§ 5. Mrs. Bridget PrenticeTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the annual cost to business of congestion in London. [4006]
§ Mrs. PrenticeIs that not a limited and disgraceful answer from the Minister? Does he not agree that London is in virtual gridlock most of the working week? Apart from the air pollution, effects on health and general inconvenience for travellers, does that not have a devastating effect on London's businesses? Is it not now time to have an integrated transport strategy for London?
§ Mr. BowisAgain, the party that says it will have no more roads building and that has announced today that it 7 will have no more new underground lines either is not the party that should be talking about congestion in London. We are, of course, aware of the needs of businesses and, indeed, of other people seeking to get around our city and we have been taking action throughout our years in office to do something about the issue, not just carrying out surveys. In fact, it would be difficult to identify the criteria needed for the sort of assessment that the hon. Lady seeks.
As for good news for those concerned about congestion, I should have thought that the hon. Lady would spring to her feet to welcome the progress of the docklands light railway down to Lewisham—her part of the world—and the fact that, once the Jubilee line extension is built, those extensions will connect at Canary Wharf. That will provide relief for her constituents, which will enable her to join the executives of Europe, who have highlighted London as their favourite city and its transport as one of the reasons for that.
§ Mr. DunnMay I first make it plain that we do not want another river crossing in Dart ford, thank you very much? Is the Minister prepared to consider greater use of the River Thames, greater use of park-and-ride facilities and greater use of light transit railways in south London in particular? Will he accept our congratulations for doing all that he can to speed up traffic on the A2, a subject which is down in my name for debate later this week?
§ Mr. BowisI will certainly take note of my hon. Friend's wish not to have the new river crossing to Dartford, even if it were to come from Woolwich, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) suggested earlier. I will not prejudge the debate later this week, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) is right to highlight the need for us to continue to work in partnership with the local authorities, the Highways Agency, the highways authorities, London Transport and others to make sure that, in his part of London and the south-east and in areas that others of us represent, we have an efficient traffic and transport system that continues to ensure that London is a powerhouse of the British economy.
§ Ms Glenda JacksonHas it escaped the Minister's notice that his party has been in government for the past 17 years? It is their abject failure to create a properly integrated transport system for London that has produced ever-greater congestion on London's streets and ever-higher levels of air pollution and which prompted the Corporation of the City of London to state only last year that transport issues are a key competitive threat to London's economic position. What, in their dying days, do his Government intend to do to ensure that London's economic future is not threatened by their failure in the same way as they significantly threatened its past?
§ Mr. BowisAs the hon. Lady moves into her next period of opposition, I hope that she will learn to pay tribute and give credit where it is due to a Government who have been investing in London's infrastructure to an extent far greater than previous Labour Governments could have dreamt of. I have mentioned the fact that, this year, London Transport is investing in real terms four times the amount invested in 1979, the year in which the Conservatives came to office.
8 Even excluding the Jubilee line extension, in real terms we are investing twice what was invested in the 1980s and three times what was invested in the 1970s. The Opposition can only come up with a policy of no spend on roads and no spend on new rail lines but, instead, the promise of a Thames tax, so Londoners will know that they will pay through the nose in Labour's taxes and get nothing in return.
§ Mr. John MarshallMy hon. Friend will agree that public transport plays a major role in reducing road congestion in London. Can he therefore comment on the article in today's Evening Standard, suggesting that there will be no new trains on the Northern line until September 1997, which would mean that GEC was much too far behind schedule, and which would make many of my constituents and many commuters in London very angry indeed?
§ Mr. BowisMy hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that, thanks to the private finance initiative, new trains will be coming on the Northern line, serving his constituents and mine. It is equally right to say that there have been delays in those trains' manufacture. They are now starting to come through for trials, and they will be in service by next summer, as promised by London Transport—or according to the understanding that I have from London Transport.