, how many other towns will latch on to it—not to reduce congestion but as a tax?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson) : I do not want to interrupt the hon. Lady's flow, but will she inform us whether she is opposed in principle to congestion charging?
Angela Watkinson : I am happy to assure the Minister that I am. I defend the individual's freedom to drive in congested traffic if they wish to do so. I am one of those who does not drive in London. That is my choice because I do not enjoy driving in congested traffic, but I defend the right of anyone who wishes to do so.
I wonder about the accuracy of records that will be kept, and how any measurable improvement will be demonstrated. The entire scheme is an expensive confidence trick, for which the taxpayer, as ever, will have to pay. The charge is a tax masquerading as an environmental measure. It is a hoax, a controlling Big Brother scheme, and the sooner that it is concluded the better I shall like it.
Mr Deputy Speaker : Before I call the next speaker, I exhort hon. Members to be as brief as possible so that all those who want to speak can do so. The winding-up speeches should begin at 10:30.
10.12 am
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall): As a Member of Parliament whose area is affected by London congestion charging, I find it frustrating that this is one of the few
opportunities for a debate on the matter. It has been impossible to secure a debate because Ministers have said that it is nothing to do with them.I welcome this opportunity, brief though it is, and thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) for bringing the matter up. I do not want to debate whether congestion charging is good or not. Personally, I am against it. There are many other ways to stop congestion in London. There are fewer cars in London now than there were three years ago and there is more congestion. That is because traffic planning is based on the assumption that driving cars is wrong. If we are to base transport planning in London on the idea that people who get into cars are somehow bad and we want to drive them from their vehicles, we are going down a blind alley. The congestion charge will influence very few people in deciding whether to buy a car because a car gives one freedom and all sorts of other benefits, to which it is right for people to aspire.
I repeat my view that the consultation was a sham. People were not consulted—certainly not in my area—in the way that they should have been. There was a clear view that, whatever was said, the scheme would go ahead. Nobody listened to anything said in north Lambeth, which will be particularly affected by the boundary. I therefore very much welcome the report of the Transport Committee, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). For the first time, the voice of people in the areas where the boundary has been drawn—arbitrarily dividing communities in half—has been listened to.
People who pay quite expensive residents' parking charges have found that two thirds of the area where they are allowed to park is inside the zone but that they live outside it. So, having paid to park, they will also have to pay the congestion charge simply to move their car nearer to their home.
I am against the charge. There are huge anomalies in the scheme. It is necessary for some of them to be taken into account and for there to be more exemptions. I understand why the Mayor does not want exemptions. Everyone can put forward a good reason for needing his or her car, and that shows what a nonsense the scheme is.
My hon. Friend referred to public sector workers inside the zone, particularly those in schools. I, too, am worried about them. There are eight schools in my constituency within the zone: five primary, two secondary and one nursery school. Teachers in each school have said that they intend to leave. One school has decided that it will pay the congestion charge on behalf of its teachers. That means that money in its budget will be diverted from something else, and that is wrong.
Let us consider those teachers who have always driven to school and find that that is the best way for them to travel because of the hours they work and the equipment that they have to carry. They will be the people who suffer. For example, I know of a nursery nurse who has worked in Ethelred nursery school for 25 years. She is at the top of her pay scale, and earns some £5,000 less annually than the increase that the Lord Chancellor was about to give himself. She cannot afford to pay the congestion charge and she is already looking for work outside the area. Several teachers are taking such action. Parents are moving their children from schools, too.
Inner-city schools that find it most difficult to recruit and retain good teachers will be the hardest hit. One head teacher said:
- "I feel that having access to a car is integral to my role as a headteacher".
Many other head teachers feel like that. Congestion charging will also affect teachers who will have to travel through the zone from north London. Some will have a much longer journey if they want to stay outside the zone. I have grave reservations about that.
People living on the boundary of the zone will be hit by huge amounts of extra traffic, with motorists feeling their way round and trying to avoid the payment area. That will hit the Kennington area particularly hard, which is why people there are so against the decision on where the boundary has been drawn. Among other people who will be affected are Metropolitan police officers working inside the zone. The Metropolitan police force has said that it will pay the charge on their behalf for a short period and review the matter later.
