| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I suggest that in future if an order of this all-encompassing type appears before your Lordships' House the notes which are to accompany it should be made available at the time when the order is to be approved in the House? The breadth of the clause and the vagueness of the clauses which we are supposed to be approving this afternoon do not really allow a satisfactory appraisal of the implications of the measure currently to be made.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says. It is always a problem in any piece of legislation, even primary legislation, when one is amending previous Acts of Parliament with reference back towards those Acts of Parliament. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Road Traffic Reduction Bill
2.48 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity to introduce to this House a Bill which left another place with all-party support. The last words on the record there were the words of the Minister:
- "I commend the Bill to the House".--[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/97; col. 590.]
I hope that spirit will take us through this afternoon's debate.
The Bill also has the support of a considerable number and range of organisations and individuals, organisations ranging from the Townswomen's Guilds to the Council for the Protection of Rural England, and to business and motoring organisations. It is supported by a petition of more than 350,000 signatories.
One would be hard put to find anyone to disagree with the proposition that road traffic needs to be reduced. I accept that is only a part of the considerations that one should give to issues of traffic, but that proposition must have very widespread support.
I believe that the value of the Bill is that it goes with the flow. It captures the spirit of the shift in public thinking, and if your Lordships will forgive the pun, it provides a vehicle for co-operation at local level towards a common goal of traffic reduction. This is not a Big Bang solution. I do not pretend that it is the last word on road traffic reduction. But if your Lordships will give it a fair wind, it will make a significant contribution to solving the problem.
Why is it desirable and necessary to reduce road traffic? I am sure that many of your Lordships can rehearse the reasons better than I can. But they are to do with health, the environment, costs and energy consumption.
Perhaps I may develop those matters a little further. Your Lordships will be well aware of the problems caused to the health of up to 15 million people who are suffering from problems caused by traffic fumes. There has been an increase in cases of asthma among children. Millions of people are breathing air heavily polluted by exhaust fumes. There may be up to 10,000 people per year dying prematurely as a result of particulates pollution. On that subject, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the work which the Government have been doing recently on air quality concedes that technical fixers, as it calls them, will not achieve the required standards by the year 2005 for two of the eight pollutants to which attention is being directed, and one of those is particulates. A combination of both technical fixers and traffic management is needed. The Government's own document defines traffic management as promoting alternative forms of transport and reducing incentives to drive, which is another way of describing traffic reduction.
Road traffic reduction is very important because traffic threatens sites of special scientific interest, and areas of outstanding natural beauty are also threatened
by road schemes. Global warming is another problem, and 22 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions--and carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas--come from road traffic. There are also issues of congestion and the cost to the economy.As regards the increase in congestion, this week it has been reported that congestion levels have been increased by more then 5 per cent. in the last quarter of 1996 compared with the previous year. The forecasts of the continuation of that trend are almost beyond comprehension. I read the report on congestion alongside the reports of the horrific crashes in fog on our roads earlier this week. I cannot help thinking that problems of travelling contribute to the frustration which in itself contributes to such accidents.
All those issues are part of the reason for the support which has been given by many organisations to such measures. Among those organisations is the Confederation of British Industry. It has indicated that it views the Bill as acting to focus attention on the need for action and investment to tackle transport problems and says that this Bill will be welcomed.
The CBI has undertaken some very valuable work which it has published in a report called All Aboard! which underlines the need for an efficient and reliable transport system for UK businesses to stay competitive. Its estimates on the costs of traffic congestion range from £15 billion to £20 billion per year. It reports that individual companies have to bear increased costs due to extra time, lower reliability and higher fuel consumption. Employees bear the costs of stress and time wasted by sitting in traffic jams. Staff travelling to and from work is an area which has a knock-on effect on business. In the report, the CBI suggests setting objectives and targets at an individual business level. That is very much the thrust of this Bill in a slightly different context.
What does the Bill provide? It imposes a duty on councils which are traffic authorities to assess levels of local road traffic and to make forecasts. Councils are to make reports to specify targets to reduce local traffic or to reduce the rate of growth of local traffic. If an authority considers that targets are inappropriate, it is not forced to set them but it must say that it considers them to be inappropriate and why it does so.
