Motorists

HC Deb 15 July 1999 vol 335 cc593-630

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

I inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

2.4 pm

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham)

I beg to move, That this House deplores the Government's anti-car policies and believes that the motorist deserves a fairer deal; condemns the Government for increasing congestion with massive cuts in roads investment, whilst imposing congestion and non-residential parking and motorway taxes; regrets that the Government's transport policies are bringing Britain to a standstill at the same time as undermining the competitiveness of business; regards the car as a force for good, bringing unparalleled freedom and opportunities to millions; recognises that 93 per cent of all passenger journeys and nearly 80 per cent of freight transport is by road; regrets that roads are now in their worst condition since records began, causing accidents, delays and congestion; urges the Government to bring forward a comprehensive transport policy for modernising Britain's road system so that road users can enjoy a more efficient, safer and environmentally-friendly service, pursuing policies to remove through-traffic and heavy lorries from towns and villages; and urges the Government to increase investment in public transport, facilities to let people get out of their car on to a bus or train, and alternatives to the car such as walking and cycling so that more people have real choice, instead of trying to force motorists out of their cars before the alternatives are available. It gives me great pleasure to move the motion and to oppose the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. For once, some joker has been at work in the drafting of the amendment. It says that the Government now recognises the freedom that the car has given", but that recognition does not seem to extend to any policy initiative to help the motorist; indeed, many Government initiatives make the motorist's life hell on wheels.

The amendment says that the Government deplores the previous Government's record of under-investment". If that is so, perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister can tell us why he has slashed London Transport investment, from £1,060 million in the last Conservative year to £564 million, and why his documents show roads expenditure, local transport expenditure and transport investment are down across the board. He has a lot to answer for.

It will be a pleasure to welcome the Deputy Prime Minister to the Dispatch Box shortly to explain, if he can, the pitfalls of and troubles with his disintegrating transport policy. The other day, when I saw him in the newspapers beaming out in his customary friendly way adjacent to some elephants, I wondered whether he was about to announce a new transport initiative—whether it was going to be elephant rides for all, and whether that perhaps was the new fast form of transport to be introduced to new Labour's Britain. It would certainly be faster than many of the modes of transport that are on offer under the Government's disintegrating transport policy.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

Trunk roads cut.

Mr. Redwood

My hon. Friend has got there before me. Trunk roads cut; trunk transport in.

Today, the Opposition are proud to present a transport policy that would get Britain on the move again, a policy that tackles the standstill Britain that is being created by the Government: an answer to their policy of jams today and jams tomorrow.

The Government seem to think that people use cars wilfully and unreasonably and that we are a nation of planet wreckers driving around for the sake of it. They have to understand that most people use their cars to go about their daily business: to go to work, to go to a business meeting, to visit family members, to go out with friends, to go to the cinema or theatre. They often go by car because there is no alternative public transport for the journey, or the alternative public transport is inconvenient, slow, difficult or too expensive.

The Deputy Prime Minister should recognise that most of us do not live near a train station, or have a bus stop at the bottom of our garden. Many of us would like to use trains and buses more, but we first have to get to the station or the bus stop, and that often means a car journey. That is why our overall transport policy includes the fair deal for the motorist which my hon. Friends and I had the pleasure of launching earlier this week. We need to be able to get to the bus stop or the station. The motorist needs a break and a choice.

The House might be interested to know that, since we made some announcements along those lines, I have been inundated with letters praising our initiative and showing enormous frustration at the Government's anti-transport, anti-traveller, anti-motorist stance. May I give the House a little flavour of the many letters that I have received? One says: Cars are absolutely essential to modern living". The author goes on to say: In the recent Euro elections I broke the habit of a long lifetime to vote Tory for the first time (I'm a Euro sceptic); if you can cobble together a rational transport policy there is a grave danger that I might also vote Tory at the next general election". That is exactly what I intend to do. I am pleased that my correspondent is on my side.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)

I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has received a letter from his colleague, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who said during the trunk roads review when he was Secretary of State for Transport: Increases in fuel duty, and motorway tolling, will help people to make more informed choices about the cost of using their cars."—[Official Report, 30 March 1994; Vol. 240, c. 930.] Has he received such a letter?

Mr. Redwood

I have not, but I have had praise from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who thinks that my initiative is excellent. He gives it his full support; he stopped me only the other day to say just that.

Another correspondent writes to me to say that We have in yourself someone who will speak up for the overtaxed motorist". He goes on to say something that Labour Members should listen to very carefully: As a retired senior citizen of 71 years, I own a small economical car to enable me to take advantage of the freedom of movement it gives me. Furthermore, public transport is so expensive that even allowing for road tax, insurance and repairs it is still much cheaper than buses and trains. Time too is a consideration.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

I am sorry to trouble my right hon. Friend—and it is rare, indeed, for any of his colleagues to have the opportunity to trump him. But is he aware that I have an 81-year-old constituent—Mrs. Elizabeth Zettl, who lives in High street, Buckingham—who was literally incandescent about the Government's most recent hike in petrol prices, and pointed out to me that she depended on her car; that she travelled to outlying areas in the course of her voluntary work for two local charities; that she did not think that those charities could afford to reimburse her petrol expenses, and that she did not wish to ask them to do so? I am sure that that lady, who is a person of the most splendid commitment and courage, will warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's new and fair deal for motorists.

Mr. Redwood

I am very grateful.

To reinforce the point for Labour Members, another correspondent says: Well done on your clear water between the Opposition and the Government—a cause for real rejoicing. Could I suggest that you do everything possible to publicise the damage, especially to the weakest and most disadvantaged in our society, which the Labour policy is causing? She had in mind the high taxation on motorists who have no other way of travelling and for whom there is no public transport alternative.

Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset)

My right hon. Friend will probably have seen that the Automobile Association has done a survey of motorists—who basically said that they would be happier if money collected in additional taxes were being used to improve roads and public transport.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a road scheme to relieve traffic in Weymouth and Portland was ready to go when, more than two years ago, the Government came to power, but that Ministers have still not told local authorities whether they may go ahead with the scheme—on which millions of pounds have already been spent? Is it not about time the Government started to sort out their integrated transport policy, rather than simply handing over money to the Treasury?

Mr. Redwood

My hon. Friend is right. However, I am sure that the truth is that there is no money for lots of schemes, such as the one he has in mind, and that the Government's dithering is a cover for their failure with the Treasury—or their hatred of the motorist, and their wish to cancel every sensible road scheme.

Mr. Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Redwood

I really do not have time, as I have promised to limit my remarks to 20 minutes, to give hon. Members on both sides of the House the chance to debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Frit."] The House knows that I am not frit, and that I usually frequently give way. However, if we are to make use of the short time available, I cannot show my normal generosity by giving way, as I have some points that I want to make and I want other hon. Members to have a chance to speak.

Another correspondent says: I massively resent being told by Prescott and his people that by using my car as I do I am practically a criminal. Please fight against this rabidly anti-car Labour Government. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) has rightly mentioned the problem that local government is already experiencing under the new Labour Government in trying to make the books balance and to make the investment that they would like. It is no wonder that local government is in trouble. Compared with the final year of the Conservative Government—one of their least generous years—in the first year of the Labour Government, there was a £70 million cut in local transport expenditure; in the subsequent year, a £169 million cut; and, this year, a £48 million cut. [Interruption.] Those figures are from the Government's own book on expenditure, so Labour Members cannot argue with them.

The same document on roads and traffic shows the damage that the Government are doing across the board on investment, including big cuts in overall national road expenditure. In Labour's first full year, national road expenditure was down £138 million; in their second year, it was down £87 million. That expenditure reduction explains quite a lot of the current chaos—[Interruption.]

Labour Members ask whether we would reverse the reduction. If they had listened, they would know that I am announcing—both today and in the document that we announced earlier this week—that, yes, a much better deal is needed for the motorist, and that it will have to include additional road building in areas that need bypasses—[Interruption.]

I shall tell hon. Members exactly how this would be done. We would privatise the tube, so that we could raise London Transport investment and have money left over for transport elsewhere in the country, as we should not have to milk the taxpayer for that particular necessary investment.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Redwood

I am afraid that I do not have time.

Mr. Geraint Davies

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Redwood

No.

We shall oppose the Government's plans to tax the motorist more. We want to take the motorist off the fuel escalator—we have gone high enough: it is now time to stop the higher taxes. We are against Labour's unfair congestion and parking taxes.

Those new taxes are Labour's poll tax on wheels.

Mr. Davies

Will the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made it quite clear that he is not giving way at the moment. I should also be grateful if we could have fewer interventions from a sedentary position.

Mr. Redwood

We are against Labour's poll tax on wheels—about which there have already been many rows in Scotland. There will be many more such rows, as Labour has bizarrely decided to introduce the poll tax on wheels in Scotland first. After all that the Government, when in opposition, said about the original poll tax, it is a bit rich that they should decide to experiment with a new and deeply unpopular set of taxes first in Scotland, trying out their new Scottish Parliament for that purpose. I think that it means that we shall have a lot of good opposition in Scotland ahead of us, and we shall rally the Scottish people to our side because of the anger that will be expressed there about having congestion taxes and parking taxes foisted upon them first.

The motorist had certainly better watch out—Labour has not finished yet. The Government plan further massive raids on the purses and pockets of drivers. Labour's latest hopeless document, entitled "Road to Ruin"—it is their road, not ours—states that its proposal for extra fuel duty, congestion taxes and cuts in the road programme amount to between £10 billion and £20 billion extra. That is a massive sum. So my message today to motorists is, "Beware: the Government do not like you, and they are going to hit you so hard it will hurt even more."

The Government are really planning a further massive tax raid on the motorist and are slashing the road programme at the same time. Most of the additional motoring taxes are being siphoned off to pay for their disastrously expensive welfare policies.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Winterton

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Redwood

I shall, just this once.

Mr. Winterton

May I support the argument being advanced by my right hon. Friend? He has been criticised and challenged on whether a Conservative Government would invest in roads. As the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) will know, one of the final acts of the Conservative Government and the former Minister, John Watts, was to put into a priority road programme the Poynton bypass, the Manchester airport eastern link road and other roads linking to it. One of the Deputy Prime Minister's and the Government's first acts was to remove those roads from the priority programme. Those roads will serve Manchester airport, which, in about 12 months, is to open a second runway.

Mr. Redwood

My hon. Friend has made his powerful point in his own inimitable way, and I agree with what he said. He has given another example of the damage that the Government are doing.

The Opposition propose better car parking and better arrangements for motorists to leave their cars at stations and close to bus routes, so that more journeys, and more of a journey, may be done by public transport when the roads are busy. Will the Government act on such proposals proposal? Do they have any money left after the mess they have made of London Transport investment—created by their stubborn refusal to privatise the tube and free the money that is needed? Does the Deputy Prime Minister understand that people need to use their cars, or need a better alternative if they are to be persuaded out of them?

