§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
§ 10 pm
§ Sir Irvine Patnick (Sheffield, Hallam)I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the development of road transport.
Hardly a day goes by or a newspaper is read without there being some comment on the development of road transport, be it on emission control, alternative forms of transport, the effect on jobs, petrol pricing, new technology, road manners, new road schemes, bypasses or one of many other associated matters.
Recently, pupils at King Egbert school in my constituency did a project to contact their Member of Parliament on various topics that they considered important. Many of them concerned transport issues. I also recently received a copy of a document that I have known for many years—the South Yorkshire joint package bid for 1997–98 on transport. If my postbag is typical, many hon. Members must receive letters on the environment and transport. All that forms the background to the debate.
The public are obviously not aware of the positive steps that the Government have taken to protect the environment. The Department of the Environment publication "This Common Inheritance" was the first ever audit of environmental matters. It was first carried out in 1990, and has been updated each year. It is a most welcome document.
Most newspapers cannot contain news about motoring in their news pages or business sections, and have created motoring supplements. Within the general sales patter, those supplements contain snippets of interesting information about aspects of transport. I particularly enjoy—no plug—The Daily Telegraph's Saturday morning section and "Honest John's Agony Column". I can give a free plug to those who have not read it, because it is a good read. This week's column included items on exhaust emission, radio interference systems and braking systems. My local Sheffield paper, The Star, has a motoring section called "Drive".
A little piece in The Star caught my eye. It was about a major drive by a petrol company, which proposed converting buses from diesel to liquid petroleum gas. In addition, for the past two weeks there has been a bi-fuel car in the car park of the House of Commons—a car that can run on compressed natural gas, but can revert to petrol if required. I understand that it was there to underline the Government's commitment to cutting harmful atmospheric pollutants. Another snippet of information is that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to use such a car. I trust that they will become readily available, and will be reasonably priced.
Much has been said over the years about cleaner, more efficient fuels. We cannot be far away from producing an economic battery-driven vehicle. I understand that the size and weight of the battery are a stumbling block. No doubt a company somewhere is working to produce a smaller, lighter battery with a longer range. Perhaps the Minister will comment on progress on that in the United Kingdom.
Vauxhall advised me by fax today—a wonderful machine, the fax—that the General Motors electric car, known as the EV1, has gone into production in the 589 United States. Meanwhile, motor manufacturers are producing more fuel-efficient engines that require less maintenance, produce lower emissions and have fewer things to go wrong. They are to be complimented on their efforts.
We must not forget that the car and steel industries have flourished since privatisation. As the Minister will be well aware, the Government's publications "This Common Inheritance" and "Transport: The Way Forward"-a Department of Transport response to the transport debate—have done much to resolve many of the environmental concerns.
These publications are not as well known as I would have wished. Perhaps some pamphlets could be provided. There is a slim summary version of "This Common Inheritance", which will help constituents to be better informed about the positive steps that have been taken to protect the environment and improve the use of our transport infrastructure.
As a member of the Environment Select Committee, I have taken evidence on the impact of transport on the environment. A report was produced, entitled "Volatile Organic Compounds in 1995".
Centre stage in this debate is the growth in road traffic and the role that the transport of goods by road plays. Indeed, it plays an increasing part in our modern economy. Many people recognise the advantages of road transport; equally, concern is often expressed about its impact on the environment.
Road transport has expanded job opportunities, increased the number of goods in our shops and improved the efficiency and effectiveness of our industry. It has allowed people more mobility and a wider choice of where to live, shop and enjoy their leisure time. But it has also brought congestion, noise and pollution to many towns, it has damaged landscapes, and it has contributed to the threat of climate change.
Some see transport as a major threat to sustainable development. Traffic growth therefore highlights the problem whether the aims of widening choice, improving the effectiveness of the economy and protecting the environment—all central to Government objectives—can be reconciled. The document "Transport: The Way Forward" is not what I would call bedtime reading, but it does make interesting reading. It marshals the current debate and looks to ensure that transport serves the interests of as many people as possible, in ways that help them most.
I want the debate to continue, and action to be taken to bring to the fore some of what I see as the important issues. It would be parochial of me to point out the lack of a decent road link between Sheffield and Manchester, a subject that I have raised on many occasions, but I do realise the restrictions on the route, which would go through a green-belt area. As one who has defended the green belt, I recognise that that is an insurmountable obstacle.
Yet throughout the country, more than 400 road schemes, including 160 major bypasses, have been completed since 1979 by the Government, and since then, £26 billion has been invested in motorways and trunk roads. About 1,300 miles of trunk roads have been built or upgraded, and capital spending on the road network is now 50 per cent. higher than in 1979.