Authorities are to have regard to guidance by the Secretary of State. Your Lordships may have seen what is very much a discussion draft of possible guidance. It is worth a short reference to that. The draft guidance indicates a number of headings of matters to which authorities may have regard and which will be included in the Secretary of State's guidance. It refers to examples of best practice; in other words, not reinventing the wheel. I very much applaud that. There are headings of strategies to achieve targets, directing authorities to the realities of life and the costs of measures and the effects on the local economy. I do not suggest that the effects will be dis-benefits. Certain measures may have an effect but they will have great advantages. There is reference to particular measures of restraint, encouraging cycling and walking, reducing the need to travel and so on. Most important, it has a
passage on consultation and who should be consulted. There is mention of district and parish councils. I know that there has been some concern that every level of local government should be involved. The consultation of local businesses is also extremely important as is that of local residents and other organisations.Perhaps I may compare that exercise with the consultations which I know have taken place in many local authorities on Local Agenda 21s, which have involved business and residents in a very useful fashion.
The relationship between targets and bids for money is of course important. That relationship will be through the TPP process. In Committee the Minister said that he would make it clear in guidance that he expects there to be a clear direct link between the bids for resources through the TPP process and the authorities' reasons for believing that an investment would help to achieve the target.
I welcome that statement. My own local authority's TPP for the year 1997-98 opens with the statement:
- "These policies give central emphasis to safety and environmental sustainability".
Therefore, that is all part of one process.
I do not suggest that this Bill is a wish list. Wish lists may be good or bad but this is not one. It contains a framework and a structure. More important, it is not anti-car. Both the AA and the RAC have indicated their support for the Bill. As one would expect, they have made comments, and the AA states:
- "We do not wish to stand in its way and hope the efforts of those that have carefully steered it through a difficult path are rewarded".
The RAC also supports the Bill. Indeed, in the notes that I have seen, it would wish us to go even further.
When I first read the Bill, the thought occurred to me that it should attract great support from motorists. Those of us who are motorists--and I am one--are not motorists all of the time. This Bill aims to make travelling, when travelling is necessary, easier; and it should be about choice as well.
That thought was echoed in a letter I received earlier this week from the Retail Motor Industry Federation. I am ashamed to say I did not know a great deal about the federation before I received the letter, but I understand that it represents over 30,000 businesses across the retail motor industry employing over 500,000 people with annual turnovers in excess of £55 billion. The federation wrote to me to say that it has supported the Bill in this form from the outset:
- "It is not a question of car or no car--but rather a question of matching the car's vital role to the needs of the community".
The federation welcomes the initiative and says:
- "We hope the Bill will ensure that local authorities develop strategies and introduce alternatives so that their objectives can be met".
The Bill has been promoted by Friends of the Earth, the Green Party with the support of Transport 2000. Like Members of another place, I must pay tribute to the honourable Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke North in its progress. It was introduced by my honourable friend the Member for Bath and, as I said, it has all-party support.
I hope that noble Lords will use the opportunity today to make clear that they want to see the Bill on the statute book. I make no bones about it. We all know where we are in the parliamentary cycle and we all know that amendments, however well meaning--indeed, amendments raising matters which should properly be raised but which could, perhaps, be left to another occasion--will actually have the effect of killing the Bill. I believe that it will be to the credit of this House to ensure that the legislation reaches the statue book. As has been said before, this is a Bill whose time has come.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.--(Baroness Hamwee.)
3.2 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the clear explanation of the Bill that she has just given. I should declare an interest at the outset in that I am unpaid member of the Public Policy Committee of the RAC. As the noble Baroness said--and this would have come as a surprise some time ago--the RAC is not opposed to the Bill; indeed, the principles of the Bill are ones to which there can be little objection.
It is a laudable aim that there should be less traffic on our roads and we should welcome the intent to give local government more responsibility for local traffic. The potential environmental improvement is something from which we all can benefit, whether we walk, cycle or drive. In fact, most of us are not just motorists; we are also pedestrians--not I must admit in my case a cyclist--and users of public transport.
As the noble Baroness said, the challenge facing us is great. Not only do we have to stop the inexorable trend towards increasing levels of car dependence, but there will also be instances where we have to go beyond that and reverse the trend completely. That is not an easy task and realism in tackling it is essential. Investing in public transport is also vitally important. However, public transport will not provide a direct substitute for the car in many cases. People who live in rural areas and young mothers with children cannot be expected to give up their cars for many trips. Elderly people are often physically unable to rely, for example, on buses. Even so, we must not shrink from the challenge that the Bill sets out.
