HC Deb 10 March 1997 vol 292 cc4-5
3. Mrs. Bridget Prentice

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the estimated cost to business of traffic congestion in London in the last year for which figures are available. [17755]

Mr. Bowis

There is no agreed measurement of the cost of traffic congestion to businesses, but we have in place a programme of road and rail improvements designed to reduce congestion to enable buses and bicycles to move more freely and to encourage greater use of rail services.

Mrs. Prentice

Does the Minister agree with the London Pride partnership, which recently said that London cannot succeed with a deteriorating transport system? If he does, what does he have to say to the millions of London commuters who have been told in the past month that the maintenance and renewal programme, worth up to £400 million, has been scrapped as a result of the Government's incompetent handling of the network?

Mr. Bowis

I would say to them: unlike the Labour party's programme of no new money, no new lines, no new roads, and no privatisation—for ideological reasons—we have in place a programme of about £200 million for London's trunk roads, £22 million for the red routes, over £100 million for the transport supplementary grant and capital challenge network enhancement projects, about £47 million for bus improvements, and hundreds of millions of pounds for rail improvements. More than £1 billion, moreover, is in the programme for the London underground system—and all this in the coming year.

Mr. John Marshall

Does my hon. Friend agree that the only answer to traffic congestion in London is an improved underground system? He and I have both successfully driven one of the new Northern line trains, but does he agree that the privatisation of London Underground is the only hope for increased investment and that it is absurd of the Labour party to oppose it for purely doctrinal reasons?

Mr. Bowis

My hon. Friend is 100 per cent. correct. We have a programme of renewing investment in London's underground over the years leading up to privatisation and thereafter, within five years, completing the task of bringing the system up to date, in addition to the work and investment in new lines. Privatisation will come with all the guarantees in terms of fares and travelcards that the public expect. Any party that stands up in London at the general election without a policy to match that does not deserve the support of Londoners.

Mr. Tony Banks

Traffic congestion in London and the south-east costs billions of pounds every year. It is no good for the Minister to say that the problem will eventually solve itself: it can be solved only by proper traffic-restraining measures. We should stop private cars coming into central London, enforce parking regulations and have a decent tramway system. Those are all positive proposals and I hope that my Front-Bench colleagues will endorse them when they are in government.

Mr. Bowis

I am tempted to give way and let the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues endorse that, if it is new Labour's policy to stop cars moving at all in London. I have already described to the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) our investment in a range of policies for road and rail, as well as the underground. Much of the road investment is aimed at improving traffic movement and includes traffic calming. Congestion in London is a result of the continuing improvement in London's economy, which we can be proud of, but to manage the increased traffic and to encourage greater use of public transport we shall have to take the steps that only the Government are prepared to take.