590 Motor cars have come a long way since I purchased my first one. It was a Ford Anglia—I can even remember the registration number: RWA 512. It had no radio or heater. It had an 8 hp engine—but I thought I had arrived! This was at a time when we used to put fly deflectors on the bonnet and used semaphore indicators. Anti-freeze was not always in the car, and I had to top up the battery.
Today one can purchase Ford's new model, the Ka. It has air conditioning, power steering, a CD player, an automatic braking system and airbags as standard—what a change. I have seen one, but I shall reserve judgment until I test-drive the car.
Even with my rudimentary skills it was possible on my first car to change the plugs, check the points and do basic maintenance. Servicing took place with an army of mechanics. Today, lifting the bonnet of a modern car is like seeing something from Star Trek; and computers—not people—diagnose the car's ills.
The better use of road freight vehicles is an area in which Britain has made impressive advances. One of the main changes made by organisations has been the establishment of fewer but larger distribution centres serving more outlets. Even the quality of the freight vehicles has to be admired. I, like many others, have become something of a Eddie Stobart lorry-spotter. Other vehicles are equally recognisable.
While some freight can be carried by rail, at other times it is more convenient and economic to move it by road. Lorries now produce less spray than they used to and drivers take more pride in their vehicles. My hon. Friend the Minister, a worldly person, will have noticed variations in petrol prices throughout the country. Although the prices are determined by the petrol companies, there must be a very simple reason for the discrepancy. Perhaps my hon. Friend would care to comment on why petrol prices are 3p or 4p a litre cheaper in London than they are in Sheffield.
Advances in technology have also brought about many changes, and have highlighted the size of vehicles and incorporated technology. We now accept airbags, automatic braking systems, routemasters, dashboard computers, immobilisers and anti-theft devices as normal. Sometimes they are extras, but soon they will be built in, and we will wonder how we ever managed without them. As I said, those and other advances are taken for granted.
We must consider not only personal but public transport. Light railways—I used to call them trams—have been advocated as the solution to all the ills of transport, congestion and pollution in inner cities. Little seems to be heard of trolley buses or, indeed, guided buses, which are multi-purpose vehicles. Guided buses are capable of using existing railway tracks for part of the journey, and when they near the city centre, the railway wheels are taken up and normal road wheels are used to progress further. That is quite feasible, but does not appear to be in vogue. Would the Minister comment on that?
There is a need for more park-and-ride facilities in places such as Sheffield, to enable the switch from private to public transport in our cities. That would utilise the best of both worlds. My hon. Friend the Minister will be most pleased to hear that I do not propose to raise the subject of Sheffield and the supertram.
On the basis of moving traffic from road to rail, as my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, I spent some considerable time—I think it was 13 months of my life— 591 as deputy Chairman of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill Select Committee, in which environmental assessment of the route played a key part. On an associated topic, money is being invested in railways. The privatised Midland Main Line, which serves Sheffield, has undertaken to refurbish the rolling stock and provide further improvements. That will also help to move people from road to rail.
When I was a member of the then South Yorkshire county council, urban traffic control was the in thing; in a nutshell, it was a way of allowing only certain vehicles into an area. When sufficient vehicles were there, the rest were prevented from entering. I was never convinced then that that was the way forward, and nor am I now.
Many aspects of transport will not be covered in this debate—ranging from motor cycling, the strategic cycle network, canals and the local rail network to Sheffield airport—as there simply is not time. It would be well worth my hon. Friend the Minister seeing for himself the progress on Sheffield's airport.
It is a tribute to the Minister and his predecessors that this country now has the lowest number of fatalities in road accidents since records began. I was pleased to be involved in the successful application for funding Sheffield's inner ring road, and saw the changes that were possible to move some of the traffic, which was through traffic, away from the city centre. No doubt my hon. Friend and his officials will have the job of analysing the submission by the South Yorkshire authorities to deliver South Yorkshire's transport strategy joint package bid, which I used to know as the TPP—transport policies and programme.
The private finance initiative provides opportunities for private sector investment in roads. Eight road improvement contracts have been awarded under the initiative, through which the private sector designs, builds, finances and operates stretches of road. Three more projects are in the pipeline.
But it is to individuals that we must return, for they play a big part in the development of road transport. Some decisions should not be made by the Government. They can be taken only by individuals who decide what forms of transport they want to use. Car use is important, especially in rural areas, and can be a necessity rather than a luxury. It can be a source of income and employment in rural communities.
Countryside walking is a growing recreation, and some newspapers cover it, including The Star, which has articles by John Spencer on circular walks that start from a car park and give a three or four-mile hike or walk back there. That provides a balance between the needs of the countryside and the needs of individuals, and it should be encouraged.