Does the Deputy Prime Minister understand that the railway industry has been plunged into uncertainty by his refusal to make decisions and by his delay in setting a new statutory framework for it? His famous legislation was cancelled last year, delayed this year, but may arrive late in the next parliamentary year—if he is lucky.

The real problem, of course, is that the Secretary of State has now fallen out with practically everyone. I do feel sorry for him in his wars with the Prime Minister, but hope that they are able to patch it up in good time for the summer holidays. I look forward to seeing whether the right hon. Gentleman is left in charge when the Prime Minister goes on holiday, as that will be a test of how lethal the relationship has become.

The Prime Minister did serious damage to the bash-the-motorist policy with his journey up the bus lane, which became an understandable cause of anger among all those motorists who did not have that privilege. Ever since, it has been rows between Prime Minister and Deputy—over everything from transport to the future of the public sector. Presumably, the delay to the Railways Bill is part of the row over what the role of the public sector should be.

Worse still for the Secretary of State, there are persistent rumours from sources close to the Prime Minister that he wants to take his Deputy's closest aides away from him. The few Ministers that the Deputy Prime Minister does like, clustered around him at the Department, are under threat of eviction from the DETR, as the Prime Minister is clearly suspicious of this grouping. There could be a high price to pay for the Deputy Prime Minister falling out with the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who still seems to pull a lot of strings—surprising for one who resigned in disgrace.

I do not feel so sorry for the Deputy Prime Minister in his rows with the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Trade and Industry. They have reason to be vexed by the way in which he has behaved over the haulage industry and regional assistance.

Mr. Geraint Davies

As the great jammy dodger, how does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his commitment to reducing jams with his commitment to abolish the fuel escalator—thereby encouraging jams by making fuel cheaper, with the result that billions of pounds less will be available for investment in public transport? How can he have it both ways?

Mr. Redwood

The hon. Gentleman has not been listening to the argument. The extra money that Labour is raising is not going into transport. We had a better record on transport expenditure than the Government. We are making a commitment to the right kind of selective investment in roads and car parks to encourage people to take a better option.

We have shown where the money is coming from—we will save the money on London Transport investment by privatising the tube. As a result, we will increase investment in London Transport, because the private sector will do a much better job than the Deputy Prime Minister is allowed to do. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) really must listen and learn—he has wasted two minutes of the House's time. I was obviously foolish to give way—I was too generous.

The Minister for Transport does not look too happy in her brief, either. Transport Ministers have a short shelf-life under the Deputy Prime Minister, who seems to get in the way of their doing their job properly while not doing it properly himself. No wonder the chaos on the roads and at the stations gets worse.

Our new document is based on five important propositions: freedom to travel; choice of travel; care for the environment; supporting enterprise; and enjoying lower taxes. Those are the five crucial principles which would produce a much better answer. Unlike the Government, we do not want to frustrate travellers and attack motorists, but we do want a cleaner world. That means more incentives for cleaner and more fuel-efficient cars. It means fewer traffic jams—congestion is causing pollution, and the policies of the Deputy Prime Minister are causing a great deal of pollution, as well as frustration among the travelling public. Our policy means encouraging more use of other forms of travel by offering something better and working out what it is that people need to encourage them to leave the car at the station and to get on the train.

Let us take the case of the tube. We would not close down lines for weeks at a time in the way the Deputy Prime Minister has done. We would get the work done in the quieter times. We would put forward a much bigger investment programme, as we did when we were in office, thanks to privatisation.

Instead of spending money on reducing the amount of road space available with dangerous projects such as the M4 bus lane, we would free up the main roads and spend the money on safer routers to school and work for pedestrians, away from the main road.

The Government wrongly claim that we want to make things less safe. [HON. MEMBERS: "You do.''] Labour Members are so silly. The document states clearly that there is a role for traffic-calming safety measures in the right places, such as on residential roads and near schools. However, the document makes it clear also that there should be main routes into principal cities and towns where the traffic can flow more freely and at a better speed. We need to segregate pedestrians from fast-moving traffic. We should not stop all traffic moving at a sensible speed, as the Government want to do. It is because they are so muddled up, and because their policy is disintegrating, that we have frustrated motorists. However, they have not made things as safe for pedestrians as they should have done.

We are offering these positive suggestions, and we are offering 10 pledges to the motorist and traveller in our document. [Interruption.]

The Minister for Transport (Mrs. Helen Liddell)

The right hon. Gentleman does not know his own pledges.

Mr. Redwood

Of course I know my own pledges. I helped to draft and write them but, for the sake of accuracy, it is a good idea to have them in front of me when presenting them to the House.

We will halt the annual fuel duty increases. We will publish a clear balance account, showing what the Government raise in tax and how it is spent. We will oppose Labour's plans for increased tax burdens on the motorist. We remain opposed to Labour's plans to tax people who have to drive to and park at their place of work. We will challenge the Government to commission a full and fair inquiry into the competitiveness of the haulage industry, which they are gravely damaging. We will promote schemes to take heavy lorries and through traffic out of our towns and villages that need bypassing.

We will publish, and keep updated, a list of the most pressing road improvement schemes needed on the main trunk roads, and we will not cancel them all in the way the Government do. We will penalise water, electricity, gas and telephone companies for excessive delays, which cause problems when they extend their roadworks unnecessarily. We will set up local traffic flow forums to work with motoring organisations to try to find good ways of easing traffic flow on the existing road space. We will consider minimum speed limits to improve traffic flow on major routes.

Those are good, sensible suggestions. We offer them to the Government for the next couple of years in a helpful spirit. Will the Deputy Prime Minister take up any one of them, because any one of them could make the position better? What can the Government offer, other than division at the top and bashing the motorist?

Out of new Labour comes transport chaos. Out of new Conservative comes the traveller's friend. Will the Deputy Prime Minister bury the hatchet, help the motorist, get on with improving trains and buses and adopt some of our ideas? I recommend the motion to the House.

2.26 pm

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott)

I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof: deplores the previous Government's record of under-investment and disintegration in the transport network, its failure to tackle congestion as traffic rose by 75 per cent., and its cut in road maintenance; commends the Government for producing the first Transport White Paper for 20 years which has a comprehensive approach to transport across all modes and welcomes the Government's new deal for the motorist in the Transport White Paper; applauds the Government for its clear and open framework for appraising and informing the prioritisation of trunk road investment, taking a far-sighted and more integrated approach than the previous administration; notes that the present Government has begun to tackle the inherited problems of under-investment, pollution and increasing traffic congestion, by a new radical integrated strategy, including an extra £1.8 billion for public transport and local transport management, improving road maintenance, encouraging greater fuel efficiency, reducing pollution, and introducing the long-term policies needed to increase transport choice and improve Britain's transport system; and recognises the freedom that the car has given and that congestion can remove the convenience and pleasure from driving. In his last few words, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made it clear why he has rejected so much of previous Conservative policy, to which I shall refer—he has discovered new Conservatism. Am I to accept that that is a complete change from everything the previous Administration believed in? [Interruption.] We shall wait and see whether that is confirmed. The right hon. Gentleman is rejecting everything that was done by the previous Administration, and the transport lessons learned over 18 years appear to have been wiped out. If that is so, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that I had more sympathy for the previous Administration's analysis of transport priorities and congestion than I have for the new Redwood plan.

I believe that most people in this country—there may be agreement between both sides of the House here—want a transport system that is safe, efficient, clean and fair to all users. We can have consensus, right at the beginning of the debate. The argument appears to be about how we achieve that, how the resources are raised and whether we can build our way out of congestion. I suspect that there is a fundamental disagreement on that point.

The previous Administration concluded that we could not build our way out of congestion, and their conclusions were similar to those in our White Paper. When I introduced the White Paper to the House, I said that much of the thinking in the previous Government's Green Paper had been adopted in our analysis and consultation, and that we had arrived at similar conclusions. It is now clear that new Conservatism rejects those ideas on transport, and I wish to address myself to that point.

Before doing so, I wish to refer to the comments of the right hon. Member for Wokingham on investment in the underground. I inherited an underground system with a massive disinvestment of £1.2 billion. There is no doubt about that—it is clear, audited and there to be seen. That was simply because inadequate resources were put into core investment. Much of the money provided by the previous Administration was poured into the Jubilee line—quite rightly, as we need a Jubilee line. However, the contract was not very good, and has now cost well over £1 billion more than was needed. It was paid for by sucking out the core investment in the underground. We hope and believe that we have control of that now, and we are looking at the core investment needs of the London underground.

I can announce today that more than £500 million extra will now be found for the underground system, and that information has been provided in a parliamentary answer today. Expenditure on the underground is set out in the Red Book. We can see the investment and expenditure pattern. In our first two years, 1997 and 1998, despite accepting the previous Government's expenditure plans, we found a further £300 million. I announced in a statement that the £1 billion and the further £300 million would restore the cuts that had been proposed for the London underground.

We considered precisely where the extra resources are to come from, as we wanted to complete the public-private partnership bids in 1999–2000 and get the investment programme under way. Unfortunately, we have not been able to meet that timetable. I expressed a fear at the time that we would not be able to complete the deal on time. I am now concerned to get a good deal for the taxpayer and avoid reproducing the problems that we had with the Jubilee line contract and the channel tunnel rail link, both of which involved demands for an extra £1 billion.

In 1999–2000, there will be an extra £763 million of investment in the London underground. Added to the resources available in 2001, that is a total of £1 billion. The previous Administration planned to invest £161 million in the underground in 1999–2000, by contrast with our £763 million. That shows the clear difference between our priorities and theirs.

Mr. Redwood

I am glad that our debate has at least provoked the Deputy Prime Minister into finding a bit more investment for the underground, which is sorely needed. I remind him that the investment was £955 million in 1994–95; £1.114 billion in 1995–96; and £1.06 billion in 1996–97. We were planning to have privatised the tube by now, so of course the numbers went down, because we expected a lot of money to come in from the private sector. The right hon. Gentleman cancelled that. The record of investment for the successive years of this Government is £843 million, £654 million and, according to the original plans for this year, £564 million. That is a massive slash in investment compared with the last three years of Conservative government.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that he is increasing the investment in 1999–2000 from £564 million to £763 million—an increase of £199 million—and that that is still £300 million less than we invested in the last Conservative year?

Mr. Prescott

The right hon. Gentleman has not denied that the Conservative Government planned to invest only £161 million in 1999–2000, whereas we are investing £763 million. That is a substantial difference. His argument is that he would have privatised the underground. Let us consider the previous Government's record on the privatisations that it rushed through.

Billions of pounds were lost on Railtrack and the rolling stock companies, and the Conservatives paid a company £250 million to take the freight industry away from the state, rather than selling it or getting any money for the taxpayer. I have no faith that they would have been able to produce a privatisation plan in time, and even if they had, they would have rushed it to such an extent that it would have cost the taxpayer billions of pounds, as the Public Accounts Committee has reminded us.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that he would sell off the underground for £560-odd million, as I understand it. I do not know how he arrived at that figure, but it is very small and entirely consistent with the value that the Conservatives got in previous privatisations, when they sold off our great public assets very cheaply, turning many of them into millionaires along the way.

The right hon. Gentleman made great play of spending plans and national roads programmes. It is fair to keep telling him what the previous Government planned to spend had they been re-elected. There was a great deal of shouting about the fact that we said that our public expenditure would be similar to their plans—although we found a little extra, in the shape of the £300 million to restore the cuts—but the difference is that we have taken a view that we cannot build our way out of congestion. That is at the heart of the argument about transport.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (North-East Bedfordshire)

Talking of building our way out of congestion, the Deputy Prime Minister knows that one of the bypasses that the Government have kept in the programme is Great Barford in Bedfordshire, which needs to be built because of the terrible congestion. Why will nothing happen until 2001, and why even then will we get only the publication of the orders? Can the plans be brought forward?

Mr. Prescott

We constantly hear such pleas, but our record on building bypasses is very good compared with that of the previous Administration. We are reviewing road expenditure and using different criteria, to take into account the environment, safety, economic regeneration, the relief of congestion and other such matters. That is how we have put together our programme. We have not drawn up the £6 billion wish list that we used to debate in the House.

The Conservatives put £6 billion of roads into the programme, with no chance whatever of getting them built, and spent only £1.5 billion. That was a load of nonsense. We have rejected that and said that it is right to spell out what we plan to build over three years. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should be grateful that his bypass is in the programme. We have designed the programme to reflect the fact that we want more and more of the resources to go into offering people more of an opportunity to use their cars less and public transport more, as we have taken the view that we cannot build our way out of congestion.

Mr. Ian Bruce

rose—

Mr. Prescott

No, I must make some progress. There are real problems with time, and the right hon. Member for Wokingham also had to limit his taking of interventions because of the shortening of our debate.

We should remind the House, and especially the right hon. Member for Wokingham, that in 18 years in office the Tories did nothing to sort out the transport problems. There was a fall of 11 per cent. in the number of public transport journeys, and the number of car journeys increased by 21 per cent. Bus journeys fell by 31 per cent. There was disinvestment in the London underground system. The privatised rail system was broken into 100 pieces and Railtrack was sold off very cheaply and has had great difficulty in keeping its investment promises to improve rail services. Roads fell into the worst condition since official surveys began. Official Government records show that road maintenance was as bad as it has ever been and constantly worsening. The situation was totally unacceptable.

One would welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is now converted to the notion of providing more resources for maintenance, but the Conservatives cut the maintenance programme by 8 per cent. We restored that cut because we understand the programme's importance. There was increasing gridlock and congestion.

In an article in 1996, after 16 years of Tory government, the right hon. Gentleman said: We have gridlock. The rush hour begins just after 6 am and is still in full flow three hours alter. In many parts of the south east the traffic queue for one junction runs into the queue for the next and for the one beyond that. The station car park is full. The queue for Heathrow is long. The M25 regularly seizes up. Everyone tells me something should be done about it. That was not after our policies but after all the wonderful things that the right hon. Gentleman tells us the previous Government planned. Perhaps it was old Conservatism that produced the problem, but I have to deal with what we inherited.

Mr. Ian Bruce

rose—

Mr. Prescott

No, no. I have problems with time.

The Tory Government brought about the very things that the right hon. Member for Wokingham classically identified in his article almost 12 months before the general election. There were 70 cars for every mile of road in 1979 and there are now 100. We have predicted, and everyone accepts the analysis, that in 20 years, if we do nothing, there will be 6 million new cars on our roads, meaning 30 per cent. more traffic and 70 per cent. longer journey times.

That is clearly unacceptable, but I pray in aid the 1996 Tory Green Paper, which admitted: the road network is broadly complete, the Government's priority is to make more efficient use of our existing roads, and to reduce dependence on the private car. That did not come from my White Paper: it came from the conclusion of the previous Administration's Green Paper. They agreed that we had to get people to use their cars less and use public transport more. I happen to agree. That was the old Conservative view, and we have heard the new view from the right hon. Member for Wokingham. That Green Paper was called "The Way Forward", but the Redwood plan is the way back.

There is a general consensus that we cannot build our way out of congestion, but this week the Conservatives set out a new transport policy almost entirely devoted to roads. It could not really be called a transport policy. The Tories have listened, but they have learned nothing. In our White Paper, we acknowledge the need to integrate transport, because in 18 years we learned the lessons that the right hon. Member for Wokingham apparently has not learned.

We introduced the first White Paper for 20 years and it was welcomed by business groups, all the motoring organisations, consumers' organisations, environmentalists and the public. The Government's clear aim is to provide a decent transport system that is integrated and sustainable. No other White Paper has been so broadly welcomed in its definition of what we have to do in the short and long term.

Since the White Paper, we have seen a dramatic increase in rail passengers and freight, more resources for rural buses and 1,500 new services. We have seen a greater commitment to concessionary bus fares so that all can benefit from greater mobility. Some 100 towns now have bus and rail links through through-ticketing. Some 430 railway car parks now have CCTV and I have announced extra resources for the London underground. Those are some of the benefits that are beginning to flow from improving confidence in the transport policy.

Reaction to the Redwood plan has been very different. The right hon. Gentleman's transport policy is called "A Fair Deal for Motorists", but if he were able to implement it, it would be the most anti-motorist policy of all. It is not costed, it would be damaging to the environment and the resources for it would not be made available, according to what I read of it. One of the Tories' press releases said that all the proposals had been costed, but we did not hear anything about that today. We did not hear which roads or bypasses would be built as a priority. We did not hear what resources would be put into public transport. I do not doubt that the shadow Treasury team will not allow the right hon. Member for Wokingham to cost his proposals. We all face the rule of the Treasury on such matters.

I am critical of the Redwood plan, but that is only to be expected. Therefore, I shall pray in aid other organisations and publications. The spokesperson for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents stated: Ten people are killed every day in road accidents and my society will fight any move to raise speed limits … Many motorists already drive at 80 mph … if the motorway limit is raised then drivers will continue to push up their speed more and more.

Mr. Christopher Leslie (Shipley)

It is dead wood.

Mr. Prescott

The Redwood plan may be a dead-wood plan, but RoSPA is an authoritative voice on death and accidents. We have a proud record in reducing death and accidents on roads in this country that is better than those of many other countries. That has continued through Governments from the mid-1960s onwards. The Conservatives' new policy would reverse that trend and that is what RoSPA have complained about.

The Financial Times quoted the AA: The record of the previous government in transport matters speaks for itself. They took £100bn out of road taxes and diverted it elsewhere leaving the road infrastructure in an appalling state. That is the AA's view of the success of Tory policies.

The Guardian, for all the intellectuals who read it, said: The Tories are not so much jumping on a bandwagon as clambering into the back seat. Yesterday they unveiled what they called their 'motorists' charter' transport policy … uncosted tinkering, masquerading as a long-term strategy. The Times, which is not exactly a left-leaning newspaper, said: The new transport policy, unveiled yesterday, is like a blast of stale air. Muddled thinking, uncosted plans and contradictory statements do not make a policy. It continues: John Redwood … appears to define 'transport' solely as travel by car". The Tories' new policy purports to be the friend of the motorist but it does not offer solutions to congestion. In 18 years, they failed to relieve congestion. After billions of pounds of expenditure on roads, there were more cars on the roads and more coming. They could not keep ahead of the growth. Unless the right hon. Member for Wokingham intends to double or treble the road-building programme—and I can believe that he would propose to do so—he will not be able to keep ahead of car growth. However, the policy paper does not say that they will double or treble road building to meet their wish list. Would he do so? It is a possibility. It would not work, but the right hon. Gentleman should have the honesty to tell the motorist which roads he would build.

The right hon. Member for Wokingham tries to kid motorists that he would not introduce charges, but his Government introduced charges for the Birmingham northern relief road. He said that there would be no tolls on the motorways.

Mr. Redwood

No unfair tolls.

Mr. Prescott

Now we see the picture. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said, "We're against congestion charging."

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)

I am.

Mr. Prescott

You might be—perhaps that is new new Conservatism—but you should have a chat to your mate on the Front Bench.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. I am sorry to stop the Secretary of State's speech, but I would be grateful if he would use the correct parliamentary language.

Mr. Prescott

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Gordon Prentice

Will my right hon. Friend give way to an intellectual? [Interruption.]

Mr. Prescott

I missed that comment, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Prentice

I have a copy of a document from the British Road Federation which reminds us that the 1997 national road maintenance condition survey showed that the condition of all types of road was the worst since national measurements were first published in the mid-1970s. Does not that information bear out the point that my right hon. Friend has just made that it is incredible brass neck for the Conservatives to point the finger at us when they systematically neglected the roads programme for half a generation?

Mr. Prescott

I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a sound and intelligent point. That was the conclusion of the Green Paper of the old Tory Government.

Mr. Ian Bruce

rose—

Mr. Prescott

Are you standing for the old Tory Government?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I remind the Secretary of State that the purpose of the conventions is to ensure that we choose our words carefully.

Mr. Ian Bruce

The Deputy Prime Minister visited my constituency during the European election campaign and we were grateful to him, not least for the result that we achieved. He will know that at the end of the old Conservative Government, when they were cutting back on roads, the Dorchester relief road was No. 1 on the list for Dorset. The road is in his programme, but for two years he has failed to tell the local authorities whether they will be allowed to proceed. He has not answered my letters on the subject, so will he tell the House now whether he will allow it to proceed?

Mr. Prescott

If I have not answered the hon. Gentleman's letter, I apologise and I will see that it is answered immediately.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)

rose—

Mr. Prescott

The hon. Gentleman claimed that someone had seen someone who looked like me. I do not know whether there is another version of me somewhere. He was told that it was not true, but he pursued it through parliamentary questions. That was the height of stupidity, but we are used to that from the hon. Gentleman. We have made it clear that we will be building more bypasses. That is part of our programme which, as the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) knows, is not for one year any more, but for three. If the bypass that he mentioned is part of our programme, I shall have to discuss it with the local authority. I have set out a core road programme and also a regional programme. That is an entirely new structure for road programmes. However, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and try to give him the best information available at this stage.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)

rose—

Mr. Bercow

rose—

Mr. Prescott

I want to move to measures on congestion.

Dr. Julian Lewis

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State to compound a misleading written answer to me, in which he wrongly claimed to have dealt with a matter over the telephone? In this debate, he has repeated that he dealt with the matter, but he has not, and he has refused to give way to me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is just seeking to join in the debate.