As I said, the principles of the Bill are worthy but I believe that there is scope to make the legislation more effective. Although the guidance to be set out by the Secretary of State concerning the practical implementation of the Bill's provisions will be the subject of further discussion in both Houses--and the noble Baroness gave us an indication of some of the things which may go into that guidance--there is one principle which I believe to be fundamental which should be set down in the legislation. It concerns the duty of principal authorities both to consult their immediate neighbours and, so that routes of national significance are not ignored in the increasing focus on the local level, to consult also the Highways Agency.
No local authority can plan its transport without direct reference to its neighbouring areas. One local authority must not be permitted to reduce its own traffic simply by moving it to its neighbours' roads. While we must turn our attention to the short trips which make up the bulk of our urban congestion and take action at the very local level, we must not lose sight of the national strategic importance of our road network. Therefore, I believe that there should be an amendment to address those concerns and one which ensures entirely that the fundamentals of effective consultation are laid down in statute. That would strengthen the Bill and make the resulting legislation even more effective. Having said that, I support the Bill so ably moved by the noble Baroness.
3.5 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for the comprehensive way in which she introduced the Bill. I welcome the legislation both personally and on behalf of the National Trust. Your Lordships will be aware that the National Trust has many visitors; indeed, about 11.5 million a year to our built properties and at least another 50 million to the open space countryside properties. Of course, most of those people come to visit such properties by car, as in many cases it is the only realistic way of doing so. However, the car has now become a threat because it brings with it pollution, vision and noise intrusion, congestion and, of course, a subsequent demand for more road space. Those factors can undermine the very spirit of the place which the visitors wish to experience.
Last year, a resolution supporting the Bill was tabled at the annual general meeting of the National Trust, through which our support was requested. At the time, the trust's council felt that it could agree to support the spirit of the Bill because, after all, it is consistent with our objectives and policies. However, we did not feel that we were in a position to determine the specific national targets which were included in the original Bill, though they were achievable. We decided therefore that we could not offer our support at that stage.
However, revisions were made to the Bill while it passed through another place and such targets were dropped in favour of a statutory requirement for local authorities to prepare local road traffic reduction plans which will nominate local targets. In the light of those developments, we now feel that we can formally support the Bill. Indeed, we consider that the Bill makes an important contribution to mitigating the effect of transport pollution, an area in which the trust is already taking an active part.
Although the trust is not opposed to the use of cars, it is increasingly adopting an imaginative approach to mitigating the effect of traffic growth in rural areas and promoting choice through alternative forms of transport which may be used to reach trust properties. A number of projects have been introduced, often in partnership with other organisations such as sustrans. I believe that that is best demonstrated by the decision to open Prior Park Landscape Garden in Bath without a car park,
offering incentives to visitors to arrive by public transport. Indeed, I could go on giving your Lordships numerous such examples from all over the country. So the Bill should be able to help such endeavours.While the trust and indeed the countryside have been damaged by, and continue to be under threat from, specific road schemes, we now faces a more insidious threat; namely, the traffic volumes to which reference has been made. It is especially in the countryside that some of the fastest growth in traffic is occurring, fuelled by new and longer commuter shopping and leisure journeys between town and country, and so on. Between 1985 and 1995 traffic on country roads rose by 40 per cent. compared with 13 per cent. on roads in built-up areas. That statistic comes from Transport Statistics 1996. Indeed, in the debate on the rural economy last Wednesday, I had occasion to refer to the projections of national traffic growth of, I believe, 125 per cent. by the year 2025 and the fact that the increase in rural traffic growth would be considerably higher.
Moreover, rural lanes are the lifelines of our countryside. Equally they are important landscape features, often of historic and ecological significance, and are becoming increasingly so. These roads, however, are now becoming increasingly congested with traffic, walkers, cyclists, horse riders and so on, so that local residents feel increasingly intimidated by traffic on country roads. Accidents are frequent, and the very character of our country lanes is being eroded through vehicular damage and highway improvements in order to facilitate more traffic travelling at greater speeds. To date, the need to tackle traffic levels in the countryside and the numerous impacts which result is not being adequately reflected in the policies of the Department of Transport and of many local authorities.