I remind everyone—particularly people who do not drive and say that congestion charging will not affect them—that everyone in London will pay extra because of the charge. That includes all small businesses and public services that decide to pick up the tab. We will all pay for the scheme.
Ken Livingstone, the Mayor, has been incredibly clever about introducing the charge. The psychology of it has been to make the past six months in London absolutely appalling by having four road schemes running at the same time. He has screwed up the whole of central London. Now the roads are coming back on stream, so people are beginning to see that it is not so bad coming into London. I drive in and out of central London and around my constituency sometimes two or three times a day. The traffic hold-ups are now not as bad because the road works are finished and traffic is flowing much better. The charge is starting in half-term week, so traffic flows will appear to work better.
There are no fewer cars coming into London now than there were, and there will be no fewer cars after the congestion charge starts. All that we shall see is the spending of a huge amount of money in the scheme's first two years to pay for Capita, the administrators, the computers, the cameras and other paraphernalia. The scheme represents no more than the ideological hatred of cars of someone who does not drive a car.
The majority of people who voted in the mayoral elections did not vote for congestion charging. Of those who voted for Ken Livingstone, some may have thought that they were voting for congestion charging, but most thought that they were voting for a measure that would be thoroughly discussed and would not be introduced until public transport was much better. The other candidates—and particularly the Labour candidate—made it quite clear that they did not want congestion charging to be introduced in the first mayoral term. It is not true to say that there is a public mandate for congestion charging; Londoners do not need or want the charge, and its effects will be quite bad. The Mayor might claim that the scheme is a great success, and that it will enable him to continue to bring in the money. However, it is ironic that if it is a great success, he will not get the money to put into public transport, because there will be less money coming in from the scheme.
I am very much against congestion charging, and I am disappointed that the Government have not been a little more sceptical about it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich that the Government have stepped back from the scheme, and have tried to play it both ways, so that if it is really successful—by whoever's terms we judge success—they will be able to claim credit, and if it is a complete disaster, they can wash their hands of it and say that it is nothing to do with them. I welcome the Select Committee's brave attempt at considering the scheme, and recognising that there are views on both sides. It also recognised that the scheme will hit the poorest hardest. It is a poll tax; it affects everyone in the same way.
I am disappointed that, as a Member of Parliament whose constituency is affected by the scheme, I have had no say in it and no vote on it. There has been no referendum to see what people think about congestion charging. Unfortunately, because, as a penalty, people will not be sent to prison but have their cars taken away, I will probably have to comply with it.
10.21 am
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), and to the hon. Ladies who have contributed to the debate. I noted the passion and conviction of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). I also note the great experience, independence of mind, intellectual rigour, sense of conscience and personal conviction that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) brings to the debate. Those qualities are all too rare in debates in the House of Commons these days. Londoners deserve independent-minded, courageous Members of Parliament to champion their interests, because the Government have singularly let them down over congestion charges.
Congestion charges are the Government's baby. They cannot escape responsibility for what they have brought into the world. They instituted the legislation that made charges possible: the Greater London Authority Act 1999. If the congestion charge is allowed to work, the chances are that workplace parking charges will follow, because there was also provision for that in the legislation. The Government have studiously avoided giving a commitment that they will not impose workplace parking charging on employers. They have largely penalised employees—the work force of London—and, if the scheme is allowed to continue, there may be workplace parking charges in future, too.
We must remember that motorists in London already face exorbitant charges. They pay extra insurance premiums for the pleasure of driving in the capital. In many instances, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall pointed out, they must pay car parking charges in the areas where they live. Also, with all the stopping and starting involved in driving in London, they pay extra fuel tax, as their fuel consumption is higher. Now they face this regressive impost that will penalise hard-working people.
We are not penalising those who stay at home and live on benefits; we are penalising those who get up early in the morning or late at night or whenever to go to work.
I attended an interesting meeting in the Palace theatre in the centre of London not so long ago, and that regressive aspect of the tax really annoyed people. It will do so more and more when taxes become greater in the spring as higher national insurance charges are introduced. Also, the Chancellor will undoubtedly have to introduce other measures.We were promised an integrated transport strategy for the capital, and what have we got? We have a red bus lane for ministerial cars and the occasional bus from Heathrow to the centre, and all the cameras and apparatus of congestion charging. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster is right that we are talking about a matter of personal freedom. Conservatives believe in individual choice and in people making up their mind as to what is best for them in their circumstances. I am against congestion charging in principle.