Mr. Prescott

There are many elements in the Redwood plan, as I shall continue to call it, that I should like to examine. Of the 52 proposals, the press release stated that 25 would cost a considerable amount of money, but we have not yet heard anything about their costing. Debates on these subjects involve much talk about tax raising. Given that the Opposition are making great play of the matter, I thought that I would look at the sums raised in transport taxes and the amounts that have been spent.

In 1979–80, the final year of the previous Labour Administration, something like £4.1 billion was raised in revenue from vehicle excise duty and other duties. Expenditure on transport by that Government was £3.7 billion. Total transport expenditure expressed as a share of that revenue was 90 per cent.—in other words, we spent 90 per cent. of the amount collected. In the final year of the previous Conservative Administration, the amount raised rose to £21 billion, and expenditure was £8 billion, or 40 per cent. of the total raised.

Under the old Tories—and I think that I must now make that qualification every time I refer to them—40 per cent. of the amount raised in tax was spent, whereas the preceding Labour Government spent 90 per cent. That is worth remembering. In addition, the right hon. Member for Wokingham needs to turn his attention to the fuel duty escalator, which he knows raises about £1.5 million extra a year. He has said that he would abolish it, but if he did, he would have to examine the expenditure programmes and decide either to raise more in taxation or to make cuts—in the transport expenditure plans, or in the programmes for education or health provision.

When we were in opposition, we were constantly asked where the money would come from to pay for our plans. The question was, "Where's the beef?" Yet we have heard nothing from the Conservative party in response to the same question. I hope that we will be told later on.

Mr. Redwood

I have enjoyed the knockabout from the Deputy Prime Minister, but he has been attacking a policy and a document that are not the ones that I launched. My document is about a fair deal for the motorist, and we shall be launching policies on rail, the tube, buses and other transport elements over the coming months. We have a comprehensive approach to transport, and the document is just one element.

However, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's specific query, I can tell him that we believe that the tube should be privatised. That would mean that he would not need the £760 million taken out of the taxpayer's pocket for tube investment. That money would then be available for the other schemes that we propose in our 52-point programme.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that his increase in tube investment—which is a lot of money—is in the budget for the coming year. That money would be available to spend elsewhere if only he would privatise the tube. We have costed our plans to live within that budget.

Mr. Prescott

According to a quotation that I have seen, the right hon. Gentleman assumes that privatisation would realise an income of about £500 million a year, but the road programme alone costs £1.5 billion a year, even at the level of expenditure of the previous Conservative Administration. Privatising the tube cannot pay for all the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, such as building more roads, getting rid of "impediments" such as speed humps, and so on. Frankly, those proposals will not be financed out of such a small amount of money.

The other problem with the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, apart from the impossibility of using income from tube privatisation as a substitute for investment, is that income would be taken away from the Exchequer as a result of his proposed ending of the fuel duty escalator. The escalator was introduced by the previous Government, for a number of reasons, and the right hon. Gentleman supported it.

I am therefore left in some difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman has disowned—decoupled himself from—the actions that he took in government, and now says that he wants to start afresh. The trouble with starting afresh, however, is that money and solutions still have to be found. As I have said before, no Government can build their way out of the problem. The evidence for that is clear. The right hon. Gentleman should tell the House what he intends to do.

Given the time and the interventions that I have taken, I shall now move to the important question of congestion charging. People have been given the impression that the Opposition intend to do away with congestion charging and motorway tolls. I think that the right hon. Member for North Wiltshire said as much—

Mr. Gray

I am only honourable, not right honourable.

Mr. Prescott

I apologise. The hon. Gentleman will probably never get that far: I was just feeding him up a bit. Brokers do not usually get on—they only get money.

The Opposition are apparently wholeheartedly opposed to congestion charging, to workplace charging and to retail charging. Is that the position of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman? I take that nod from the right hon. Gentleman to mean that the Opposition would repeal those measures. I find that difficult to believe when I read the right hon. Gentleman's document, which does not say precisely that. It talks about "unfair" congestion charging. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree about that? He does not answer, but I need his help because I am in some difficulty here. Do the Opposition want fair congestion charging? Is that okay?

Mr. Redwood

The Deputy Prime Minister is getting himself into a muddle. We are not in a muddle at all. We are against the unfair congestion and parking charges—the taxes—that the Government say they will introduce. Our document states that the Government have taxed the motorist more than enough—indeed, too much—so we shall oppose those new taxes tooth and nail. We are against them, full stop.

Mr. Prescott

One of the difficulties that I have with that lies in the difference between the main document and an earlier paper that will be of interest to the Treasury. The word "fair" appears to have been inserted at some stage, and I wondered whether that meant that charges might be levied. The difficulty is especially awkward in relation to additional taxes on motorways.

The earlier paper, which was compiled before the document that has been published, makes it clear that the Opposition are prepared to consider motorway charges. It states that they are against those charges, but adds that they are now prepared to talk about "unfair" motorway charges. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Opposition are in any way considering placing charges on motorways?

Mr. Redwood

The burden on the motorist is far too high because of this Government. We are against the charges, which we regard as taxes, that the Government are threatening to impose. We stated our intent very clearly, and we shall oppose the right hon. Gentleman tooth and nail over the new taxes that he is to introduce. We do not want them, and will vote against them. That means we are offering a fairer deal for the motorist.

Mr. Prescott

I take that to mean that the right hon. Gentleman has set his face against any form of charges on motorways or congestion.

Mr. Redwood

I did not say that—[Interruption.] I did not say that for the simple reason that I think the Conservative Government were right to build the Dartford crossing and to impose a toll for that new facility, which had an additional capacity to help the motorist. I am not about to abolish the toll on that rather good facility. I supported it at the time, and still support it.

Mr. Gordon Prentice

All over the place.

Mr. Prescott

As my hon. Friend says, that is all over the place. We shall wait with interest to see how the right hon. Gentleman works the matter out with the Treasury, whose fingers I can already detect in this matter. Of course, we all have to be accountable to the Treasury and make a case for resource allocation, but the right hon. Gentleman has given a confused statement of the Opposition's approach.

Mr. Redwood

There is nothing at all confused about it. The previous Conservative Government held that if the private sector was prepared to build the additional facility provided by a big, new, very expensive crossing and then needed a toll, we would support that toll. That is still our position. We are not going back on our support for a toll at a new facility provided by the private sector. However, we shall oppose tooth and nail the Deputy Prime Minister's wish to tax people for using motorways that they have already bought.

Mr. Prescott

Now we have it. The document talks about new financial initiatives. It appears that the Opposition are quite prepared to allow tolls—and therefore profit—for private investment, but that the same levies to improve public transport are not acceptable for the public sector. We are beginning to see how the Opposition spokesman's mind works.

I shall therefore give the right hon. Gentleman something else to think about. He says that he is against workplace charging. Of the people who work, 75 per cent. travel to work by private transport and 70 per cent. of them have access to workplace parking. The others use a car park of some sort, paying £8,000 a year in car-parking charges. In order to be fair to the motorist, will the right hon. Gentleman have different rules for those who have to use a car park when they go to work and those who have a free space? Will he make different rules for different types of motorist?

Mr. Redwood

The fact that one person already suffers is no reason why everyone else should suffer a new tax from the Government.

Mr. Prescott

The right hon. Gentleman is still considering all these matters, of course. I suggest that he reads our White Paper, "Breaking the Logjam", which is out to consultation. It might help him to think about how to implement his fair or unfair congestion charges.

The right hon. Gentleman's proposals are a wish list without true costs. He has told us nothing about costs. The press release told us the costs would be given. I have waited to hear from him, but nothing has come. We were right from the first—his programme is a wish list with no estimate of its cost. It is also steeped in hypocrisy; the right hon. Gentleman wants us to believe that whatever happened under the old Tory Government had nothing to do with him. This is year zero, and he is creating a new policy for a new Conservative party. He rejects all analysis, no matter how intelligent or right it is.

The right hon. Gentleman's new policy is all about populism, and it is designed to deceive the motorist. It leads motorists to believe that throwing in resources will relieve congestion, and it flies in the face of all the evidence. Even the motoring organisations know that we must do something new. The right hon. Gentleman's programme would cost us more deaths on the roads, and he ought to think very carefully about that. His ill-thought-out policy is irresponsible, opportunistic and dangerous. The Times was right to describe it as cheap populism, although this debate is revealing that its full implications will be neither cheap nor popular. The right hon. Gentleman is the Arthur Daley of the Opposition, trying to sell us a clapped-out policy that will make life worse for motorists.

Mr. Redwood

I must ask the Deputy Prime Minister to withdraw the allegation that 1 want more deaths on the roads. Our policy's top priority is safety. We are looking to improve speeds and flows only on main routes, and we wish to segregate them from pedestrians because we do not want more accidents or danger. Our document makes it clear that we support proper safety schemes in the right places.

Mr. Prescott

I certainly would not accuse any individual of causing road deaths, and I naturally withdraw any remark implying that I did. However, the right hon. Gentleman's policies would increase deaths. Before road humps were placed in his own constituency, there were seven; since their introduction, there have been none. That is a powerful statistic, and he may wish to think about it before reversing the reduction in deaths and accidents that many Governments have worked to achieve.

The right hon. Gentleman's policy is not a fair deal for the motorist. It is a raw deal. It is bad news for the motorist, for the environment and for the country, as the Tories will soon realise.

3.3 pm

Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro and St. Austell)

The Deputy Prime Minister has gone to some lengths to expose the hypocrisy of the Conservative Front-Bench team. Enormous costs are attached to the Conservatives' policies, and they have provided no information on how those costs would be met.

I thought that the new policy might provide us with another example of a Conservative spokesman who has been told to apologise for the sins of the past. Many sins in the previous Government's transport policy would be worth an apology, but the changes that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has proposed are entirely wrong. Towards the end of the Conservatives' years in office, their Government began to accept some of the realities of congestion, pollution and road deaths.

I had hoped that today we would hear a costed proposal, and a statement from the right hon. Gentleman that he was sorry for the past, for the tax increases, for the increases in vehicle excise duty and for raising an extra £25 billion from motorists. I might not have agreed with his policy, but I thought that he would give us an apology. Far from it; we have heard a pretence that the past never happened, that the world began in 1997, and that nothing that came before Labour's election victory is relevant.

The right hon. Gentleman, disinclined to support Government intervention of any sort, has always taken an extreme free-market position. Now that he has his hands on transport, it would seem reasonable to assume that he is proposing policies that he has always believed in. That would excuse him from making a personal apology, as he could say that his colleagues had got it wrong, but that he had argued the right course. But we know that he supported tax increases on motorists without a whisper of dissent. He even voted for them—although for all the passion in his speech today, he did not bother to turn up to vote against the Labour Government's increases.

Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman's position is even worse than that. At the general election his view was very different from the one that he presented at the press conference to launch his new transport policy. At that press conference, his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said: This Government was elected to bring traffic reduction and they now recognise how ludicrous that policy is. But the right hon. Member for Wokingham did not see that policy as ludicrous when he sought votes. On 29 May 1997, he wrote to Mr. J. Keable of Reading: Thank you for your letter. The Conservative Government offered its support to the road traffic reduction proposals in the last Parliament. I believe that the Labour and Liberal parties are also in favour. This being the case there should be no difficulty in pursuing the matter. When seeking election, it seems, the right hon. Gentleman was all too well aware of the demand for road traffic reduction, and happy to say that there should be no difficulty in pursuing it. He was happy to imply that there would be cross-party consensus on efforts to find a way to reduce traffic and congestion, but he now says something entirely different. After two years of listening, the Conservatives have found—surprise, surprise—that motorists are not happy about some of the problems caused by the previous Government, such as the extra £25 billion that motorists paid in tax, the difficulties of finding money for public transport investment, and the need to pay more if we are to get people off the roads.

The Tories' focus groups have told them that there is some quick popularity to be had if they make a few promises, say that there will be no more taxes and no more traffic jams, and tell the people that there will be no more of the things that they do not like, and lots more of what they do like. The Tories think that that might win them a few votes, but unfortunately for the right hon. Member for Wokingham, people are not quite as stupid as he thinks.

Recent editorials cannot have made happy reading for the right hon. Gentleman. Can his boss, who has suffered some pretty similar editorials of his own, have been happy about the impact of the glorious new Conservative transport policy? The real shame of it is that the Government—like the Conservative Government before them—are trying to grapple with serious issues.

The issues are discussed in the White Paper that the right hon. Gentleman so cheerfully attacked, but the previous Government's Green Paper on transport was almost identical—almost the same, word for word. The Deputy Prime Minister may not wish to admit that.

Mr. Prescott

On hypothecation.

Mr. Taylor

As the right hon. Gentleman says, hypothecation is included in both documents.

Motorists' taxes should reflect not only investment in roads but the real economic costs of road transport—the costs to business of congestion, the costs to the health service of treating problems arising from fumes and pollution, and the cost to society of damage to the environment.

The previous Government's Green Paper—if the right hon. Member for Wokingham has not read it, he should—went into detail on all the matters that the Conservatives now criticise, concluding that if local authorities are to take the main role in deciding the right strategies for their areas, they need to have sufficient tools for the job. These might include powers to restrain traffic by local licensing measures or electronic charging systems, or powers aimed at reducing the provision of off-street non-residential parking. The Government accepts that there is a case for such powers to be available for use locally at the discretion of individual authorities. The issue is not purely urban, although it is true that the issues are different in rural areas. One of the advantages of congestion charging over an increase in petrol prices is that it can be targeted on motorists where public transport is available, so as to have the greatest effect.

The document continues: Car use can be particularly important in rural areas. Many rural locations do not produce sufficient passenger flows to allow cost-effective public transport services; so cars are often essential for rural inhabitants and businesses. There are concerns nevertheless about adequate access for those without cars"— who are entirely forgotten by the new modern Conservative party— and about the environmental impact of high car use both in sensitive rural tourist locations and more generally … The Government believes more attention will need to be given to reducing car dependence in rural areas without damaging economic activity or restricting access to shops. The Conservative Government targeted congestion in urban areas; they argued in favour of allowing local authorities to levy charges on non-residential car parking and in congestion areas, and to implement electronic and pass charging. Those are exactly the things that the right hon. Gentleman now rails against and commits himself to oppose—unless, of course, they are fair, whatever that means. Yet the Conservatives used to accept the need for traffic reduction even in rural areas.

Mr. Redwood

Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why it is fair to tax people on low incomes off the road, thus leaving the roads freer for those on high incomes?

Mr. Taylor

The right hon. Gentleman misses the point of what I have just quoted from a Conservative Government document. Perhaps he should have considered that before publishing his policy. He also forgets that even in rural areas, one in five people—overwhelmingly the poorest, the old or people with disabilities—do not have access to a car. That consideration runs right through the document.

If there were congestion charging in urban areas where public transport could be made available, what would that do for people? It would fund the provision of that public transport alternative. Indeed, using public and private links, provision could be made before congestion charging was introduced. There could be a twin-track approach, providing fast, efficient, clean and safe public transport to get people off the roads. It would be paid for through congestion charging, so that neither poorer people nor anyone else would have to pay high charges, and the roads would be clear for those who needed to use them.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby)

The hon. Gentleman rightly describes a form of social exclusion in rural areas. Will he comment on the deregulation policy of the previous Tory Government, especially as it affected bus services in rural areas such as his and my own? How much damage did that policy do, and how much worse did it make the problems of social exclusion in rural economies and communities? There were 18 years of increasing social exclusion.

Mr. Taylor

The hon. Gentleman is right. However, there is a notable difference between London and the rest of the country. In London bus use has grown; in the rest of the country it has fallen. The issue affects even those whom the Conservative party might regard as its natural supporters, those in business. Estimates of the cost to business arising from congestion range from £15 billion to £30 billion a year. Most of the increase in that figure occurred while the Conservatives were in office.

The Deputy Prime Minister referred to traffic calming, on which the Conservatives' proposals are muddled, to say the least. Their policy document states: We will not promote the use of environmentally unfriendly traffic humps. I am not quite sure what the phrase "environmentally unfriendly traffic humps" means. It may mean that the humps are made from some material that damages the environment, in which case I agree with the right hon. Member for Wokingham. However, I think that he means that all traffic humps are environmentally unfriendly because he does not like them in the environs of his roads. Presumably that is because the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would like to drive faster. Indeed, I am sure that is what he means, because he recently referred to road humps as "impediments".

I represent a rural community, and every September I spend a couple of weeks visiting all the villages that I represent—about 70 different stops—holding travelling advice surgeries. During the past two years, the No. I overwhelming request has been for traffic calming. Village after village is being destroyed by the cars that drive through.

Mr. Geraint Davies

The hon. Gentleman's constituents want to slow him down.

Mr. Taylor

As I tow a caravan, there is no chance of my going too fast. However, the hon. Gentleman is probably right in that many people would prefer it if I did not travel with a caravan; motorists tend not to like them. However, I am a form of traffic calming process in my own right, so I point out to my constituents that I am doing exactly what they ask.

I have made so many requests for traffic calming during the past two years that I wrote separately to the county surveyor to apologise for inundating him with requests. I know that he cannot pay for all the schemes, because he does not have the income stream to do so—although income has increased recently, and I praise the Government and the county council for taking that decision. Liberal Democrat county councillors wanted to give greater priority to such matters.

The key point is that rural people want to slow down traffic in their communities. The right hon. Member for Wokingham has focused on the motorist; he has spoken to one or two organisations that are fixated on arguing the motorist's case and not to the organisations that take a more intelligent view and consider the safety issues.

Mr. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)

Jeremy Clarkson?

Mr. Taylor

Perhaps, but the Conservatives have not consulted people who have considered the issue rationally. The right hon. Member for Wokingham should talk to those in his party who had ministerial responsibility for these matters before the general election. They learned and understood the lessons, and continue those arguments in their new roles.

My criticism of the Government is not, and never has been, on the policies that they said they intended to pursue. We may have some differences. I would like vehicle excise duty on all cars up to 1600 cc to be abolished. It is sensible to charge people for use, not for ownership. That applies especially to small ordinary family cars; big petrol guzzlers may be another matter.

However, I am concerned, as is the Deputy Prime Minister, about the lack of progress so far. After two years there has been no legislation to put the policies into effect—although I realise that the Deputy Prime Minister has fought for that. The process is now starting, but the Railways Bill will be held up until after the recess. There is likely to be a major traffic Bill in the autumn, but we do not know for sure; I hope that the right hon. Gentleman wins the battle for a broader Bill to implement the major features of the White Paper.

The slowness emanates, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, from others in the Government, and from Departments that fear the very issues being raised by the Conservative party. Short-termism makes the matter politically unacceptable. That is wrong. Any member of the public who is stuck in a traffic jam, any family whose children suffer from asthma that is worsened by traffic-related pollution, and anyone who suffers from noise, will see the logic of introducing the policies—provided that they are sensibly implemented alongside public transport provision.

Mr. Bercow

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir David Madel (South-West Bedfordshire)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Matthew Taylor

I want to finish soon, so I shall give way only to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).

Mr. Bercow

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for so charitably giving way. Whatever the merits of an improved railway service, and however desirable it may be to secure the passage of freight on such a service, can we take it that he is not committed to the destruction of the road haulage industry? If he acknowledges the centrality of that industry to our economic performance, does he agree that it was a regrettable omission by the Deputy Prime Minister when, while he was consulting his dictionary of quotations, he failed to refer to the letter from the director general of the Freight Transport Association that appeared in The Times on 15 March? That letter stated that not only did the Budget not improve the competitive position of the road haulage industry but it made it worse. The letter has been supported by a plethora of business organisations. Where do the Liberals stand—on the fence, or somewhere discernible?

Mr. Taylor

The answer is simple: as with car users, so with lorry users. We believe that the principles should be that people pay for use, not ownership, and that if they use more environmentally unfriendly modes of transport, they should pay more. Linked to the increases in petrol prices should have been deep cuts in the duties paid simply to put a lorry on the road in the first place. We do not want to get rid of lorries, but to make sure that they compete on a fair basis with other modes of transport, and that there are disincentives to the unnecessary use of transport. On that basis, I believe that there could be a better deal for the industry.

Sir David Madel

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor

No, because this is a short debate and the hon. Gentleman might speak in it himself.

The challenge facing the Government is to introduce the legislation and ensure that it is implemented earlier. The Conservative party should understand that the criticism of its policies expressed in The Times and the Western Morning News, which represents a rural community, is based on the fact that those polices represent ignorant short-term political opportunism that will not wash and has not washed.

3.21 pm

Mr. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield)

Given the constituency that I represent, I am as aware as anyone that on transport issues, we need to balance different, totally legitimate interests and needs. My interest arises from the fact that my constituency contains the largest car plant in this country: 50,000 jobs depend on that plant, so it is of vital importance to my constituents. I sometimes worry that I am becoming typecast in the House, because I never seem to talk about anything else.

Not only do many of my constituents work at that plant, but they live near it. They tell me that, although they want it to thrive, they are aware of the related problems of traffic movements, including lorries going to and from the plant. When the Conservatives consider their new transport policy, they should talk to some of the car firms such as Rover, which is talking about getting more of its freight off the road and on to rail. That is to be applauded.

