---

Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk) (Con): I am grateful to the Secretary of State for an advance copy of the statement, the context for which is an increase in the burden of taxes paid by motorists from £31 billion a year in 1997 to £44 billion a year now, a smaller proportion of which is spent on roads in Britain than in most other countries.

Despite such a huge burden of tax, congestion on our road network has got so bad that not only do millions of drivers face frustration and delay every day, but the congestion crisis is damaging Britain's economic prospects by weakening our competitive position compared with that of other countries. Our motorway network is poorer than that of all our main international competitors. If only it were expanding as fast as the staff of the Highways Agency, which is set to increase by three quarters, motorists could look forward to a better future.

For years to come, Britain will suffer the consequences of Labour's war on the motorist declared by the Deputy Prime Minister in 1997, and the consequences of the Government's refusal to acknowledge what we, the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Freight Transport Association, the AA, the RAC Foundation and many others have all agreed is needed—an increase in our motorway capacity. Nevertheless, not for the first time the hype that preceded the statement enormously exceeds its substance.

The statement is another attempt to con the media and the public into believing that decisions have been taken. It does not contain a commitment to build new roads, widen the M6 or introduce car pool lanes—all it contains is a commitment to start more consultations. The Secretary of State's reputation for indecision is the only thing enhanced by today's statement. The question that is on everyone's lips remains the same: when will car pool lanes be introduced, and when will the four new lanes on the M6 actually be built?

I shall deal with the issues in the order in which the Secretary of State mentioned them. We have already expressed our support for the principle of car pool lanes, which can contribute to reducing congestion, although they will never be the complete answer. Car pool lanes should be introduced only where capacity is increased, and existing road capacity should not be closed to motorists who have paid for it many times over—for example, some motorists cannot find other travellers with whom to share vehicles because of their patterns of shift work. I also hope that the Secretary of State will publish his assessment of the safety implications of using hard shoulders on motorways as soon as possible.

Turning to the possible new lanes on the M6, a proposal that Conservative Members strongly support in principle, I remind the Secretary of State that the contract for the existing midlands expressway was signed under the previous Government in 1992, more than a decade before vehicles travelled on the route. Given that today's statement concerns starting a
 
6 Jul 2004 : Column 692
 
consultation process, will the Secretary of State confirm that it is extremely unlikely that any vehicle will travel on any new lanes on the M6 before 2020?

Given that the environmental impact of the new lanes will be felt all the way along the route, does the Secretary of State's statement mean that access to the new lanes will not be available at all the same points as access to the existing M6, in which case the communities affected by the environmental impact will not have the chance to share the benefits? What implications does today's statement carry for other improvements to the motorway network, which are desperately needed on motorways such as the M1 and M62? Have those proposals been postponed indefinitely?

The statement is an admission that the Government's 10-year plan has completely failed, and that the targets for road building and cutting congestion will not be met. Will the Secretary of State admit that failure and say whether he will publish new and more realistic estimates of how bad congestion will get on Britain's roads? Are we to deduce from the timing of today's statement, less than one week before the announcement of the comprehensive spending review, that the Secretary of State hoped to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow him to pay for the M6 improvements from his departmental budget, and that he failed in that endeavour?

Since motorists may now be asked to finance road improvements, will the Government cut the tax burden currently borne by motorists? Although it is right to finance some new roads through private sector investment and acceptable to ask motorists to contribute to costs through tolls, the extra costs should be directly related to new capacity, and should not be accompanied by further increases to the tax burden—the threatened 2p duty increase in the autumn is wholly unjustified at a time of high and volatile oil prices.

I welcome the Government's partial and belated adoption of more Conservative transport policies, although it is sad that it has taken them so long to realise what is needed and to start alleviating the substantial damage that they—in particular, the Deputy Prime Minister—have done to our transport system and our economy. It is a very long time since an incoming Government inherited such a strong economy as that inherited by this Government. One of the Government's first actions was to axe the Conservative road building programme. For the first time since the invention of tarmac, not a single foot of new road was built in 2001, and it has taken more than seven years for them to begin to acknowledge the scale of the problem.

