HC Deb 26 February 1991 vol 186 cc927-31

Amendments made: No. 38, in page 93, line 41, column 3, at end insert—

'Section 75(a)(iii). In section 75(6), paragraph (c) and the word "or" immediately preceding it.
Section 75(8).'.

No. 101, in page 94, line 18, at end insert—

'Section 54(8).
Section 59(6)
Section 60.'

—[ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Chope.]

12.1 am

Mr. Corbyn

The Committee and Report stages of the Bill have been fascinating. I wish to put three brief points on the record. First, like everyone else, I welcome any methods that improve road safety and the safety of road users, be they in a car, pedestrians, cyclists or anything else. However, the Bill is, in many ways, a missed opportunity. We in this country are in danger of presiding over an enormous increase in the amount of road traffic when we should be considering alternative means of transport and the environmental effects of the continually increasing use of private motor cars. We should be especially concerned about the effects of that on our cities.

Secondly, part II contains a major extension of central Government powers over those of local authorities, with the introduction of the priority route scheme. That will not enhance safety; it will increase the levels of noise, dust and gas pollution in our inner city areas. The Government will take powers away from the local authorities which badly need them and will introduce a traffic director for London, with whom traffic commissioners will work.

Thirdly, if the Bill is enacted—I suspect that it will be—the Government will achieve the principle of taking many traffic planning measures away from local authorities in London, and exactly the same could be done in other parts of the country. We are moving to a ridiculously centralised state where very localised traffic matters can be decided by the Secretary of State for Transport and charged to the local authority. The principle of reducing the number of cars and the amount of traffic that enters the central area of London, or any other major city if the provisions are extended to other cities, has been ignored.

The people of London have made their views clear when opposing motorway building schemes and the introduction of the priority route scheme. They do not wish to see more traffic in the inner urban area. They want less. They want a cleaner city, with fewer cars and better public transport. I wish that the Bill met the needs of Londoners in that respect. Tragically, I fear that it does not.

12.3 am

Sir Philip Goodhart (Beckenham)

By legalising speed cameras and red light cameras, part I should make a major contribution to the improvement of road safety. Part II, and the red route scheme, should make a major contribution to easing traffic congestion in the capital. I am sorry that the Opposition have been so churlish in their approach to the Bill's efforts to ease congestion and that they seem anxious to let traffic jams continue.

12.4 am

Mr. Spearing

This should not have been a matter for party controversy. Traffic in London has been a continuing concern of all its citizens, of whatever party, throughout the past century. The Bill will not ease the major causes of congestion because they are not even logged or known by the Department of Transport, which can be proved by the fact that it could not answer certain questions that I have asked over the past two or three years. The Bill might increase traffic flow marginally on certain routes, but it will do so at great cost. It is largely impractical. It will take considerable resources in person power. It is bureaucratic to an almost unbelievable degree. The statute is complex and will cause a great deal of difficulty, even to lawyers.

The tone of part II of the Bill is authoritarian. It imposes central will on local government and even prevents local authorities from properly protecting the interests of people within their areas. It gives power to central Government to an unprecedented and almost unimaginable degree over matters which are certainly local government matters in London. No Government, of whatever quality, power or party, would seek to impose the measures in the Bill which affect London or Birmingham, Cardiff or Edinburgh.

Part II of the Bill is thoroughly bad and will have to be revised. I hope that it rebounds on its perpetrators.

12.6 am

Mr. Peter Bottomley

The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has paid his tribute to the parliamentary draftsmen. Part I of the Bill is a culmination of the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), whom I am pleased to see in the Chamber, with the interdepartmental committee of officials and the establishment of the North committee. We should also remember Judge Frank Blennerhasset, who more than 20 years ago got us moving on some of the issues which are important for cutting casualties.

I hope that part I gets through the House of Lords without serious amendment but possibly with improvements. The Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety amendment, which was not selected, was important. It dealt with retesting after disqualification for drink-driving. I hope that the House of Lords will consider the measure. When this legislation is out of the way, I hope that the House and the Government, together with the voluntary bodies among whom PACTS and the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving, will consider other ways in which we can cut casualties.

It may not be possible to cut minor casualties by a third by the year 2000, but it ought still to be regarded as a heavy responsibility to cut the number of deaths and serious injuries by a third. That will require a combination of vehicle measures, such as pedestrian-friendly car fronts, and a method of dealing with our appalling record of casualties among children, which is caused by a mixture of problems with our road layout, education and parental control and chaperonage of young children. I hope that when the Bill becomes an Act we shall see the same effort put into those measures as has put into polishing up the Bill presented to the House last year.

12.7 am

Mr. Fearn

I have sat quiet for the past two hours, although for the first six hours I was not quiet. My party gives almost wholehearted support to the intentions behind the majority of the measures contained in the first part of the Bill. Some of the clauses could have been in line with the recommendations of the North report. As I said earlier, I am disappointed that Conservative Members were not allowed a free vote on random breath testing. I would also have liked hon. Members to be given the opportunity to debate the measures on re-testing through an extended driving test of drivers disqualified as a result of alcohol-related offences.

On the whole, the measures in part I of the Bill should make our roads much safer. I cannot give the same support to part II. The concept of red routes is misguided and the appointment of a traffic director for London, with such powers as the Bill confers on him, is undemocratic. Local authorities have lost many of their powers under the Government, and the appointment of a traffic director, or one-man quango, weakens their role even further. However, my party will support the Bill in the interests of road safety.

The Committee was a good one and I congratulate the chairman, who was excellent and very expeditious. I am disappointed that the Minister did not accept any of the amendments that I tabled on behalf of the Joint Committee on Mobility of the Disabled and even more disappointed that the two amendments dealing with the disabled which I tabled were not selected today. The needs of disabled people should not be forgotten. Unfortunately time and time again they are. Disabled people are not catered for adequately on the public transport system. Often the private motor vehicle is their only means of travel. I hope that amendments to ensure that their needs are taken into account will be tabled in the other place.

Red routes are not the answer to London's traffic problems. What is needed is a full Government commitment to resource the whole London transport system, so that it is operated in an integrated way. That is what the Government should be considering, not red routes.

12.9 am

Ms. Ruddock

When we began the debates on the Bill, we said that there was much good in it, and that we would co-operate in Committee and hope to improve some parts of it. We were pleased to support new driving offences and construction and use provisions, all of which were designed to improve safety on our roads. Indeed, we had a pleasant Committee in which there was much consultation and co-operation.

Tonight's debate has been exceedingly disappointing in that a major opportunity to add to road safety and to reduce death and injury due to drink driving has been lost. We regret very much that there was not a free vote on the Government side, because we understand that a recent survey of hon. Members gave clear testimony to the fact that a majority of hon. Members, voting according to conscience, would have supported the new clause on random breath testing.

Some hon. Members seemed to say that it was not worth allocating extra resources to police forces to deal with the problem. I said in the debate, and I repeat, that if these were considered to be 800 murders, they would he a priority for the police. There are relatives who feel that such grave offences have been committed——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Lady must not seek to reopen a debate on which the House has reached a conclusion.

Ms. Ruddock

I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I conclude that part of my speech by reiterating our regret that an opportunity has been lost.

I said at the outset that part II of the Bill would be very contentious. It has proved to be nothing less. It is significant that hon. Members representing constituencies in London boroughs affected by the pilot scheme are receiving from their constituents grave reservations and protests about the schemes that are to be brought forward under the Bill as so-called priority routes. The traffic director will be nothing less than a traffic dictator. There is no Opposition support for the continuation of traffic jams, as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) suggested. We seek a variety of measures to deal with traffic jams. No one wants more than we do a capital city working and moving in a way which it does not do at present.

To introduce piecemeal measures, as in the Bill, and to call them plans for priority routes is no solution to London's problems. It puts at the forefront the priority of those who seek to rush through certain areas rather than the proper priority—the need for goods and for those who live in those areas to have access and movement on the terms which they desire.

There is no substitute for strategic planning. That is not available to us in part II. These debates will not go away. We will return to them again and again until the Government bring forward a Bill that can truly deal with the major problems that the capital city faces and which includes a strategic plan giving priority to the movement of people and goods. That means putting public transport before the private vehicle.

I regret the lost opportunities of tonight. We shall not be pressing the Third Reading to a vote, but we shall, as I said, undoubtedly return to these matters in the interests of democracy and the people of the capital city.

Mr. Chope

I regret that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) introduced a jaundiced note in her remarks because the measure was a good Bill when it arrived for Second Reading and it is even better now, having had detailed consideration in Committee and on Report. It will command the support of the people of London, who are crying out for action to reduce congestion on the roads of the city. The Government have the courage and commitment to do something about that.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart). Indeed, we could call them the Goodhart routes. Perhaps an amendment to that effect will be introduced in another place. This is a good Bill and I thank hon. Members who participated in debating it. I hope that it will be dealt with speedily in the other place so that it may soon reach the statute book.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.