HC Deb 12 November 1984 vol 67 cc404-5
11. Mr. Eggar

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if there is to be a public inquiry into the Greater London council lorry ban.

Mr. Ridley

I have made clear my view that for a major London-wide proposal of this magnitude a properly constituted public inquiry would provide a well established, democratic method of assessment.

I understand that the GLC transport committee will be meeting on 21 November to consider the massive response to consultation and the many hundreds of calls for a public inquiry.

Mr. Eggar

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very widespread opposition to the proposal, not least because it will lead directly to the loss of jobs? Is he further aware that the Wood inquiry clearly stated that there would be only a minimal environmental benefit from whatever lorry ban was proposed? Is it not essential that a public inquiry is held?

Mr. Ridley

I have made it clear on every possible occasion that a proposal of such importance requires a public inquiry. The decision will not be brought before the House, so I would have thought that all hon. Members, from both sides of the House, would want it to be subjected to impartial assessment by an inspector. Indeed, I submit all my road proposals, even for London, to that procedure if required.

I hope that hon. Members in all quarters of the House who are interested in preserving jobs in the capital city will urge that course on the GLC.

Sir John Wells

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great anxiety about the GLC decision among all sectors of the horticultural and other wholesale markets and those supplying the capital city with fresh fruit daily? If this absurd ban takes place, will not the whole price structure and freshness of our food suffer? Will not jobs be lost? Without some form of public inquiry, and even some further and quicker control over that already anticipated for the GLC, we shall all suffer gravely.

Mr. Ridley

I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's remarks. When we consider that about 7 million have to be fed by deliveries overnight of fresh foods, we realise the immense implications of what is proposed. I do not think that anyone could avoid feeling that the costs as well as the benefits of the proposal should be carefully assessed before it is proceeded with.

Mr. Stott

If the Secretary of State is so keen to have the democratic assessment of the people of London of the proposed ban, why did he not ask for a democratic assessment before he removed the GLC's powers to run its own transportation system? Why cannot he persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to invite the democratic assessment of the people of London of his proposal to remove the GLC?

Mr. Ridley

For action of a political nature of that sort the Conservative party took the precaution of seeking the views of the 54 million who reside in this country by presenting its proposals to the electorate in a general election, which nearly skittled the hon. Gentleman's party off the ground. When it comes to administrative matters on which the House is not called upon to give an opinion, I would think that he, with his tenuous hold on democracy, might agree with me. Having said that—

Mr. Stott

I have a 17,000 majority at Wigan.

Mr. Ridley

—I welcome the hon. Gentleman's return to the transport portfolio. We shall have plenty for him to learn in the months ahead.