| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Roads
6. Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes) (Con): If he will give guidance to local authorities on the percentage of expenditure in their transport budget that is appropriate to be spent on (a) road maintenance and (b) traffic-calming measures. [152276]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): It is a matter for each local authority to decide how to allocate its funding in order to meet the transport needs of its communities and to deliver the targets and objectives set out in its five-year local transport plan. It is not for the Government centrally to dictate to local authorities, although we work with them. We will resist going back to the heavy-handed centralisation that the Conservatives employed when they were in government.
Mr. Steen : While it is true that all local authorities have an awful lot of roads to maintain, and that Devon has more than the entire road system of Belgium, would the Minister agree that it is sheer madness for Devon and the many other counties like it to spend millions of pounds on road maintenance and, particularly, on widening roads so that traffic can go faster, and then to spend millions on putting in traffic-calming measures
such as road humps and rumble strips to slow it down again? That is an enormous waste of public money and council tax payers' money.
Mr. McNulty: That is an interesting characterisation. Many of the villages in Devon are crying out for those humps for road safety reasons. This is a matter of balance for Devon county council. I had thought that the hon. Gentleman might congratulate the Government on increasing by 15 per cent. the amount of capital given to Devon in the local transport plan settlement before Christmas—it is now close to £28 million. When he mentioned madness, I thought he might be about to say that the Tories and Liberals who run Devon were mad to propose, as I understand it, the transfer of £1 million away from road maintenance to other priorities in the forthcoming budget. If there is madness, he should take the matter up with his colleagues on the county council.
Mr. Ken Purchase (Wolverhampton, North-East) (Lab/Co-op): While the Minister is keeping these matters under close scrutiny, will he also recognise that, in terms of value for money and good spending practice, data need to be gathered on such matters as proposed red routes, so that we can check the data from before the introduction of the red route against the outcome and see whether the value for money that we are all looking for is actually being obtained? I would remind my hon. Friend that my borough is about to spend £750,000 on a red route and associated works, but we are not yet sure whether we shall be able to check the data against the current evidence.
Mr. McNulty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter with me by correspondence before today. He knows that I am looking into it. It is important that bus priority measures should be implemented in an efficient and effective way. I know that he will be enormously grateful that altogether the west midlands are getting more than £80 million in the local transport settlement, a 9.3 per cent. increase on previous years. I will, however, investigate this specific matter and get back to him on it.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): Does the Minister share my doubts about the efficacy of road humps? Is he at the very least able to pledge that he and his Department will be neutral on the subject? Ideally, I would like the Department to give some guidance to local authorities, because road humps can, in certain circumstances, delay emergency vehicles, damage the vehicles of ordinary citizens and create pollution. They are generally a menace.
Mr. McNulty: All those issues and more are fully taken into account before any scheme is put into place. There is full consultation on each scheme. Do I share the right hon. Gentleman's doubts? No. Do I share his perverse libertarianism? No.
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend ensure that, when speed bumps are considered by local authorities, guidance is given as to
the needs of cyclists? It is comparatively simple to put a small dip in a road bump to accommodate cyclists, and doing so certainly makes it much safer for them.
Mr. McNulty: As and when it is appropriate, for road safety reasons, to install table platforms that cover the whole road, that will be done and cyclists will need to be aware of them. As and when it is appropriate for there to be gaps between the humps, for the benefit of both emergency vehicles and cyclists, that will also happen. Cyclists are fully taken into account, but the overwhelming priority must be to determine what the traffic calming measure can do for road safety. That consideration must remain paramount. My hon. Friend will be enormously grateful that Cambridgeshire has secured a 22 per cent. increase for its local transport plan.
Road and Rail Safety
7. Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): What assessment he has made of the relative cost-effectiveness in expenditure per life saved of investment in rail safety compared with investment in road safety. [152277]
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): Rail is a safe mode of transport, and is six times safer than travelling by car. That difference means that additional public investment in road safety measures is usually much more effective, as measured by lives saved per pound spent, than additional investment in rail safety measures such as new signalling systems. Such investment does not seem to be as effective as additional expenditure on roads.
Dr. Harris: In the light of that answer, does the Minister agree that it is regrettable that there is so much pressure from the media and possibly even the public on politicians to do something about rail safety, when investing that money in road safety could save 10 times as many lives? Does he regard it as a Government responsibility to try to change the balance of the debate to make it clear that rail transport is relatively much safer and that we need to do much more in road safety to save lives?
Dr. Howells: Yes, I agree, and we are trying to change that balance. We know, for example, that the cost of saving a life—if one can ever put a cost on such a thing—on the railways is about £10 million per life saved, whereas on the roads it is about £100,000. Small incremental improvements in road safety can indeed save many lives. It is worth reminding the House that in 2001–02, the last year for which complete figures are available, 3,431 lives were lost on the roads and 307 on the railways. If we take out from those statistics the 275 deaths that were the result of suicide or trespass and 17 other deaths, that leaves just 15 passengers and rail staff who were killed on the railways. It is therefore a very safe mode of transport, but we want it to be much safer so that it is as safe as possible. However, we recognise the validity of the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire) (Con): One way in which we could improve road safety that would not cost any money at all, is, if we do not keep
British summer time throughout the year, at least to extend its duration. Will the Minister look at that, call for investigations to be made—and not be influenced by the Secretary of State for Scotland?
Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend will know that the position is not without difficulties in the north and north-west of the country, but we should keep it under review, and shall do so.
Air Transport (Scotland)
8. John Barrett (Edinburgh, West) (LD): What representations he has received on the expansion of air transport in Scotland since the publication of the aviation White Paper. [152278]
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): Since the publication of the White Paper I have received a number of representations on air transport in Scotland.
John Barrett : I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Since the publication of the White Paper, many people who live close to Edinburgh airport in my constituency believe that their lives have been put on hold. What message does he have for people who are planning for the future, whether that involves the schooling of their children or their homes, and believe that they are suffering from planning blight?
Mr. Darling: As for a second runway at Edinburgh airport, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government believe that that may be necessary in about 20 years' time. It is not going to happen immediately. In the White Paper, we set out the ground that we thought would be affected, as well as the houses that could be affected. The hon. Gentleman has tabled a number of questions about that. As for blight and planning, there are settled procedures that are primarily the responsibility of the Scottish Executive, but I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that a second runway at Edinburgh would reduce the noise that many of his constituents in Cramond suffer, because the aircraft would make their approach from a slightly different direction.
Mr. Iain Luke (Dundee, East) (Lab): I am sure that the Secretary of State accepts that the main thrust of the argument about aviation expansion in Scotland has centred on Edinburgh and Glasgow airports. Does he acknowledge the relevance of representations by Dundee city council and me about the importance of small regional airports to their hinterlands and cities such as Dundee? What more can he do to sustain the growth of such airports?
Mr. Darling: We made it clear in the White Paper that we supported the development of smaller airports such as Dundee. With due respect, I do not think that a second runway is contemplated at Dundee just yet, but my hon. Friend is right that, in the past year or so, ScotAirways, for example, has provided much appreciated services from Dundee. The Government and the Scottish Executive will do everything that they can to encourage the use of regional airports, which can greatly help the local economy.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |