Road Traffic (Reduction) (Hansard, 20 March 1996)

§ Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish targets for a reduction in road traffic levels in the United Kingdom; to require local authorities to draw up local road traffic reduction plans; to require the Secretary of State to draw up a national road traffic reduction plan to ensure that the targets are met; and for related purposes. The Bill was given a Second Reading after I introduced it under the ten-minute rule in April 1995. I also spoke on its themes during the summer Adjournment debate in July 1994. Over that period, my conviction that the Bill dealt with a topic whose time had come has become stronger and stronger.

Recently, a number of events have served to underline the pressing environmental, social and economic reasons why the present seemingly inexorable increase in road traffic must be halted and reversed. In December, the scientific working party of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, chaired by Sir John Houghton, also chairman of the royal commission on environmental pollution, announced its conclusion, following exhaustive research, that climate change was occurring as a result of greenhouse gas emissions and that radical action was required to mitigate its grave effects. As the royal commission report clearly showed, tackling the problem of road traffic is crucial to that.

Last week, the Department of the Environment published its important "Indicators of sustainable development for the United Kingdom" document. The section on transport makes dismal reading. It reports that car use has almost doubled to an average of 6,500 miles a year per person, although use of buses has declined by one quarter to an average 600 miles a year and rail use has remained only constant at an average 400 miles a year. The average distance of commuter journeys has increased by 40 per cent. since 1974, journeys for shopping by 35 per cent. and those for taking children to and from school by 40 per cent.

Energy consumption for road passengers has nearly doubled and for freight it has increased by more than 60 per cent. since 1970, so any improvements in vehicles' energy efficiency has been more than cancelled out. The fact that the average Briton travels less for each gallon of fuel consumed than in 1970 is shocking and illustrates that technological improvements in energy efficiency, welcome though they are, do not provide the answer to the problem.

The Government's pioneering document demonstrates clearly that our current transport system—let alone what we will have if projections are only partly fulfilled—is utterly unsustainable. For good measure, it reckons that Britain will exhaust its domestic oil supplies in 14 years and its gas supplies in 25 years. Scientific reports underline the extent of the problem in that way, but the direct action on the route of the Newbury bypass illustrates both the terrible dilemmas created by increased traffic—we know that the bypass will further increase traffic—and the conflict that will inevitably arise if we do not change direction.

The latest of recent events highlighting the importance of road traffic reduction is the Sea Empress disaster, and the terrible ecological, economic, social and, as we have 398 heard today in the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, personal cost that it is imposing. Small wonder that, in its letter to the Prime Minister concerning the Sea Empress, a group of environmental organisations say: We would also ask you, independently of the inquiry into the Sea Empress disaster, what actions you propose to take to reduce the underlying need for oil tanker movements, by reducing Britain's reliance on oil". There are many ways of doing that, but reducing road traffic must be among the most important.

Following all that, the good news is that more and more people and organisations are applying their minds to solutions. Last year, there was the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales document "Wales Needs Transport, Not Traffic". Recently, I came across a report by the Institution of Civil Engineers entitled "A Vision for Rural Public Transport", and the environmental change unit at the university of Oxford is conducting a long-term project called "Sustainable Mobility and Accessible Rural Transport". I mention those two in particular because, naturally enough, I am interested in the rural scene and in what the SMART report on "Rural Travel and Transport Corridors" calls travel poverty. That is an important reality in rural areas.

There are 101 initiatives of various kinds at the local level which are attempting to make an impact. I mention just a few. At Aberystwyth in my constituency the chamber of trade is proposing the installation of the Parry people mover tram in response to traffic congestion, as a means of improving access to the traditional town centre from the new and regrettable out-of-town retail development, and as a way of enhancing the competitiveness of the town centre by making it a more attractive and interesting place to be. I hope that it is successful in its bid to the Welsh Office for strategic development scheme funding for that excellent initiative.

Oxford county council is developing a transport strategy involving bus priority, improved park-and-ride and pedestrianisation schemes, the limitation of parking in central areas, better facilities for cyclists and pedestrians, and particularly the disabled, and other measures. The transport study on which it is based involved the collection of extensive information about travel patterns in the city and comprehensive public opinion surveys. Different transport measures were evaluated for their comparative effectiveness. Feedback from an exhibition of the resulting strategy revealed widespread concern about existing conditions and overwhelming support for the new proposals, and that is encouraging.

What is needed now is a political focus for the growing awareness that exists and the sense of co-ordinated purpose that comes from a strategy. That is what the Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill provides. It is important for the House, the Government and particularly those on the Opposition Front Bench to understand just how much support it is attracting. Early-day motion 21 in support of the Bill has already been signed by 111 hon. Members and I am confident that that number can be doubled without much difficulty. A substantial number of local authorities and a wide range of organisations have already registered support and the number is increasing.

I mention those on the Opposition Front Bench particularly because they are likely to form the next Government and are looking for sensible policies, and 399 because they have a long way to go to begin to prove their credentials in the area of environmental sustainability policy.

I am pretty confident that the Secretary of State for the Environment will support the Bill, certainly in principle, as he has shown a serious interest in sustainable development. I have some difficulty with the Secretary of State's failure—or perhaps tactical refusal—when talking about sustainability to differentiate between the concepts of change, development and growth, but at least he is on the record as recognising the need to separate economic growth from transport growth, certainly traffic growth. That is a promising start. Certainly an enlightened definition of progress, which at all times should incorporate quality of life considerations, must imply support for the Bill's aims.

I am encouraged by the support expressed by my local authority, Ceredigion district council, which serves a predominantly rural area. That emphasises the fact that traffic is not just a problem of urban congestion. It also points to the need for something other than economic instruments. I am very much afraid, from what the Government are saying, that they will overly depend on those matters. We need a much more comprehensive, sensitive and intricate approach than the one to which the 400 Government seem currently committed, with their emphasis on economic instruments. That is simply internalising environmental costs.

The studies carried out in the area particularly emphasise the crucial role of local government in the matter—the need for powerful local authorities to take initiatives to invest and, if necessary, to regulate traffic.

Bearing all that in mind, we need legislation along the lines that the Bill offers and I ask the House to express its support for that this afternoon.