The Government should have honoured their commitment to improve public transport in London first, but they have not. They promised a public-private partnership to modernise the tube in their 1997 manifesto, but it has not been implemented. All that we have is chaos, which has been exacerbated by the closure of the Central line. If the Mayor had any conscience, he would at least postpone the introduction of the charge until the Central line is operating again.
My constituents face serious difficulties because of the knock-on effect of the charge. Parking zones might be established in outer boroughs such as mine, which would be the consequence of the park-and-ride mentality that will increasingly come into being as motorists try to avoid the charges. There will be more parking and parking schemes in middle and outer boroughs, which will put yet another burden of taxation on Londoners and will degrade the quality of life in our capital. Furthermore, the rush hour in the morning will be brought forward because people will try to avoid the congestion charge by driving earlier, and it will be delayed in the evening. There will be bottlenecks around the entry points and rat-running will occur. We well know that that will cause immense inconvenience.
What the capital needs above all is something that has often been promised but never delivered: the Crossrail project. That project would do more to alleviate congestion in London than any other public transport measure. That is where the funding and resources should go and it is what the Government should support. They should not support further imposts on hard-working motorists in our capital.
The measure is thoroughly ill begotten and it was the Government who begat it. They cannot escape responsibility for their progeny. Just because the Mayor is a renegade socialist, the buck still ultimately stops with the Government. We know that the Mayor is a bird of passage and that he will not hold office in the capital by May 2004. Let us not blame him. The organ grinder is sitting on the Treasury Bench and we look forward to hearing the tune that he sings later.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : I will call the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) but I hope that he will be brief because I want to give the spokesmen for the Government, official Opposition and Liberal Democrats adequate time to contribute to the debate.
10.27 am
Mr. Gareth Thomas (Harrow, West): I will be brief not only for the reasons that you gave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but because I must leave shortly to attend a meeting. I apologise to the three Front Benchers for that.
I shall make two brief points. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider, even at this late stage, meeting Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, to advocate a three-month delay before fines are levied. There is concern about whether the public information campaign in London has worked and about the fact that Transport for London faces considerable problems registering people who live in the zone for a discount. I understand that there is a precedent for such a delay in congestion charge schemes throughout the world. There was a two-month delay in one city when the transport authority sent notes to offenders who had not paid pointing out that they should have paid the charges and outlining arrangements for future payments.
We need a time lag because of concern that there will be considerable confusion for a while as Londoners who drive into the city experience difficulties with the new congestion charge. I hope that the Minister will take up that point with the Mayor of London and that he will advocate a three-month delay before levying fines on those who do not pay the charge.
I urge Transport for London to consider the way in which it has diverted funds from outer London boroughs to pay the cost of implementing the congestion charge. I recognise why it took such action, but it has undoubtedly delayed boroughs such as Harrow in tackling real transport problems, albeit on a smaller scale. I refer, for example, to the need to close the junction of Rowlands avenue and Oxhey lane in Hatch End in the north of my constituency. The fact that many cars travel far too fast towards that junction, causing crashes and near crashes, greatly worries my constituents. Had Transport for London been able to give Harrow the funding that it needs, some parking difficulties in north Harrow in the middle of my constituency might have been resolved. Such problems have had a considerable effect on local businesses.
Transport for London could have indicated earlier that it may fund a feasibility study on the use of trams or guided busways along the 140 bus route to Heathrow, the key local airport. I urge the Minister in his discussions with the Mayor of London—and I urge the Mayor himself—not to advocate a possible extension of congestion charging to the area around Heathrow, as has been mooted in the past, at least until an independent evaluation of the impact of congestion charging in central London has taken place.
10.31 am
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington): I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on securing the debate. Given that he does not support the introduction of the congestion charging scheme, but is in favour of market mechanisms, presumably he supports the idea of someone paying more for a resource that is in short supply, such as road space. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not speculate on when he considers it appropriate for such a scheme to be introduced.