The Government have addressed a contemporary problem. Many groups express opinions, views and conflicting pressures that will be brought to bear to promote their interests. The Government's publications "This Common Inheritance" and "Transport: The Way Forward" anticipate some of the responses.
It is not easy to resolve the needs of transport and its impact on the environment. If it were, it would have been done years ago. There are many documents and many 592 opinions around that are worthy of consideration on such an important subject. It is not possible to dot every i and cross every t on the documents I have mentioned; nor is my list a full one. I trust that the Minister will find my contribution to the debate, within the time constraints, useful, and I look forward to his comments.
§ The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) on his choice of topic for debate. Generally, when I appear in the House at this hour, it is to reply to a debate on a narrow constituency interest. That is right and proper, but my hon. Friend has chosen to make a lucid survey of the whole area of transport policy. I doubt whether time will permit me to reply fully to all the areas he mentioned, so perhaps he will permit me to write to him to cover those areas that I do not have time to cover tonight.
My hon. Friend covered the three main areas: transport and the environment and how we provide infrastructure; the way in which new vehicles are being developed with the environment and greater safety in mind; and transport links in and around his constituency in Sheffield.
The relationship between transport and the environment is central to the transport debate, as my hon. Friend made clear. Transport plays a fundamental part in all our lives, both business and private. It brings huge benefits through personal freedom, and helps to increase national wealth.
The corollary is the massive increase we have seen over the years in passenger travel, especially road travel. From the time that my hon. Friend bought his Ford Anglia—my first car was a 1955 Sunbeam Talbot mark III, closely followed by a Riley 1.5 and a Mini-Cooper—road travel has increased, and we have seen an increase of 260 per cent. since the early 1950s.
Our aspirations to travel where we want when we want are now much higher than they were, but with that freedom also comes the responsibility for considering the effect that our choices have on the environment and our fellow citizens, especially at a time when the pressure to lessen the environmental impact of what we do is increasingly intense.
The whole point of the transport debate, which was started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) when he was Secretary of State for Transport, was to stimulate the process of getting people involved in thinking about and planning for the country's future transport needs. The main message—as my hon. Friend has echoed this evening—was concern about traffic growth and its impact on congestion and pollution.
Many respondents to the debate expressed increasing opposition to road building and support for more investment in public transport. Equally, some pointed to the importance of an efficient road network, both to industry and to modern life generally.
In the course of my hon. Friend's survey of policy, he mentioned our Green Paper "Transport: The Way Forward", of which there is, incidentally, a summary version. I shall let my hon. Friend have a copy, and if he wants it in bulk to send to the school he mentioned, I dare say that we could deal with that request, too.
The Green Paper assessed the responses that we have received in the transport debate, and sought to map out a means of progressing. It is based on our commitment to 593 sustainable development. In practical terms, that means finding a balance between three key objectives in transport policy—promoting industrial competitiveness, protecting the environment and preserving freedom of choice.
I believe that the Green Paper represents a significant step towards finding the right balance between those areas, so that each is sustained without having a severely detrimental effect on any other. They are not at first glance obviously complementary areas, but there can be win-win situations. It is in industry's interests, for example, to create a good working environment, both for employees and to attract inward investment. Traffic problems that have an impact on the environment—congestion, for example—also affect business efficiency.
I may return to some of the general themes, but first I shall deal specifically with some of the issues concerning Sheffield and its surrounding area. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government have given substantial support to road schemes, to the value of nearly £80 million, around Sheffield in recent years Those include a new link to the Ml via Mosborough, major improvements to the outer ring road and to Penistone road, and a start on the northern section of the inner ring road, which my hon. Friend mentioned.
Regeneration of the lower Don valley has, of course, been the main focus of Sheffield development corporation. One of the corporation's largest projects has been the development of the Don valley spine road, which opened in June. That new road has greatly improved access to the Don valley from the motorway network and from the city centre, and has been an essential element in attracting new investment to the city.
I am pleased to say that the South Yorkshire package bid has been accepted for support for the first time in the current year, 1996–97. The four local authorities in the area and the passenger transport authority have done extremely well to bring forward a joint package so quickly. The package has been allocated funds of £5.5 million this year. I believe that the proposals in it deserve support in the longer term, and, in so far as resources allow, my Department intends to provide funds for the package in future settlements.
We want to see further development of the work that has been done so far. We hope to see a radical shift towards traffic restraint, to deliver the switch from private to public transport that the South Yorkshire supertram was designed to bring about.
I am pleased that the message has been taken on board by the south Yorkshire authorities. The programme of measures proposed for 1997–98 includes better integration between trams and buses wherever possible, continued priority for trams, further restraints on car movements on tram routes, and further controls on commuter parking.