So the Bill, as we have it, will require local authorities to identify the various measures they intend to employ to reduce traffic levels. The methods used would vary between each local authority in order to reflect the local circumstances. The Bill will ensure that the provision for the interplay between existing mechanisms and procedures for local transport planning will provide the necessary flexibility to local authorities over the use of traffic reduction targets and include the opportunity for the public to be consulted prior to plans being adopted in order to ensure that they properly reflect public policy.
Time, as the noble Baroness said, is not on our side if we are to get this Bill on to the statute book. I hope therefore that we will all act with as much restraint as possible in its remaining stages in your Lordships' House so that we can pass it into law.
3.12 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of the purposes of this Bill. Although, during the course of the next few minutes I may express some criticisms, that does not mean that I am necessarily opposed to the purposes of the Bill. Indeed, as everybody here will probably agree, I would point out that there are problems associated with transport.
Improving transport and the effects of it, providing better public transport, bypasses and so on all require planning. We have discussed this on a number of earlier occasions, and it does require a ready source of funding, whether government funding or private sector funding. Unhappily, the Bill now before us does not provide any more funding for these purposes; nor in fact does it give any additional powers to local authorities to actually do the things that are continually asked for by the public.
The Bill was substantially altered during its Committee stage in another place but there still remain concerns about its practical benefits to highway authorities and its ability to help to deliver the improved services for which the public are asking. As I read the Bill, my understanding is that it has been changed from a measure to force the reduction of traffic levels to more of a tool which will aid the Department of Transport to control the spending and the policy objectives of local highway authorities.
It was clearly indicated in another place by the Government that the traffic reports required by the Bill and the success that a local authority may have in achieving targets it may set will be used to determine the allocation of central government funds for local transport schemes. It would be unfortunate if the enthusiasm for traffic reduction resulted in legislation that only served further to reduce local authority transport spending. The Bill will put a burden on local authorities. They are already working under considerable financial restrictions, and the Bill will create new work for them. In addition to the already complex and time-consuming process of developing annual bids for TSG, they will now have to spend time and money monitoring traffic, establishing targets and, I suppose, drawing up the plans for meeting these targets. Despite all this, there is no guarantee that they will receive funding for the measures that they would wish to implement.
Given that the Bill does not provide any new powers to implement policies and that most of the measures they might want to use are already available--for example, under Sections 1, 6 and 9 of the Road Traffic Act 1984 and, rather more recently, particularly in the case of pollution, paragraph 36 of Schedule 22 to the Environment Act 1995--authorities do have extensive powers to make regulations to control the traffic, which to some extent this Bill also seeks to do. I wonder whether it is necessary for us to have another piece of primary legislation. Is it really necessary and do the requirements of this Bill justify the likely increase in costs?
A particular concern of mine is the impact that the Bill will have upon business. Transport demands generated by business have a significant impact on the local traffic levels, and I believe it is important that any changes which affect local road use do not impose unnecessary costs on business. It certainly would not be in the interests of local people if traffic reduction measures force businesses to relocate or in any other way hamper their expansion. I would want to discuss this further at a later stage and I shall therefore be obliged to set down an amendment for this purpose.
There is another element of concern and potential difficulty. That is the impact on development. I think that my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara touched on this very briefly. The provision of new housing, factories, hospitals and retail facilities will have a significant impact on local traffic levels. Any new facility will generate some additional traffic and therefore there might well be a conflict between traffic reduction targets and an authority's land use plan. Private sector investors may well be put off if they feel that the servicing of retail businesses, retail parks or whatever it may be, would be hampered by a reduction programme. I think the arrangements that appear to be set down in the Bill with regard to land use and planning might very well provide an opportunity for almost every "professional protester" in the land to gather and plot against either the plan or indeed the reduction programme.
What I would really like to know, and perhaps the noble Baroness can tell me, is whether a commitment to traffic reduction programme--and therefore the enjoyment of funding--would actually take precedence over a development consent, because the two might not necessarily achieve exactly the same objectives. The noble Baroness spoke about the support which the CBI, amongst others, had given to the Bill. I would remind her that the CBI, again amongst others, has drawn particular attention to the fact that it is the level of congestion that creates the costs and the agony, and similarly it is air quality, pollution, noise and so on that creates most environmental concern among the public. The Government have certainly responded to the latter point by establishing their air quality targets and these join a number of long-standing targets set for traffic matters. It is interesting that neither of these sets of targets--I referred earlier to the road traffic Act 1984 and the Environment Act 1995--relies upon primary legislation. I do not wish to hinder the passage of the Bill but what I would much prefer to see is a much greater use of the modern technology that can be used to influence traffic management systems rather than another piece of primary legislation.