Perhaps he will tell me off the record after the debate, and I will promise not to tell his constituents or his party about his views.The hon. Gentleman said that he did not support the idea of breaking the law. Perhaps he agrees with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who, according to today's article in The Times, advocates breaking the scheme's back by paying by cheque. If that campaign is a success, it will be incumbent on the hon. Gentleman to explain to London's taxpayers what has happened to the £100 million that was spent on the scheme and how he will raise the £130 million a year that it would have raised in revenue. He will also have to talk to those in business who are paying the congestion charge as well as the poorer section of the population.
I have listened in vain during the debate for references to people who use buses, but have heard none; hon. Members have concentrated on the car. We have had an ideological, pro-car, anti-devolution debate. No hon. Member has put forward solutions; no one has had anything to say about the people who would benefit from the scheme. It will be incumbent on the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster to explain to people what system he would propose.
Tom Brake : If the hon. Lady were to use buses occasionally, she would know that many people with pushchairs and shopping will benefit from the increased number of buses that the scheme will provide as well as reduced congestion. She laughs, but she needs to travel more frequently by that mode of transport. We have heard from the hon. Lady a blinkered view about the inalienable right to drive cars irrespective of the traffic conditions, irrespective of the harm and pollution that they cause and irrespective of the cost to business. That is not a sustainable position. People do not have an inalienable right to drive wherever and whenever they want at the expense of the local community or the environment.
I listened for solutions. None has been forthcoming from hon. Members, with the exception of the Chairman of the Transport Committee. I am disappointed that the debate has been so ideological.
If I can calm down for a second, I will set out the Liberal Democrats' position. We have been very open about our support for the principle of the Mayor's congestion charging scheme. That is not a secret; it has been said before. However, we have some reservations, and Liberal Democrat Members of the Greater London Assembly would like to raise with the Mayor points about boundaries and buffer zones, and how he would respond to any IT failures in the system.
The Government's position set out in the 10-year transport plan is clear:
- "Tackling congestion on our roads is a primary objective of the 10 Year Plan . . . Surveys show that traffic congestion remains the most important local transport issue for most people."
The Government expect that the scheme will result in
- "reduced congestion on London's roads."
So, although they are not saying publicly that they support what Ken Livingstone is doing, they expect congestion in London to be reduced.
The Government have suggested various solutions to the congestion problem; for example, dealing with the important problem of parking management. I agree with that approach. They also think that the management of street works and the way in which the utilities deal with the roads is important. I agree, which is why the Transport Committee is examining that matter. In their strategy, the Government refer to other steps that they would take, but hon. Members need to read between the lines to discover whether they support congestion charging. The Government support
- "measures including . . . initiatives to encourage use and promote awareness of"
public transport and other alternatives. They also mention
- "improvements to the existing road system".
However, the one thing that they do not mention is the c-word.
What does the Transport Committee have to say about congestion charging? The Committee highlighted the fact that the Government's expectation of the revenue that will be raised has halved from £2.7 billion to £1.3 billion, and that, inevitably, congestion is increasing at a greater rate than they had expected. The chair of the Commission for Integrated Transport—which the Government set up—believes that the 10-year transport plan will come unstuck as a result of the Government's failure to support or promote other urban congestion charging schemes.
Kate Hoey : The hon. Gentleman mentions the chair of the Commission for Integrated Transport, Mr. David Begg. Does he realise that David Begg also thinks that pensioners in London should no longer get free bus passes?
Tom Brake : I am aware that Mr. Begg has advocated that position. I have spoken forcefully against any such proposal.
The Secretary of State has taken positive steps by hypothecating, which is welcome. However, I am concerned about the limited period, 10 years, for which hypothecation would apply. The Minister will be aware of the views of London First, which has voiced its concerns about that. It believes that investment in key transport projects may require revenue streams to be guaranteed for 20 or 30 years. Would the Minister support such a change?
What other assistance can the Government give in relation to congestion charges, both by making their position clear and by facilitating the implementation of such schemes by local authorities and others that want to introduce them? There is a clear need for the Government to provide additional funding to ensure that transport improvements are made in advance of any urban charging schemes. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, it is important that the Government provide a technological framework in which such schemes can be introduced so that they share a common technological basis.
