§ 32. Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)What representations he has received on the publication of the strategic roads review. [58638]
§ The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid)We have received a number of representations on various aspects of the review following its publication at the end of July.
§ Mr. MackinlayWill the Minister help me to explain, to those who tell me their objections and share some of my concerns, the apparent conflicts in the Government's policy on widening the M25? How does he square the proposal to widen the M25, substantially on its western side, with the Government's air quality strategy, bearing in mind the fact that, within two years, PM 10—particulate matter—levels, for example, will exceed levels stated in that strategy?
On the day on which the Department has published the results of the roads review and a leaflet on the M25 London orbital motorway—which states that the Government reject the option of building out of congestion on the M25, as implementing such proposals leads only to monster motorways—how are we to reconcile the proposal to widen the M25, which I think is 746 unnecessary, with our objectives on air quality and basic objections on building our way out of congestion? I should welcome the Minister's explanation of how that conflict can be reconciled.
§ Dr. ReidI shall, as ever, do what I can to assist my hon. Friend. He will be aware that there were proposals—which the Government examined very closely—to widen large sections of the M25. The Government considered and withdrew proposals to widen between junctions 15 and 16 and between junctions 16 and 19. The Government decided to go ahead with specific proposals on the area between junctions 12 and 15, because we have to start by dealing with the situation as it is. Those three junctions are acutely congested, largely because of negligence by the previous Government.
§ Mr. MackinlayNothing to do with terminal 5?
§ Dr. ReidUnfortunately, we inherited the world that was left to us by the previous Government, which was not an ideal one. We decided to go ahead with widening proposals on that section, having rejected proposals on the other two sections.
As my hon. Friend knows, the picture on air quality is complicated. I merely tell him that continued congestion and the stop-go driving of many cars can do very little but contribute to air congestion. As for his useful sedentary question, terminal 5 was in no way taken into account in any of the deliberations. A decision—over which we have no control—will be taken autonomously and independently. It is a quasi-judicial process, which we would not have allowed to enter into our consideration.
§ Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex)May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Labour Members used to tell us that widening the M25 was £100 million of motorway madness? It is comforting now to hear him using the same type of words that we used when trying to explain the situation to Labour Members when they were in opposition. Now that the transport White Paper has been launched—providing a photo-opportunity on the tube for the Secretary of State, before he skulked back to his Jaguar—and the roads review has been celebrated, this morning, with the opening of the Newbury bypass, at dead of night and in secret, what are we to expect? What exactly is the Government's transport policy?
After various consultations over 18 months, we are still waiting for policy on buses, road-user charging, vehicle excise duties, car parking taxes, shipping, sustainable distribution, road safety, local transport plans, inland waterways, ports and airports. There has been not a single piece of legislation. When will the Secretary of State give us a real transport policy, rather than policy paralysis in his Department and ever more gridlock on the roads?
§ Dr. ReidIn 18 months, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department over which he presides produced more common sense, strategic reasoning, detailed plans and money to assist the transport systems than the previous Government managed to do in 18 years. The reason that he was able to list documents and action across a whole range of sectors—including sustainable distribution, local authority plans, congestion charging, buses, shipping and aviation policy—is that the present Government have tackled all those strategic issues 747 which lay in abeyance for so long under the previous Government. The people of Britain deserve a better transport system and we are going to give it to them.
§ Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe)Among the representations that the Minister has received, has he had any along the lines of that submitted by the Conservative council adjacent to my constituency, which welcomed the thrust of the strategic transport policy, the roads review and the cutbacks on road projects all over the country, except for the two in its immediate vicinity?
§ Dr. ReidYes, indeed. Many councils congratulated us on our approach to an integrated transport policy—even some Conservative councils, not all of which had benefited from a new bypass. I assure my hon. Friend that there are a number of fair-minded Conservative councils. Of course, there are also councils that take the view that it is fine for everyone else to contribute to an integrated transport policy and a better environment, but that they should somehow be excluded from consideration. By and large, however, the proposals by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister that are in the White Paper have been widely welcomed, not only by local authorities, but by the transport industry and, most important, by the people of this country who have waited too long for a decent, reliable, safe transport system.