My constituents also suffer from a high incidence of asthma, so airborne pollution is a problem. There is also a problem of traffic congestion, both in the centre of Northfield and on the route from the south of Birmingham into Birmingham city centre. There is a railway station at Longbridge, which is the last stop inside the Birmingham boundary for what is known as the cross-city line, so it is a major rail route. My constituents want that line to be extended to another part of my constituency, so that the local people can enjoy greater access and mobility. My constituents know that our rail system needs greater investment.

Conservative Members have talked about speed, and I have another interest to declare in that respect. I am not opposed to speed—indeed, I have a competition licence—but I know that speed is to be used on the track, not on the roads. We in Birmingham know that only too well: last weekend, a car came off a slip road off a major dual carriageway and ploughed into a party of nightclubbers; 41-year-old Selbourne Daly died and many others were seriously injured. The issue of speed cannot be ignored.

Mr. Bercow

The hon. Gentleman makes a serious charge against the Conservative party's position on that subject. Can he give examples based on past evidence of accidents that would result from the application of the sensible policy of having minimum speed limits on major roads, as advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)? Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that having a modest minimum speed limit on a major road will result in a serious increase in accidents? That is nonsense.

Mr. Burden

Having studied the document, I find it difficult to understand what the Conservatives are saying about speed, although the document talks about increasing speed limits on motorways.

I have yet to understand what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) means when he talks about traffic-calming measures. Most of the places where traffic-calming measures are used or have been requested are residential roads, where they have been shown to reduce the number of accidents. My point is that absolutist views should not carry the day in this debate. Unfortunately, absolutist views are written all over the policy document that the right hon. Gentleman launched this week.

The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants extra investment in our transport system, even in public transport, but we have yet to see how that investment is to be financed. He has said that the Conservatives would privatise London Underground, but I would dispute that that would raise the sums that he has forecast. He says that that privatisation would raise £760 million—presumably, that figure assumes that no public money would go into the process. Does he honestly believe that that is the amount of money needed by public transport in this country? Is that how much the roads programme that he wants to implement needs? I do not think so. What we need is not slogans, but a grown-up discussion about our transport policy. The policy document that was launched this week does not contribute to that debate.

Yesterday, I attended the inaugural conference of the west midlands regional chamber, which was addressed by the chair of the west midlands branch of the Confederation of British Industry, Mr. Digby Jones—a man who argued fiercely in favour of the Birmingham northern relief road and who understands the need for a proper road traffic system. However, he made it clear in his speech that we cannot go on as we have been going, and that we are not facing up to the real issues unless we tackle congestion in our city centres, which might involve charging motorists or imposing restrictions on them.

Transport polices require further investigation. I welcome the policy document published by Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. If we are to tackle the problems effectively, we need to consider different policies and pilot a full range of them. One such policy is workplace parking charges, with which I admit I have some problems. If such charges focus entirely on city centres, there is a risk of displacement of activity out of city centres; but if we widen the net too far, we might not achieve our objective of addressing congestion in those city centres. However, that is an argument not for throwing out such ideas but for piloting them properly.

The same is true of congestion charging, on which Conservative Members should make their views clear. As I understand their comments today, they are not opposed to all congestion charging, but they are opposed to its use in all but new areas and on additional roads. Does that mean one or more of the roads in the programme that they are halfway to announcing in their new policy document would be available for a congestion charging scheme? We need to know rather more about their policy.

We also need to address environmental issues—my constituents, dependent as they are on the motor industry, want us to address those issues. We should applaud the efforts made so far by motor manufacturers, such as their agreement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 25 per cent. in 10 years. They have already achieved a great deal in terms of reducing harmful emissions: within 10 years, the emissions produced by a motor car will be about 100 times less than they were 10 years ago. However, manufacturers should be asked to do more.

We can help, for example, in respect of vehicle excise duty, on which I disagree with the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). Although relating excise duty to engine size is a good start, engine size is not an accurate measure of environmental friendliness. We have to move to more sensitive measures on carbon dioxide emissions and so on. We can also do more to encourage the use of environmentally friendly fuels such as liquid petroleum gas.

Let us remember that there are no easy solutions, and that balances must be struck. We want to encourage manufacturers to make motor vehicles safer, but all too often that means increasing their weight, which brings with it the danger of decreasing fuel efficiency. We need to encourage a balanced policy.

We can do far more through the use of technology, telematics, information signalling and so on, not only to improve the private motor car but to make our public transport much more reliable and accessible. Above all, we need investment. There are different routes for investment, but although our constituents understand the need for certain kinds of charging and restrictions on car use, they will rightly expect results, and they will expect them soon. That means that the way in which we phase expenditure, borrowing and charging will be crucial, because we cannot ask our constituents to wait for results in the distant future while charging them now. We must therefore take an imaginative approach. We cannot go on as we have been doing.

We must take action quickly because the Conservative Government, sadly, left us with a chasm that we must cross. I do not know how one can cross a chasm by taking small steps. We need to take a large leap, which requires a great deal of investment and joined-up thinking. Most of all, it means that there should be no return to the days of slogans. We have seen such slogans in the policy document launched this week by the Conservative party, which had been starting to move away from their use. I was more impressed by the policies that were beginning to emanate from what I understand is now called the old Conservative party than by those from the new Conservative party. Let us have a grown-up debate and get our country moving again.

3.32 pm

Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury)

I very much enjoyed the Deputy Prime Minister's contribution, but I am confused about the Government's policies and objectives for transport. I am not sure whether they want to increase the revenue to the Exchequer—the right hon. Gentleman implied that that was a priority—to have an integrated transport policy or to achieve sustainable development. The Government have certainly succeeded in increasing the revenue to the Exchequer, and the motorist has inevitably been hit hard as a result. However, they have failed to implement an integrated transport policy and to achieve their sustainable development objective.

I declare an interest: smokers receive a poor return on the amount of money that is spent on health care to treat smoking-related diseases, compared to the amount that they contribute to the Exchequer. The same is true of road users because they contribute far more to the Exchequer than they ever receive back in money spent on roads.

According to a written answer from the Minister for Transport, for the most recent year for which figures are available, the Exchequer received a total of £35 billion from all taxation levied on vehicles and those working in the industry. However, only £1.8 billion, a mere fraction of the sum that is collected, is spent on roads. The motorist, like the smoker, therefore gets a very poor return on his investment. That situation is made worse by a number of other Government policies.

First, the amount that the motorist is being asked to contribute is increasing. The insurance premium tax has, from this month, been increased from 4 to 5 per cent. The fuel escalator, which the Government increased, continues to apply. However, the amount of money spent on roads is, by comparison, static. In fact, in a recent discussion, members of my local county council complained to me that because the funding rules have been changed, they are left with a decreasing amount of money to spend on B roads and small country lanes, forcing them to allow those roads to deteriorate.

Secondly, there are further threats to the motorist in the form of direct charging for road use or charges for workplace or supermarket parking. When motorists already contribute such a huge amount to the Exchequer, why should they pay more for something that they now enjoy? In other words, a charge to enjoy a new road is one thing, but charging motorists to use roads that they have already paid for time and again is quite different.

The Government have increased the amount paid to the Exchequer by road users, but have, I accept, improved the ratio of return to those road users on what is paid out by them. The Government have failed, however, to provide the motorist with an alternative to car use. They have failed even to begin to devise an integrated transport policy. I am not sure that anybody knows what that term means, although I am certain that nobody is benefiting from it. In spite of all the discouragement through taxation, car usage remains stubbornly high, and a great deal of freight remains on the roads.

I shall give an example which I am sure all hon. Members will recognise. My constituency is only a two-hour drive from London, or at least it used to be, but now the dedicated bus lane in the fast lane of the motorway—or what CB enthusiasts used to call the suicide lane—has considerably slowed my journey. The only cars that I have seen using that lane are taxis with one passenger, so I am not sure what it has achieved.

What are the rail alternatives for travelling from Tewkesbury to London? I could catch the train from Cheltenham, which usually involves changing trains twice along the way. The service is extremely unreliable, and it would take at least an hour longer than my car journey. Following a discussion with members of the county council, I asked the Minister for Transport what discussions she had had with Railtrack and the providers of the rail services. She replied that there had been no discussions. There is not, therefore, a great deal of encouragement to use the trains.

Mr. Quinn

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how much discussion he has had with Railtrack and the train operators?

Mr. Robertson

I have had a great deal of discussion with them because of all the complaints that I have received about the level of service. I do not seem to be making any headway, which is why I went to a higher authority and asked the Minister to intervene. Until the date of that written answer, she had not done so, but I hope that, following this debate, she may be persuaded to intervene.

I have referred to the enormous sum—£35 billion—that is taken from the motorist, of which £1.8 billion is spent on roads and £2.6 billion on alternative travel. There is not much encouragement for anybody to do anything other than drive his car.

I sit on the Environmental Audit Committee, and I would welcome any move to reduce car travel and protect the environment if that were possible. The Corrunittee interviewed the Minister about that, and I am not sure whether the Government want to shorten car journeys, to reduce the number of car journeys or to make those journeys cleaner. There is a difference between those objectives, and their achievement would require different policies.

Reducing the level of vehicle excise duty on cars below 1100 cc may have captured a few headlines, but it has achieved very little. If the Government had been serious about reducing the levels of emissions from cars—in other words, if their policies had been environmentally rather than economically driven—they would have set the level at 1500 cc engines. However, I accept that, these days, there is no direct correlation between the size of an engine and the emissions from it. Again, we have a headline-grabbing policy that means very little.

I am advised by the Government that average emissions from cars with engines below 1100 cc are equivalent to 139 g of carbon dioxide per kilometre, and from cars with engines between 1500 and 1600 cc, 160 g. If the level of VED had been reduced for vehicles with larger engines, the policy would have encompassed more people. However, the Exchequer would have lost out, and that is the point—the Government's policy is economically, rather than environmentally, driven.

There is no doubt that the motorist has been hit very hard by the Government's policies, with no benefit to the environment and no alternative transport provided for the motorist. Rural residents and those on low incomes, who have to use their car to travel to work, have been hit particularly hard. As always, those who can least afford it are made to pay the most. I have no objection to sensible, consistent policies to entice motorists to use other forms of transport, but we shall not achieve that by using the blunt instrument of high taxation on its own.

3.39 pm

Mr. Shaun Woodward (Witney)

The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), in true Liberal Democrat fashion, managed to misrepresent Conservative policies launched this week. For the record, we are not against traffic calming where it is fair. In rural areas and in villages, it is often—[Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh, but we believe in local choice, and where people in countryside areas, such as villages, want traffic calming, it is entirely appropriate that they should have it. The Labour party may wish to tell them what to do with their lives; we shall listen to people locally.

For the record, we are in favour of traffic-calming measures where they are appropriate, but not where they are wholly inappropriate—on major routes or when they are imposed on people.

