---

Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): Is my hon. Friend aware that construction work is now going ahead on the first of these schemes—on the M42 in the west midlands? Does her Select Committee intend to carry out further investigations into the safety implications of using the hard shoulder?

Mrs. Dunwoody: With a member of the Committee in his place looking at me, I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot give a commitment on our future programme. However, this morning I saw the lists of people who were consulted on this particular scheme, and it was noticeable that many representatives from the police, the fire service and other road agencies were involved, but only one from the ambulance service. Frankly, that worries me.
 
24 Jun 2004 : Column 1488
 

It has been suggested to me that, if the hard shoulder were being used for running purposes and an accident occurred, it would be possible to stop the traffic and allow the emergency services to approach from the opposite direction. Having spent 20-odd years helping in a medical practice, I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I saw the results of some very nasty road accidents and spent a lot of time trying to help people in those circumstances. I am afraid that accidents do not always happen in the way that the emergency services would like them to happen or in the way that some people have planned for them to happen. Before we make use of the hard shoulder a common practice, I hope that we set up a series of limited experiments and look closely at the results. I believe that there are considerable difficulties still extant.

My Committee is not concerned with only the day-to-day working of the Highways Agency. We said that we found it, frankly, intolerable that it had no financial sanctions available to it. I hope that the Minister will assure us today that the Government have not only examined that problem, but remedied it. The Government suggested in their reply that there was a right to damages where one party to a contract suffered loss as a result of the other's breach. Have the Government allowed a large sum for legal expenses? If we are going to resort to law every time a contractor fails to maintain a proper standard, I can see some real difficulties arising.

We pointed out that the Highways Agency was performing its functions, but that there were a number of shortcomings. The Secretary of State told us that the agency would have a much more active role, but we felt that the failure of operational communications and the failure to co-ordinate emergency operations had been revealed and that we expected the new chief executive to deal with those problems.

I am sorry if I have rambled on across the various concerns of the Committee, but I believe that I should make one or two points in conclusion. If the Government want to set up and control arm's-length agencies while at the same time delegating direct responsibilities and expecting the tasks to be carried out, they must be quite clear about their methods for producing the final results. It will not be good enough for the Department for Transport to say that a matter is a responsibility for the Highways Agency, on the grounds that the agency controls the operational work on our motorways, that its officers are responsible for deciding when a motorway should be reopened after a crash, or that it must take responsibility for relationships with contractors and deal with them about breaches of contract. That may be the narrow legal point, but the Department has political and financial responsibility for such matters. Ultimately, it is answerable to the House of Commons for the efficient working of the Highways Agency and its ability to deliver the services that we expect.

There is no point in waxing eloquent about the need for more roads to be built or for their better maintenance unless we are clear that it is taxpayer's money that is used for those purposes. Taxpayers demand that we in this House have a clear and identifiable way to call the Department for Transport to account when we think that the agency is not performing properly.
 
24 Jun 2004 : Column 1489
 

2.41 pm

Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): It is a pleasure to follow the distinguished Chair of such a high-performing Select Committee. I shall begin by saying something about the changing role of the Highways Agency.

The week has been dominated by debates about public services and their responsiveness. We should treat users of public services with the same respect and attentiveness as they receive as consumers in other areas of their lives. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is pleased that the Secretary of State is well ahead of the field in that respect. I recall the speech that my right hon. Friend gave at the Automobile Association awards ceremony on 26 March last year. It was entitled "Treating Motorists as Customers", and it is pleasing that the Department should consider that people who use the roads should be treated as customers, worthy of attentiveness and respect.

The role of the Highways Agency has shifted. Where its role used to be one of building and maintaining roads, its new role is as a network operator, responsible for ensuring that the whole network is used effectively. The trunk roads for which the agency is responsible amount to only 4 per cent. of the road network, but they carry more than one third of all traffic.

Today's debate on estimates is important, as the strong growth in the Highways Agency's budget is due to the fact that its new role is more expensive. The agency will continue to build new roads and widen existing ones, but it will also make better use of existing capacity.

In part, that is what the Traffic Management Bill was all about. The Highways Agency already has uniformed staff in liveried vehicles patrolling motorways in the west midlands. Some may be surprised at that, as the Bill has not yet received Royal Assent, but those staff are operating under existing powers, not the new ones that will be brought into force when the Bill is enacted. The task for those staff members is to tackle congestion and keep traffic moving, and thereby to keep customers satisfied.

I am chairman of the parliamentary advisory council for transport safety, and I am concerned that the Highways Agency does not lose sight of its key function, which is to ensure that road safety is the top priority for road users. As they patrol the country's motorways, I am sure that traffic officers will always have road safety at the forefront of their minds. To that end, they will make sure that they remove obstructions, such as debris, before they cause a crash, and they will arrange the safe recovery of vehicles that are stationary, broken down or abandoned at the side of the road. Those officers will also contribute to reducing long delays, so that people do not get frustrated and take risks that cause collisions, and they will collect information at the scene of crashes that will contribute to the prevention of their reoccurrence. I hope that road safety will be improved by the new role of the traffic management officers employed by the Highways Agency.