My hon. Friend alluded to the difficulty in setting up a motorway link between Manchester and Sheffield. I am glad that he realises the constraints. The A628 over Woodhead pass, however, forms a major transpennine link. There are alternative routes for long-distance traffic both to the north and to the south. But those routes require significant detours for traffic travelling between Sheffield and Manchester, and may not be realistic options.
That means that there is considerable pressure for the A628 to be improved and its capacity increased. The route passes through Longdendale in the Peak district national 594 park, so we have ruled out a dual carriageway. But the peak joint planning board has accepted the need for improvements to the A628, following the conclusions reached in the south Pennine study.
The study concluded that that approach would serve to concentrate cross-peak traffic on to that route, and so improve the opportunities for traffic management elsewhere within the park. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that, early next month, I intend to visit the Peak national park to see some of the transport and traffic issues and problems on the ground. A scheme identification study is being prepared to identify appropriate schemes. The joint planning board will be consulted during the preparation of the study and any subsequent improvement schemes.
The paper represents an agenda for action, starting now, to shape the way in which people actually use transport into the future. It is not intended to be a rigid transport blueprint. What is needed at this time is a flexible approach that can accommodate the different requirements of different sectors of society in different parts of the country.
In the Green Paper, we have identified five main themes, reflecting the changed emphasis in views on transport policy: reducing dependence on the car, improving planning of transport infrastructure, switching the emphasis from roads to public transport, reducing the impacts of road freight, and making better use of existing road and rail infrastructure.
One of the most encouraging results of the transport debate is a growing understanding of how transport policies work. It is now far more widely recognised, for example, that providing more trains or buses may not in itself be sufficient to persuade people to get out of their cars. It is also clear that there are limits to how far people are prepared to have their car use restrained. I prefer a mixture of carrots and sticks. The best carrot is comfortable, reliable and convenient services from the public transport sector.
The Government have established a strategic framework within which transport choices, both private and business, are made. As is clear from the five themes, there is also a need to focus much more sharply on what steps can be taken to reduce car dependence locally. The majority of car journeys are local—less than five miles—and steps can be taken to reduce their number. The national cycling strategy, for example, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport launched in July, demonstrates the roles that cycling can play.
It is clear, as a result of the national debate, that views on transport have shifted substantially. There is a recognition of the need to take far more account of the environmental impacts of transport. There is a wide recognition that simply expanding road provision cannot be a sufficient answer to growing demand. That is why our Green Paper recognises the shift of view, and proposes a way forward that builds on that national debate.
Public transport will undoubtedly grow in importance as people search for realistic alternatives to car use. New developments on the rail and bus networks—as a result of our privatisation and deregulation initiatives—indicate the importance of transport operators' offering the travelling public services that they want to use. Good nodal links are a crucial part of that. My hon. Friend made 595 particular mention of the important role that park and ride can play. Enhancing service quality—and the overall image of what public transport can provide—is a vital element of encouraging a shift in transport usage.
An efficient transport infrastructure remains essential to national well-being, competitiveness and regeneration. The national network of motorways and trunk roads between important centres of population is broadly complete.
Keeping pace with the increasing demand for road space simply by building roads is not a realistic option, financially or environmentally. We must make more efficient use of our existing roads. Our spending therefore increasingly focuses on maintaining and managing the capacity of our existing roads, with selective improvements through new construction, such as providing much-needed bypasses and removing bottlenecks.
So, although the diverse range of techniques for making the best use of existing roads does not eliminate the need for new building, the clear aim is to enable road building to be used more selectively than in the past.
Forecast traffic growth is a central issue. Although the current traffic forecasts remain the Government's best assessment of how traffic is likely to grow in the light of current expectations about economic growth and existing policies, without additional measures, increasing traffic will lead to increasingly severe pressures on congestion and on the environment. That cannot go on indefinitely.
596 We accept, therefore, that measures are needed that influence traffic and reduce traffic growth. The Government are not so far convinced that national traffic targets would be practicable. There is too great a risk of imposing costs on society that would not be justified by the benefits. But traffic targets can be a very useful tool for dealing with specific local situations and for helping to focus attention on strategies and the measures needed. I am especially pleased, therefore, to see that many authorities, in making their traffic bids, are placing alongside those bids the targets that they hope to achieve by implementing those policies.
My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of light rail and guided buses, which are potential ways to improve public transport in towns and cities. As he knows, the Government have supported major public investment in light rail systems in several cities, including his own. But light rail schemes are extremely expensive, and although the dedicated infrastructure can guarantee journey time advantages over road traffic, it limits the flexibility of operation to cope with changing patterns of development and demand.
The Government have recently supported development of guided busways in Ipswich and Leeds. The greatest potential advantage of the guided bus lies in the scope to give it absolute priority through congested areas.
§ The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.