Mr. Matthew Taylor

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Woodward

No, I will not give way, because time is short and the hon. Gentleman has had a great deal of time to make his arguments.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) rightly drew attention to the unfair contract that the Government make with the motorist. They take his money in tax, they take it again in tax and they look for another way to take it one more time in tax, yet they offer little or nothing back. My hon. Friend has rightly revealed that Government transport policy is a major disaster area. If you want confirmation of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, The Guardian/ICM poll this week revealed the depth of public unhappiness with the Deputy Prime Minister's handling of roads, rail and the London underground. The poll showed—doubtless the Deputy Prime Minister is grateful for anything that he can get at the moment—that one third of those surveyed were content, but more than half said that he was doing a bad job.

Congestion on the roads in this country has reached sclerotic proportions. All over Britain, motorists sit in longer and longer queues, going more and more slowly, with many of them going nowhere. The number of standstill areas grows by the day. As the British Road Federation recently said: The Government's proposals are unlikely to reduce congestion on the inter-urban network. Why? As independent research commissioned by the British Road Federation shows, whereas in the mid-1990s, trunk road and motorway infrastructure improvement spending ran at £1 billion a year, under the present Government, who like to claim so much, it has been slashed to £0.3 billion between now and the end of the Parliament.

In addition, the backlog of maintenance on our roads is the longest in 20 years. The 1998 national road maintenance condition survey recorded the worst overall result since the survey was first produced in 1977.

The most recent local transport survey published by the Institution of Civil Engineers has found that the backlog of maintenance of local authority roads stands at £4.9 billion. That is an increase of 20 per cent. in the backlog since 1996—and, as the Minister for Transport knows, the Automobile Association has just reported that the backlog continues to grow by £1 billion a year.

It will be interesting to see whether Labour Members try to make a genuine case to substantiate any suggestion that the London underground has got better in the past two years.

Mr. Richard Page (South-West Hertfordshire)

By chance, this morning I received a letter from a constituent Mrs. Marriott. She says that she has been working in London for the past five years. She does not want to be selfish; she travels in by the Metropolitan line. She writes: This summer, I was initially inconvenienced by a total and unpredicted closure of the entire Circle line, having then to change trains on crowded Liverpool Street and attempt to complete my journey on the Central line. It is on this line I experience the greatest chaos of all. Then follows a list of breakdowns and delays, which is a disaster.

Will my hon. Friend please say why and how the Government's proposals for road tolls, and charges on parking and fuel will help my constituent on her travels on the tube?

Mr. Woodward

My hon. Friend makes an important point, because his constituent's experience mirrors that of so many people. A recent survey found that 84 per cent. of people interviewed on the underground thought that it had dramatically worsened since Labour came to power.

I challenge the Deputy Prime Minister, who has the nerve to come to this place and speak of benefits on the tube, to come with me to Moorgate station on the Northern line and meet the commuters there, 78 per cent. of whom were late for work on Monday last week because of the closure of the line between Moorgate and Kennington. Only last week, London Underground reported its "worst day for months." The Circle line was completely shut down. The Northern line was closed between Kennington and Moorgate. Extensive rush-hour cancellations occurred again and again on four other lines.

Meanwhile, temperatures soared. Commuters travelled in temperatures of over 100 deg. As the Evening Standard reported, it would be illegal to transport animals in those conditions. And yet the Minister—

Mr. Christopher Leslie (Shipley)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Woodward

I am sorry; there is no time.

As the Minister knows—

Mr. Geraint Davies

rose—

Mr. Woodward

I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

Order. We do not want a Greek chorus from either side. This is a serious debate and there is very little time left for it to proceed. Is Mr. Woodward giving way?

Mr. Woodward

indicated assent.

Mr. Leslie

I am just trying to clarify whether, under the hon. Gentleman's policy of privatising London Underground, the proceeds of privatisation would be ring-fenced for London or spent elsewhere.

Mr. Woodward

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has made the position entirely clear. We are in favour of privatising London Underground. We are wholly against the policies that the Government are pursuing; we are against them for one important reason. Under the present Government's policies, the tube is getting worse and worse. The people who are suffering are not people like the Deputy Prime Minister, who commutes everywhere in two Jaguars and a helicopter—they are the ordinary people of London, who have to try to get to work.

Mr. Geraint Davies

rose—

Mr. Woodward

I will not take an intervention.

When we left office, one train broke down every 21 minutes. I admit that that was not a good record. However, under the present Government, one train breaks down every 16 minutes. The Labour party's solution to all this is the ludicrous public-private partnership. It is condemned by everyone and is going nowhere.

Mr. Davies

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Woodward

I will not.

The Deputy Prime Minister tells us again today that the public-private partnership will be delayed. Next year, the mayor will take up office, but he or she will not have charge of London Underground because of the delay caused by the Deputy Prime Minister.

Yesterday, the mayoral candidate, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—it will be interesting to see whether his colleagues have views on this—said that the PPP would lead to tube fare increases of 30 per cent., and he condemned the Deputy Prime Minister's proposals. It will be interesting to see whether the Deputy Prime Minister supports the hon. Gentleman in his endeavours to become mayor of this city.

Under the present Government, transport policy is in chaos. Road budgets have been slashed. Investment in the tube has been dramatically slashed to little more than half the £1 billion a year that was being invested when we left office. Under the present Government, the motorist is being taxed and taxed, and the Government are lining up new taxes for the motorist. A congestion tax is coming soon, as is a parking tax.

Just for the record, the Minister for Transport might like to know that when the RAC surveyed people with NOP, it found that 75 per cent. of the public opposed congestion taxes. In addition, 49 per cent. would not be prepared to pay the parking tax, and made it clear that they would simply find other places to park their cars. Such a tax will not stop them from using their cars; they will simply try to evade the Government's tax policy.

I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) has returned to her place. On Tuesday, I asked her about the local transport strategy in Oxford—a strategy that the present Government encouraged and sanctioned, with £7million of credit for a £21 million disaster scheme. She questioned my brief and had the temerity to tell the House that the scheme in Oxford had not been anything other than a success."—[Official Report, 13 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 156.] I am afraid that it is she who is not up to her brief. She should read the Oxford Mail headlines, "Road works will kill us. Traders fear for the future" and, on Saturday 26 June, "Oxford's total standstill".

Perhaps the Under-Secretary wishes to sit there and laugh at the people of Oxford. Perhaps she has not got across her brief and learned of the real misery that people in Oxford are experiencing. However, I suggest that, for the few remaining days in which she is likely to hold her post, she gets across her brief and perhaps even goes to meet the people in Oxford—people like a man called Mr. Bonner, who runs a family florist's business in the covered market. He goes to Covent Garden every day to collect flowers for his business. He has to drive to London and, of course, he gets stuck in traffic jams going to London and coming out of London. He gets stuck in the traffic jams on the A40, then in those on the M40. He gets stuck in the jams on the M40-M25 interchange—or should I say inter-jam?—then the jams going into Oxford city. After 10 o'clock, he is not allowed to get to the covered market.

As a result of the Government's policy, people like Mr. Bonner are realising that their livelihoods in the covered market may soon come to an end. More than a third of traders in the covered market fear that the local transport strategy will ensure that they go out of business. Perhaps the hon. Lady is happy with that; we are not content.

For that reason, we are very unhappy with the Government's transport policy, and we condemn them for the way in which they callously rob the motorist, taking more then £30 billion in taxes from the road user, but offer less than £6 billion back. The truth is that the Government are anti-motorist, but have no credible public transport policy to offer in its place.

At the beginning of the White Paper on transport policy, the Deputy Prime Minister stated that there is a consensus for radical change". Most of us would agree. What we need, however, is a consensus for change not in transport policy but in the Department and the Ministers who now preside over standstill Britain.

3.51 pm

The Minister for Transport (Mrs. Helen Liddell)

May I take the opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) to the Dispatch Box? I understand that this is the first debate in which he has spoken under his new shadow portfolio.

I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) has joined us. I was beginning to wonder whether he was indisposed. He has not had the best of weeks. This time last week, the Conservative Opposition were to launch their transport strategy. We were promised 60 commitments to the motorist. By Monday, the figure was down to 52, and in the course of the debate this afternoon, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was ditching commitments faster than the dance of the seven veils.

As the hon. Member for Witney gets further into his brief, he will learn that it is important that he does his homework accurately. When Labour came to power, we inherited a road network which, according to the Tories' Green Paper of 1996, was "broadly complete". However, the road network was suffering from a huge maintenance backlog. It was congested and crumbling.

The hon. Member for North Essex acknowledged in writing to the Leader of the Opposition last week that the previous Administration had cut money for roads. Those cuts were made in an area that is important to motorists—maintenance. Maintenance is important for vehicles, but it is also important for safety. We have seen the Opposition this afternoon wriggling, ducking and diving on the safety issue.

The right hon. Member for Wokingham described himself as "new Conservative"—that is, extreme Conservative. The position that the Opposition are adopting is extremely right-wing. It is libertarianism taken to a ludicrous extreme. Not even the safety of people matters to the Opposition, to judge by their transport policy.

Mr. Redwood

Can the right hon. Lady explain what is right-wing about wanting good car parks at stations and less congested roads?

Mrs. Liddell

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what is safe about reducing traffic calming, having no proposals for road maintenance, and implementing, as the previous Government did, only one measure to ease congestion—the cones hotline?

Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a right-wing policy was announced in The Sunday Times by a Tory spokesman, who stated: We want to prevent dithering Sunday morning motorists causing unnecessary tailbacks"? The Tories want to eliminate the casual user of the motor car for recreational purposes, to make way for the latter-day Mr. Toads, such as hon. Members who drive sports cars.

Mrs. Liddell

I could not have put it better myself. Given that the right hon. Member for Wokingham is so proud of his two Jaguars, I do not know why he keeps going on about the fact that Labour Members like to use vehicles. Moreover, it was hypocritical of the hon. Member for Witney to mention the use of helicopters. He seems not to be aware that the Leader of the Opposition travelled to Eddisbury on Tuesday for the by-election campaign by helicopter.

I was speaking about safety. The hon. Member for Witney condemned the delays on the London underground. I acknowledge that the condition of the London underground is unacceptable. That is a result of so many years of underinvestment by the previous Government. The work currently being done on the Circle line—paid for by the present Government—is directly designed to deal with matters of safety. The London underground that we inherited was crumbling.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex)

Labour cut investment.

Mrs. Liddell

The hon. Member for North Essex speaks of cuts. It was the previous Secretary of State for Transport, now the shadow Leader of the House, who said in March 1997 that there was no need for additional expenditure on the London underground.

Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere)

rose—

Mrs. Liddell

I shall take no more interventions.