I do not suppose that my hon. Friend the Minister will want me to say too much about the fears of the recovery companies such as the AA, the Royal Automobile Association and Green Flag about the extension of the Highways Agency's business empire into the new area of
 
24 Jun 2004 : Column 1490
 
vehicle recovery from the side of the road. However, I am sure that he will not object to taking one more opportunity to reassure them on that score.

When we talk about road users as customers, it is inevitable that we will discuss what they pay for the service, and how they pay for it. Once, politicians did not want to talk about road charging for fear of offending people, but it is coming awfully close. We have congestion charging in London, and the M6 toll motorway is already operating in the west midlands. Not too far in the future, all lorry operators will have to pay road user charges. That shows that road charging is now a reality, and we must get to grips with our policy on it.

The M6 toll motorway opened earlier this year. Its construction, by a private operator, finished ahead of schedule. It opened smoothly, apart from a slight hiccup early on when it had to close because of a problem with the road surface, and it is now being used regularly. I use the M6 motorway on many occasions, and I can attest that the toll motorway is a qualified success, in that it takes some traffic away from the very overcrowded M6. By spreading the load, it has helped to reduce congestion.

Drivers, especially of motor cars, use the toll motorway in reasonably large numbers, but the high toll imposed on lorry drivers means that they stay away. That is a bit unfortunate: clearly, the operator does not want to meet the cost of the maintenance that would be required if lots of lorries used the toll motorway. I am somewhat surprised that neither the Conservative Government nor the present Labour Government ensured that the contract for the toll motorway contained at least a right of representation about the charges imposed on drivers. There are clear strategic national interests involved that we should be able to explain to the operator, so that they are taken into account when charge levels are set.

Most of all, I want to speak to the Minister about the role of the Highways Agency in widening the M6. He knows that that subject is close to my heart; he and I enjoyed a debated in this Chamber on 27 March last year on that very matter. One of his predecessors as Minister of State met me and a delegation of local councillors in Staffordshire on 10 February last year about the Secretary of State's announcement—made on 10 December 2002—that the M6 would be widened. The Minister's predecessor told the Staffordshire delegation that the Highways Agency would produce new plans for the widening of the M6 through the county. He said that there would be widespread public consultation, and that the Government would put the plans in its targeted programme for investment by September 2003.

Nothing had happened by the end of September 2003—nor by April 2004, which is when I asked another parliamentary question about progress. The answer that I received was that the plans were proving more problematic than expected. I was told that they were not yet ready, but would be soon. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say what progress has been made with the plans.

This is a vital matter for the more than 1 million people who live alongside the M6 as it passes through Staffordshire and Cheshire. It is also very important for the top half of the country, which depends on the
 
24 Jun 2004 : Column 1491
 
motorway for its main communications north to south. Many businesses in my constituency support the widening of the M6, whereas many other people—and I am one of them—oppose it on environmental grounds. It remains vital that we sort the issue out. Clearly, it is unsatisfactory that the Department should claim to have made a decision as long ago as 2002 when, 18 months later, nothing has happened.

I lost the debate about whether the M6 should be widened, but my concern is that the greatest possible environmental protection should be afforded to all those who live alongside it. Some people's back gardens are immediately adjacent to the motorway, and they must be protected from the effects of the widening works and of the increased traffic that will follow.

I should be very grateful if, when he winds up this short debate, my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about the Highways Agency's work in the future, and about the need for it to consult about protection with the people who live alongside the M6.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) mentioned the plans for active traffic management and I intervened on the subject. The plans include the regular use of the hard shoulders of motorways for running traffic. That is something that causes alarm and raised eyebrows among the public. Only this week I was speaking to another hon. Member about those plans and the hon. Member asked me whether I was joking. But it is serious. It has been done already in some parts of the world—the United States and the Netherlands in particular. In the Netherlands the measure not only reduced congestion but reduced accidents and casualties. So there seems to be some argument in favour of it. The worry is bound to be about the safety of using the hard shoulder for traffic when there is an accident. How on earth do emergency vehicles get to the scene quickly? My hon. Friend the Minister has to convince the doubters that his scheme will allow for that.

I know from an Adjournment debate in which the Minister and I took part that the regional control centre will have real-time information and the ability to respond immediately when something out of the way happens so that the safety and treatment of people injured in crashes on the motorways can be ensured speedily. I would welcome the Minister's confirmation that that will be the case.

This is a debate about the budget of the Highways Agency. I have explained how the budget is growing. I believe that its new role is the right one. It is a valuable role. It is important that as the changes happen the Highways Agency is attentive to the people who are interested in its work—not just road users but decision makers such as Members of Parliament—and keeps them informed.

Recently my constituents and I received from the Highways Agency some literature about its plans for the network in my area. That is a sensible thing for it to do. It is a good use of public money to keep people informed so that they know about things before they happen and what may happen in the future. My particular concern is to know what may happen about the widening of the M6 in Staffordshire.
 
24 Jun 2004 : Column 1492
 

2.52 pm

---