---

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman asked about enforcement in regard to car pool lanes. The use of such lanes is enforced in the United States—and, I think, in Australia—by the police. I have travelled quite extensively in some of these car pool lanes, and it is remarkable how many people do not abuse the system. It seems to work, and I would envisage the police enforcing those rules. In relation to car sharing elsewhere, yes, of course that would be possible. It is always possible for the local authorities that control local roads to consider these options if they want to do so. That is not a matter for the Government.

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions about the M6 toll road. In relation to the environmental assessment, research is being carried out at the moment, but it obviously takes time. The M6 toll road opened only in December. In regard to the new road, the Government hope that it will be privately financed, as the existing toll road is.

On the hon. Gentleman's last point, yes, it is the case that we cannot build our way out of all the problems that we face. That is perfectly true, and I have said so time and again ever since I became Secretary of State. Three things are necessary. The first is to provide additional limited capacity where a problem exists, and
 
6 Jul 2004 : Column 695
 
the M6 is a classic example of that. It was anticipated that that road would carry about 75,000 cars a day, but it now regularly carries 150,000 a day. The capacity there needs to be increased. Secondly, we need to make better use of the infrastructure that we have, and car pool lanes would be among a number of measures introduced to achieve that. Thirdly, as the hon. Gentleman says, we need to plan ahead. Over the next 20 to 30 years, new technology will be available. That is why I commissioned a study last year to examine the technical feasibility of a national road pricing scheme. However, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that, on any view, that is 10 to 15 years away.

Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): I am conscious of the number of colleagues from Staffordshire around me here. I strongly support my right hon. Friend's comments about the need for the M6 expressway. The existing toll road has undoubtedly proved a great success. Will he ensure, however, that businesses in the north-west, particularly manufacturing companies in constituencies such as mine, are consulted as part of the process, so that it is not just a geographical consultation in the immediate surrounding areas?

Mr. Darling: I shall be brief, so as to allow as many other hon. Members as possible to speak. Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. This will be a national consultation; it will not be confined to the route of the M6.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): In deploring the fact that the first part of this statement was leaked yesterday and the rest this morning, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he would please bear it in mind that my constituents, and those of many of my neighbours, have been devastated and blighted by the building of successive motorways over the past 30 years, including the M6, the M54, the toll road, the threatened link road from the toll road, and now this? What will the Secretary of State do to reassure those people? Can we have a detailed timetable and, above all, an assurance that the compensation claims of people suffering from such blight will be considered very quickly?

Mr. Darling: When specific proposals are made, such claims are looked at fairly quickly, but I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Indeed, he came to see me a few months ago to discuss some of his concerns, and he was very frank about his position. There are always two sides to these arguments, and he recognises that additional road capacity is required. I appreciate, however, that people living alongside the route might be affected. Two years ago, I said that I thought that the road needed to be extended. That would involve five to six years of construction work, when it started. This is an alternative. In the light of what we now know about the M6 toll road, it would be daft not to ask ourselves whether this would not be a better way of providing the additional capacity up that corridor.

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, it is unfortunate that the more people we have to involve in making a decision, the greater the risk becomes that somebody
 
6 Jul 2004 : Column 696
 
will talk. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, when these things were broadcast on the radio this morning, I would have liked to have been there to argue my corner, rather than having to wait five hours to put my case, but that is life. Yes, of course the Government sometimes tell people what is going on and sometimes they do not; I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point.

Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement on the new capacity for the M6. There is no doubt that the present situation is unacceptable, in regard to both congestion and the environment. One of the problems involved in road building programmes is that the process of construction can often be as damaging, in congestion terms, as the existing problem, if the project is not handled well. That means that we must put a premium on speed in this process, and also on the project being extremely well managed. People want to know that this scheme will relieve congestion and not simply cause problems in the medium term. Will my right hon. Friend also give me a guarantee that this programme is sufficiently robust, so that, if it took some time to complete, the kind of cuts that a future Conservative Government might bring in would not put it in jeopardy?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. A future Conservative Government who had pledged to cut spending would have to cut the roads programme along with just about everything else. He is also right to say that the construction can cause a lot of disruption. One of the attractions of building an expressway of the kind that I have proposed is that it can be built parallel to the existing road. It would not therefore cause five or six years' worth of additional congestion on the M6. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not look forward to the prospect of driving up and down the M6 for five or six years while it was being widened. Another general point is that the maintenance of roads—we are doing a lot at the moment—can be disruptive. I understand people's frustration in that regard, but—as with the railways, where there has been a lot of disruption on the west coast main line—once the work has been satisfactorily completed, journey time reliability will improve. That is something that we should all aspire to.

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I welcome the Secretary of State's statement and his commitment to more capacity. One easy thing that he could do would be to put a statutory instrument before the House to allow cars carrying more than one person to use the bus lane on the M4, a much under-used lane that is already demarked for special purposes. Such a proposal would make his statement even more popular.

Mr. Darling: I have considered that, because it seemed an obvious thing to do. However, the advice that I received was that, if we did that, that road would no longer have the capacity that it needs, because the bus lane is not an extra lane, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. It was taken from the existing third lane. There would therefore be a risk of adding to the congestion. I have looked at that proposal, however, and I would be happy to discuss it with the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else. I have also asked my officials to continue to look at it, because it was a very obvious candidate to me.
 
6 Jul 2004 : Column 697
 
I am told, however, that if we did it, there would be a serious risk of the road becoming completely gummed up. Obviously, we need to work through those issues.

Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North) (Lab): I was very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that he accepted that we could not build our way out of congestion. I also welcome his proposals on car sharing. On the M6 proposals, I am disappointed that we are not really considering the full opportunities offered by the multi-modal studies that were carried out. On the timing of the proposals, will he give me an assurance that there will be full consultation with Advantage West Midlands on both sustainable development and economic regeneration? We already have consultants going ahead with surveys on transport, and we need to know now how this longer time scale will affect all that.

Mr. Darling: This consultation will run until the end of September, and there will be ample time for all interested parties to put their views. The multi-modal studies suggested that there is an economic case for widening the existing M6 to five lanes. Two years ago, I agreed to widen it to four lanes. The point that I made a few moments ago bears repetition: we are talking about either widening the road to four lanes or, as an alternative, having an expressway. There are arguments for and against, but I believe that the arguments for an expressway are pretty persuasive.

We are spending £7.5 billion on the west coast main line precisely because we want to ensure that there are good public transport alternatives. The M6 was designed to carry 75,000 cars a day; it is now carrying perhaps 150,000 at peak periods. That is unsustainable: it is not good for the environment, for business or for anybody, and that is why I want to sort it out.

---