3.20 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I am aware of the fact that the Minister has to get a train and so I promise not to speak for more than a few minutes in somewhat general and sometimes peripheral terms.
We are all aware of the need for reducing the current levels of urban traffic and we have all experienced traffic jams, even if not as drivers of motor vehicles. We are aware also of the pollution emanating from vehicles which can cause illness and can aggravate existing conditions. The noble Baroness has already mentioned the increasing incidence of asthma among children. I have been asthmatic for two years and so not only appreciate the problem but also hope that I can be incorporated in those figures for children.
The motor vehicle is cited as being largely responsible for the production of acid rain. However, the two main chemicals which produce acid rain are sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide for which road traffic emissions are responsible for 2 per cent. and 46 per cent.
respectively--and over the next 10 years the latter figure will be halved. Therefore it might be fair to deduce that heavy industry is the largest contributor to acid rain, not motor vehicles. Nevertheless, road transport has an adverse effect on health, as already mentioned, and while chemical constituents of engine exhausts are present in varying proportions and have different adverse effects, these will only be changed once local authorities can implement their strategies based upon analysis.Global warming has also been mentioned in another place in relation to exhaust gases. I have no knowledge of this subject so I cannot make any comment. However, I am aware of the technical advances achieved by Mitsubishi Motors in producing the very first direct injection petrol engine. This has significantly reduced fuel consumption and exhaust gases of the type which aggravate respiratory conditions and global warming. I am led to understand that this engine may be placed in one of its vehicles later this year for use in this country.
I cannot make up my mind about the reorganisation of our railway systems following Dr. Beeching's efforts. I suppose, on the one hand, it closed routes which were not viable but, on the other hand, it forced goods, which could have been directed onto the railways, onto the roads. Since then, the size and construction of goods vehicles have increased, as have their cargoes. Matters would improve if some cargo could be shifted onto the railway, but being realistic I cannot see this happening--being able to get goods delivered to your doorstep without delay is far too convenient. How about trying to reopen some of the waterways? Some bulk or homogeneous goods might possibly be suitable, but heavy rain can cause the systems to be closed and thereby create delay. Due to the size of the locks, goods wider than six feet cannot be carried on the barges. But that is only part of the equation.
There are those who have to work unsocial hours and are unable to make use of public transport. Your Lordships' House could from time to time be cited as an example. If one's home happens to be some distance away, the decision to be made is either to stay in town close to the place of work or to drive to and from work. We have become reliant upon cars, particularly so since local transport systems have disappeared and post-Beeching.
When I returned from Australia with my wife in 1970 we lived in London for almost a year. If we needed a car for anything in particular we hired one; otherwise we used public transport. It would be interesting to know how many people use their car as a status symbol when they could easily travel by train. The company car perk has been abused for a long time and some companies are already addressing the problem. But there are, of course, many people who genuinely need a vehicle due to their type of work and, when appropriate, are provided with a pool car.
There are so many ways of reducing traffic in urban areas and perhaps on motorways, but I feel that road pricing could well be a fairly simple answer once the sophisticated systems have been made to work with no--I repeat "no"--error. I am led to understand that
the error factor at the moment is about one in 10,000. This is not acceptable when daily traffic flow is many, many times this level on some roads.Some of your Lordships may be concerned about the effect traffic reductions might have on casualties. I feel sure that many of your Lordships will be aware of the measures taken by the city of York to reduce traffic induced injuries by, in effect, reducing traffic levels. In the March 1994 edition of New Agenda produced by the Road Danger Reduction Forum it is shown that car traffic in the previous decade had increased by only a quarter of that experienced nationally. Further, since 1965 traffic crossing York city centre bridges has increased by only 1.5 per cent., partly due to bypasses but also due to the city council's transport strategy. Since February 1989 its policy has been to encourage vulnerable modes of travel and public transport and to discourage unnecessary car use.
By controlling car usage, casualties have been radically reduced in York when compared with the rest of the country. However, it must be appreciated that if cars, cycles and pedestrians are to mix, that mix must be right; otherwise it is possible that road traffic might be effectively reduced but road casualties might not. This Bill is worthy of support, and that is what I shall give it.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page