Today's statement is a press release masquerading as a policy. Even after the announcement, Britain's motorists will continue to rue Labour's seven wasted years, during which congestion has increased, delays have lengthened, business costs have risen and pollution has worsened. When the needs of the nation demanded decisions and action, characteristically, all the Secretary of State could produce was more dither and delay, which we will pay for in years to come.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is sounding more and more like a Liberal Democrat by giving the impression that he is both for and against the proposals. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter
 
6 Jul 2004 : Column 693
 
Ross (John Thurso) must be wondering what he should say to distinguish his position from that of the Conservative party.

In relation to the M6, we have, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, already announced that in principle we support its widening: it is not as though we suddenly decided that its capacity was insufficient—[Interruption.] I will come on to the Tory position in a moment. That is why I agreed to its widening two years ago. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific question, today's announcement does not at all affect the position in relation to the M1, the M25 or any other road schemes that have been announced. They are in the process of being developed and taken forward.

On spending on roads, I think that there is common ground. The problem that we have on our road and rail networks is that successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative, did not spend as much money as they should have. The hon. Gentleman talks about the roads programme that we inherited, but he must remember, because he was a Minister at the time, that the Conservatives' road programme had virtually dried up by 1997 because of the mess that they had got the economy into. In contrast, we are due over the 10-year period to spend some £59 billion on roads. The Conservatives' present policy is to cut £600 million from the transport budget, and unless that changes nothing that he says will have any credibility whatever.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports car pool lanes in principle. I, too, believe that where possible they should be built on new capacity. All the experience from other parts of the world shows that motorists accept that where new capacity is provided, priority should be given to motorists carrying passengers. Earlier this year, I visited the United States, where some 3 million people use car pool lanes; there is an entire network in the north-east and over in California. As they work there, there is no reason why they cannot work here. The best approach is to provide new capacity, but, as I said, in the case of one particular road north-west of Manchester existing carriageway could be involved if we decide that that is right.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned consultation. If we are to build an expressway of any sort, it is inconceivable that consultation will not take place. That is obvious, if for no other reason than that such projects take up time in the planning process.

The hon. Gentleman is right to recognise that the Government are determined to ensure that we improve capacity on our transport system, both road and rail. I believe that these measures represent a significant step forward and that in time people will recognise the advances that are being made in such provision.

John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD): I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in sending me a copy of the statement. I congratulate him on his new tactic of damning Conservative Front Benchers with faint praise; if they wish to behave like Liberal Democrats, that is entirely up to them.

On car pool lanes, I welcome the principle of encouraging shared use of cars. Some 61 per cent. of car journeys are made by single occupancy cars, and figures show that a 10 per cent. increase in occupancy would result in a 9 per cent. reduction in traffic. I, too, have
 
6 Jul 2004 : Column 694
 
seen the schemes that operate in America, although I did so courtesy of a visit with the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. In light of the American experience, how does the Secretary of State expect that the policy will be enforced? As he will know, enforcement has caused considerable problems in America, in Australia and in the pilot scheme in Leeds. Has he given any thought to permitting single occupants to use such lanes on payment of an additional fee, as happens in the United States?

The Secretary of State mentioned that the current proposal is to use car pool lanes only where it is possible to build additional capacity. What studies, if any, have been carried out to see whether car sharing might work on some of the less congested roads where extra capacity would not necessarily be required? Will he tell us what the Government will do to deliver any other measures to support car sharing? Will he also tell us how the Government intend to finance the new M6 toll road? Will it be undertaken on a private finance initiative, as was the existing toll road, or will it be funded by Government finance? What assessment has been made of the financial implications of the current scheme?

What environmental assessment has been made of the existing scheme? Have emissions increased or decreased? It is important to know, when considering the overall policy, whether schemes such as these play a positive or negative role in that regard. Given that the Secretary of State has previously recorded his opposition to such schemes, are the Government considering any others? Last year, in The Scotsman, the Secretary of State was quoted as saying:

"We can't build our way out of congestion . . . The idea that you can build lane after lane after lane is just bonkers."

So, while this scheme may be welcome, is it not now the time to consider a proper national road-user charging scheme, rather than some form of piecemeal privatisation of the motorway network?

---