What is most needed from the Government now is leadership. In the words of the Select Committee:
- "The question is whether the Government has the political nerve to support bold experiments in reducing congestion."
I hope that the Minister will provide an answer to that today.
10.39 am
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch): The debate has been excellent, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on introducing it so well.
My party believes that the congestion tax is nothing short of highway robbery. It will rob the poor and benefit the rich. It is grossly unjust, unaffordable and unnecessary. That is why the Conservative party is unequivocally pledged to abolish it at the earliest opportunity. The first opportunity to do so will arise at the mayoral elections in May 2003, and I anticipate that a Conservative will win that election. Today's opinion poll shows that the Conservatives are only 1 per cent. behind Labour, so people are taking much more interest in our policies. I am confident that a Conservative will be elected Mayor next year, and that will result in the demise of this charge.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has reconfirmed that the Liberal Democrats fully support the scheme. That position was stated in the debate of 6 November. There has been a certain amount of vacillation by the Government, but the clearest statement from them was made by Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 15 October 2002. He said:
- "My Lords, yes, the Government have always been supportive of congestion charges and we have been supportive of the plans for congestion charges put forward by the Mayor of London. That matter was discussed with the Secretary of State on 26th September."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 October 2002; Vol. 639, c. 701.]
That is an unequivocal statement of support for the charge.
What will the Government do to try to mitigate the worst effects of the charge, until it is scrapped when the Conservatives are elected? They have now accepted that they have a power under schedule 23(11) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to extend exemptions from the road user charge. I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, who is replying today, about exemptions on 27 January. He said:
- "Exemptions from the central London congestion charge are primarily a matter for the Mayor. We are committed to providing a uniform minimum standard of exemptions or concessions from local road user charges in England. In considering the scope of these we will take into account experience gained in London and Durham."—[Official Report, 27 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 523W.]
At oral questions on 28 January, I asked the Minister of State when the concessions would be introduced, whether they would be backdated to 17 February, and whether they would include help for parents, key workers, shift workers, small businesses and people living just outside the zone. I also suggested that the entire ludicrous scheme be scrapped immediately. However, the right hon. Gentleman gave the impression that he did not know what his junior Minister had said the previous day. He stated:
- "I do not have to tell the hon. Gentleman that, in the main, those matters are best addressed locally."—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 700.]
- "We will consult on the scope of a uniform minimum standard of exemptions and concessions in due course".
It is an insult to the people of London who are going to suffer this grave injustice next week for the Minister to say that the Government will consult
- "in due course once we have had an opportunity to take into account the experiences gained from road user charging schemes in London and Durham." —[Official Report, 6 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 362-63W.]
However, Departments have already anticipated the problems that will arise: that is why they have given exemptions to some Government employees. Most recently, the Ministry of Defence has announced that soldiers in the Wellington barracks will not have to pay the residents' 90 per cent. concessionary charge, because that would be unfair. [Interruption.] Meanwhile, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) says, the ordinary people have to pay.
The Government have already accepted that there is injustice, but they are not prepared to introduce a scheme of concessions and exemptions. They should do so immediately. Even if they cannot announce the details of the scheme today, they should announce publicly that when it is introduced, it will be backdated to 17 February, so that those who are adversely affected will be able to get some recompense.
The charge is, as my hon. Friends have said, nothing other than a tax—a tax, not a charge. A charge relates to the service provided or the use made of the facility, whereas the £5 a day tax is the same whether one spends all day driving an articulated lorry around the streets of inner London, or one moves a car 100 yd from inside the zone to outside it at 7.15 am because the previous evening one was unable to obtain a place in a resident's parking bay. It is grossly unjust. To add insult to injury, motorists who have paid the £5 tax will be refused a refund if their plans change and they do not enter the zone. That is why I have made the point that people should pay by postdated cheque. If they change their plans, they can cancel their cheque; if they do not, the cheque will go through.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) thinks that there is something wrong with making life difficult for the people who have introduced the charge. However, page 23 of the Select Committee report states:
- "When pressed, the Mayor identified two possible occurrences that might lead him to conclude after such a short period of time that the scheme has failed: a level of resistance to the payment of charge which means that the scheme is not sustainable".