The subject of today's debate is a fair deal for the motorist. The Government have gone to considerable lengths to give assistance to the motorist. We believe that motorists should have an opportunity to use their vehicles in conditions of comfort. Motorists are not a unique part of the population. They are parents, sons and daughters, working people. They want to use their vehicles in a way that is pleasant and efficient.

In our White Paper, we have made it clear that we want a new deal for motorists that better meets their needs and allows them to use their cars more efficiently. We are increasing the provision for road maintenance by £600 million over three years to almost £3 billion. We are establishing three new traffic control centres to help focus on our motorways. We are improving driver information through radio, the internet, electronic motorway signs and the Highways Agency website.

We have reduced vehicle excise duty for small cars. We have negotiated a 25 per cent. improvement in fuel efficiency with European car manufacturers by 2010. We are making it easier to import cheaper cars from Europe. The cost of motoring in real terms is now lower than it was in 1980. That is the work that we are doing to assist motorists. We recognise that motorists need real choice.

The Conservatives have presented an uncosted, hypocritical document which shows that they suffer from collective amnesia. The cost of implementing those proposals would be £10 billion, which would mean considerably increased taxation for everyone. It would also mean reductions in health and education expenditure.

When the Opposition suggested the subject for debate last week and published their document, they took us all for fools. They did not think that we would study their document and question its contents. We have checked up on the position that they have adopted on many of the proposals in the publication.

We have heard a great deal from the Opposition this afternoon about road user charging. The previous Government spent £3 million on research into local road user charging in the 1990s, and £2.6 million of that was for the four-year London congestion charging programme. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), said: It could be an effective way of reducing congestion and the environmental impact of traffic. The Opposition say that they are not hypocritical. They invented hypocrisy in their document.

There are 10 commitments from the Opposition to the motorist.

Mr. Redwood

indicated assent.

Mrs. Liddell

The right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that his proposals are very frightening indeed to those of us who want our roads to be safe and less congested. They are also very frightening to those of us who had thought that the Conservative party would have learned the lessons of the general election. Instead, it is moving further and further to the right, and further and further towards an extreme position that will be rejected by the people of this country.

The House should reject the Conservatives' motion. Their proposals, which would lead to more congestion and more accidents on our roads, provide no answers and no policies for building a road network, and achieving both an effective transport system and less congestion.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 325.

Division No. 246]	[4 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Amess, David	MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Madel, Sir David
Baldry, Tony	Malins, Humfrey
Beggs, Roy	Maples, John
Bercow, John	Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Beresford, Sir Paul	May, Mrs Theresa
Blunt, Crispin	Moss, Malcolm
Body, Sir Richard	Norman, Archie
Boswell, Tim	Ottaway, Richard
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Page, Richard
Brazier, Julian	Paice, James
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Pickles, Eric
Browning, Mrs Angela	Prior, David
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Randall, John
Burns, Simon	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	Robathan, Andrew
	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Chope, Christopher	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Clappison, James	Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Ruffley, David
Collins, Tim	St Aubyn, Nick
Colvin, Michael	Sayeed, Jonathan
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Curry, Rt Hon David	Shepherd, Richard
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Day, Stephen	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Soames, Nicholas
Duncan Smith, Iain	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Faber, David	Spicer, Sir Michael
Fabricant, Michael	Spring, Richard
Fallon, Michael	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Steen, Anthony
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Streeter, Gary
Fox, Dr Liam	Swayne, Desmond
Gale, Roger	Syms, Robert
Gibb, Nick	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Taylor, Sir Teddy
Gray, James	Thompson, William
Green, Damian	Townend, John
Greenway, John	Tredinnick, David
Grieve, Dominic	Trend, Michael
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie	Tyrie, Andrew
Hammond, Philip	Viggers, Peter
Hawkins, Nick	Walter, Robert
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David	Wardle, Charles
Horam, John	Waterson, Nigel
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)	Wells, Bowen
Hunter, Andrew	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Whittingdale, John
Jenkin, Bernard	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Key, Robert	Wilkinson, John
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)	Willetts, David
Kirkbride, Miss Julie	Wilshire, David
Laing, Mrs Eleanor	Woodward, Shaun
Leigh, Edward	Yeo, Tim
Letwin, Oliver	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Lidington, David	Tellers for the Ayes:
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Mr. John M. Taylor and
Loughton, Tim	Mrs. Jacqui Lait.

NOES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)	Corbett, Robin
Ainger, Nick	Corbyn, Jeremy
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Corston, Ms Jean
Alexander, Douglas	Cousins, Jim
Allan, Richard	Cox, Tom
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Cranston, Ross
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Crausby, David
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary	Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Ashton, Joe	Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Atherton, Ms Candy	Cunliffe, Lawrence
Atkins, Charlotte	Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Austin, John	Dalyell, Tam
Baker, Norman	Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Banks, Tony	Darvill, Keith
Barnes, Harry	Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Barron, Kevin	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Battle, John	Davidson, Ian
Beard, Nigel	Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)	Dawson, Hilton
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)	Dean, Mrs Janet
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)	Denham, John
Bennett, Andrew F	Dismore, Andrew
Benton, Joe	Dobbin, Jim
Berry, Roger	Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Best, Harold	Donohoe, Brian H
Betts, Clive	Doran, Frank
Blackman, Liz	Dowd, Jim
Blears, Ms Hazel	Drew, David
Blunkett, Rt Hon David	Drown, Ms Julia
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Bradshaw, Ben	Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Brake, Tom	Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)
Brand, Dr Peter	Edwards, Huw
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Efford, Clive
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Ennis, Jeff
Browne, Desmond	Etherington, Bill
Burden, Richard	Fearn, Ronnie
Burgon, Colin	Field, Rt Hon Frank
Burnett, John	Fitzpatrick, Jim
Burstow, Paul	Fitzsimons, Lorna
Butler, Mrs Christine	Flint, Caroline
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen	Flynn, Paul
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard	Follett, Barbara
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)	Foulkes, George
	Fyfe, Maria
Cann, Jamie	Gapes, Mike
Caplin, Ivor	George, Andrew (St Ives)
Casale, Roger	Gerrard, Neil
Caton, Martin	Gibson, Dr Ian
Cawsey, Ian	Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Godman, Dr Norman A
Chaytor, David	Godsiff, Roger
Chidgey, David	Goggins, Paul
Chisholm, Malcolm	Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Clapham, Michael	Gorrie, Donald
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)	Grocott, Bruce
	Gunnell, John
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)	Hain, Peter
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Clelland, David	Hancock, Mike
Clwyd, Ann	Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Coaker, Vernon	Harris, Dr Evan
Coffey, Ms Ann	Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Cohen, Harry	Healey, John
Coleman, Iain	Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Colman, Tony	Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Connarty, Michael	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Heppell, John
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)	Hesford, Stephen
Cooper, Yvette	Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Hill, Keith	Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Hinchliffe, David	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Hoey, Kate	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Hood, Jimmy	Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Hopkins, Kelvin	Martlew, Eric
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)	Maxton, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Hoyle, Lindsay	Merron, Gillian
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)	Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Humble, Mrs Joan	Mitchell, Austin
Hurst, Alan	Moffatt, Laura
Hutton, John	Moran, Ms Margaret
Iddon, Dr Brian	Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)	Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	Moriey, Elliot
Jenkins, Brian	Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
	Naysmith, Dr Doug
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)	O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)	O'Hara, Eddie
	O'Neill, Martin
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)	Öpik, Lembit
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa	Osborne, Ms Sandra
Keeble, Ms Sally	Palmer, Dr Nick
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)	Pearson, Ian
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)	Pendry, Tom
Kelly, Ms Ruth	Perham, Ms Linda
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)	Pickthall, Colin
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)	Pike, Peter L
Khabra, Piara S	Plaskitt, James
Kidney, David	Pollard, Kerry
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)	Pond, Chris
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)	Pope, Greg
Kumar, Dr Ashok	Pound, Stephen
Ladyman, Dr Stephen	Powell, Sir Raymond
Lawrence, Ms Jackie	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Laxton, Bob	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Leslie, Christopher	Prescott, Rt Hon John
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen	Primarolo, Dawn
Linton, Martin	Prosser, Gwyn
Livingstone, Ken	Purchase, Ken.
Livsey, Richard	Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)	Quinn, Lawrie
Lock, David	Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Love, Andrew	Raynsford, Nick
McAvoy, Thomas	Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
McCafferty, Ms Chris	Rendel, David
McDonagh, Siobhain	Roche, Mrs Barbara
Macdonald, Calum	Rooker, Jeff
McDonnell, John	Rooney, Terry
McIsaac, Shona	Rowlands, Ted
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary	Roy, Frank
Mackinlay, Andrew	Ruane, Chris
McNamara, Kevin	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
MacShane, Denis	Salter, Martin
Mactaggart, Fiona	Savidge, Malcolm
McWalter, Tony	Sawford, Phil
McWilliam, John	Sedgemore, Brian
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)	Shipley, Ms Debra

Short, Rt Hon Clare	Timms, Stephen
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)	Tipping, Paddy
Singh, Marsha	Todd, Mark
Skinner, Dennis	Tonge, Dr Jenny
Smith, Angela (Basildon)	Touhig, Don
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)	Trickett, Jon
	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)	Vis, Dr Rudi
Soley, Clive	Walley, Ms Joan
Southworth, Ms Helen	Wareing, Robert N
Spellar, John	White, Brian
Squire, Ms Rachel	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Starkey, Dr Phyllis	Wicks, Malcolm
Steinberg, Gerry	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Stevenson, George
Stewart, David (Inverness E)	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)	Wills, Michael
Stoate, Dr Howard	Wilson, Brian
Stott, Roger	Wise, Audrey
Stringer, Graham	Wood, Mike
Stunell, Andrew	Worthington, Tony
Sutclitfe, Gerry	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
	Wyatt, Derek
Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)	Tellers for the Noes:
Temple-Morris, Peter	Mr. Mike Hall and
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)	Mr. David Hanson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved, That this House deplores the previous Government's record of under-investment and disintegration in the transport network, its failure to tackle congestion as traffic rose by 75 per cent., and its cut in road maintenance; commends the Government for producing the first Transport White Paper for 20 years which has a comprehensive approach to transport across all modes and welcomes the Government's new deal for the motorist in the Transport White Paper; applauds the Government for its clear and open framework for appraising and informing the prioritisation of trunk road investment, taking a far-sighted and more integrated approach than the previous administration; notes that the present Government has begun to tackle the inherited problems of under-investment, pollution and increasing traffic congestion, by a new radical integrated strategy, including an extra £1.8 billion for public transport and local transport management, improving road maintenance, encouraging greater fuel efficiency, reducing pollution, and introducing the long-term policies needed to increase transport choice and improve Britain's transport system; and recognises the freedom that the car has given and that congestion can remove the convenience and pleasure from driving.