The people of London should demonstrate to the Mayor that there is so much resistance to the charge that it is not sustainable. We already know that it will not break even until the year after next.
It is reported that the costs incurred are in the order of £300 million. As the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) said, that means that there has been a reduction in expenditure by the Mayor elsewhere in London. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's point, I have already written to Transport for London
suggesting that enforcement procedures should not be imposed from day one. I have had an unequivocal response from a lady who describes herself as the stakeholder manager for congestion charging, which states:
- "I confirm that enforcement procedures will be effective and imposed from day one of congestion charging, 17 February 2003."
I asked about compliance targets, to which she responded
- "there are no such targets for the congestion charging scheme. The aim is not to reach any set levels of compliance but rather to achieve an overall reduction in congestion."
She went on to say, disarmingly:
- "Congestion charging is aimed at deterring non-essential journeys into the congestion charging zone during charging hours".
It will deter those journeys because those people will go around the zone adding to congestion and air pollution outside it. People making essential journeys will be penalised by the charge, and it seems as though the Mayor is delighted about it.
One of today's newspapers refers to a website called "Sod-u-Ken". The problem with that website, and the Select Committee report, is that it suggests that this is all the fault of Ken Livingstone. The website should be called "Sod-u-Blair" because the scheme is Government inspired. They should accept responsibility. They brought forward the legislation and they should be answerable for the consequences for the people of London. The congestion charge is an appalling scheme, and I hope that people will resist it as much as they possibly can.
10.48 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson) : I hope that all the words that we have heard in the last few minutes are correct parliamentary language.
Today's debate was an example of déjà vu all over again—we had the same debate last year—but I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on securing it. Before I make my contribution, I ought to declare that as one of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), I live in the congestion zone. My private car is not exempt, as Opposition Members suggested. I have to pay the congestion charge, like everyone else who lives in the zone.
Mr. Wilkinson : But is not the Minister lucky to have a ministerial car to take him to work charge free, unlike his friends and neighbours, who will have to pay?
Mr. Jamieson : The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said "Conservative" and "elected" in the same sentence, which is something of an oxymoron, but if they are ever elected to office again, perhaps Conservative Members will be in the same position. It has always been the case under any Government that the Department pays for the ministerial car, where appropriate.
I also travel by bus—I take the 159 down Kennington road. Like the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), I hope that buses will travel more freely once the congestion charge is introduced. It
once took me nearly an hour to get to Oxford street, and along with many of the constituents represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, I travelled through great congestion on the roads. Most of the people on the bus did not look as if they possessed a car, despite what the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) said. In my constituency, which is a long way from London, 40 per cent. of people do not have access to a car. That is probably true of my hon. Friends' constituencies, as well. There are many people who do not have access to a car.Let me make some general comments and perhaps expand the discussion. We have talked mostly about London, which is right and proper, but traffic growth and congestion are issues faced by all successful economies. The greater wealth of recent years brings more opportunities for car ownership and increased travel, but the consequences of unchecked congestion are all too obvious. Congestion makes journey times longer and less reliable, and it hinders the efficiency of public transport services and makes them less attractive options. Of course, congestion also generates pollution and noise, and degrades people's quality of life and the environment in which they live and work. Congestion is a frustrating experience for all road users, be they motorists, bus passengers, cyclists or pedestrians.
The Government intend to weaken the link between prosperity and traffic growth by improving public transport alternatives, encouraging people to walk and cycle more, and using better planning policies aimed at reducing dependency on the car. We also need to improve the road network by making better use of the available capacity, managing traffic better, and providing more capacity where needed. To dwell on the wider issues for a moment, on 10 December last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced a £5.5 billion package of major national and local transport measures, which will tackle congestion and improve safety, reliability and quality of life.
Mr. Chope : Will the Minister give way on that point?
Mr. Jamieson : No, I will not. The improvements tackle some of the country's most serious transport problems. They include many significant improvements to the motorway system and many improvements in the Manchester area and Birmingham. There are nearly 1,600 traffic management schemes, more than 400 new or improved road junctions, and up to 55 new or extended park-and-ride schemes. The work will be of considerable benefit to motorists using the inter-urban network. Although the Government can expand capacity and put in place systems to manage the network better, businesses and individuals can do a great deal by thinking about their journeys and whether they could be made more sensibly or in a more sustainable way.
There is no single magic answer to congestion. We can travel more freely on our roads only if we apply a range of measures and attitudes. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall made that point. In that context, I should make it clear that the Government currently have no plans to introduce road charging for cars to combat congestion on the inter-urban road network. However, we must not forget that the majority of us encounter
traffic congestion most frequently not on the national road network, but on our journeys to and from work and leisure activities in towns and cities.It is for local authorities to tackle those problems. They can work with bus companies to ensure that services meet current, not historic, needs; they can develop travel-planning networks, which spread knowledge about more sustainable travel-to-work options; and they can make the streets more friendly for pedestrians and cyclists. However, local authorities also told us that they thought the charging option might be helpful in addressing congestion management. That is why in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the Transport Act 2000 we gave them new powers enabling them to introduce, if they wished, road user charging or workplace parking levy schemes.
Mrs. Dunwoody : Is my hon. Friend not forgetting that road charging schemes were part of the Government's calculation to sustain the 10-year plan?
Mr. Jamieson : Indeed, and it will be up to local authorities to introduce them in their own area where they think they are appropriate.
When he gave evidence to the Transport Committee, the Secretary of State mentioned certain criteria. Such schemes provide incentives for motorists to consider using alternative means of transport, while securing additional funds through a hypothecated revenue scheme for spending on improving local transport provision.
Mr. Chope : Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson : Yes, I shall give way, and then I shall come to some of the hon. Gentleman's earlier points.
Mr. Chope : I hope that in the time that remains the Minister tells us when the Government will introduce the system of concessions and exemptions to which he has referred.
Mr. Jamieson : I shall certainly come to that, if there is time.
In relation to authorities that decide to introduce congestion charging, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in his evidence last October to the Transport Committee during its inquiry into urban congestion charging schemes, said that he believed that authorities should bear three things in mind. First, charging must be part of an overall strategy with clear objectives; secondly, it must be effective and workable, with the consequences well thought through; and, thirdly, it must command broad public support.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said that the charge was an assault on the private car and a gross betrayal of the people of London. Yet in last night's Evening Standard, an excellent newspaper, I read that his local authority, Westminster, intends, naturally, to put up parking fees on the edge of the zone by 60 per cent. An AA spokesman said:
- "Frankly, it is now almost out-and-out war against the motorist."
He was talking about Westminster city council. That might be the council's sixth test after the five that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—but perhaps he is about to tell us about it.
Mr. Field : To coin a phrase, it is devolved government. Am I answerable for everything that Westminster city council does? What we want to know is what the Minister has to say about what is going on in his congestion charge.
Mr. Jamieson : Devolved government indeed. There seems to be a difference of view. There is clearly a split between the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster and his hon. Friend the Member for Upminster.
I took the trouble to look at the document called "Transport, The Way Forward, The Government's Response to the Transport Debate", which was published in 1996, slightly before the Labour Government were elected. That document, which the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster might not have had an opportunity to read, says:
- "Some respondents to the transport debate suggested that local authorities should have wider powers, for example, to implement restraint measures including congestion charging on an experimental basis."
- "This is something the Government is prepared to consider".
The hon. Member for Christchurch said that he would abolish the charge at the first opportunity. It looks to me as if in 1996 his Government intended to introduce it at the first opportunity, because the document goes on to say that "The Government"—that is, the last Conservative Government, in which I believe the hon. Gentleman was a Transport Minister—"think"
- "that the most appropriate package of measures for a particular area is something best determined at local level, by locally accountable politicians."
Those are the words not of the current Government, but of the Government in which the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) was Secretary of State for Transport. We seem to hear a different tune now.
Mr. Jamieson : The hon. Gentleman must hope that there has been a great national act of amnesia. I am reminding him of the policies of the Government of which he was a member and whom he supported. They were in favour of congestion charging and inter-urban charging. On 30 November 1993, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in his Budget statement:
- "I can announce today that, when the technology is ready, we intend to introduce a system of electronic motorway charging in this country."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 932.]
That was Conservatives' policy.
Unfortunately, as always, there is little time to cover all the points in the debate—
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Indeed, the Minister has run out of time. We must now move on to the next debate.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |