Inland Transport

HL Deb 05 May 1982 vol 429 cc1162-72

2.58 p.m.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth rose to call attention to the problems in inland transport, with particular reference to the economic and social consequences of traffic congestion on the roads and in big cities, and to the need for balanced, efficient and economically viable rail and road transport systems which do not place excessive burdens on taxpayers or ratepayers; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I should like to extend a welcome to my noble friend Lord Cayzer, whom we are pleased to see included in this afternoon's list of speakers. I am sure that your Lordships look forward to hearing his contribution to our debate.

From time to time we have had debates on various aspects of transport, and I hope that this afternoon we shall not be seduced too far along the line of lorry weights contained in the Armitage Report, which we discussed just one month ago under an Unstarred Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I accept, of course, that much in Armitage is very germane to the subject-matter, but I think we could very well leave lorry weights out of our debate. I also hope that in the discussion that is going to follow we will not be tempted to pre-empt any discussion which we might have in a very few weeks' time on the content of the 1982 Transport Bill.

Transport always evokes emotion in the breasts of most people, and I think that this is really quite understandable since transport costs form the third largest portion of the average family's expenditure—third only to food and housing. In the 1980 Family Expenditure Survey the proportion of total expenditure devoted to transport rose from 12.2 per cent. in 1960 to 14.6 per cent. in 1980. That is £16.15 weekly. Housing is at £16.50, and food at £25.15. Of that amount—that is, that £16.15–81 per cent., £13 worth, is spent on the purchase of motor vehicles, spare parts, maintenance and the running costs; whereas of the total on transportation, only about 0.7 per cent., 79p, goes on rail fares, and 1 per cent., £1.10, is spent on bus and coach fares. So the scenario of transportation costs in a family budget is fairly large.

The survey reveals quite easily that spending on transport rises steadily with income, and public transport spending is related directly to the income of the households. About £1 a week is spent on bus and rail fares in households on half the average income, while those households with twice the average spend £3.50 or more. It is revealed in those statistics that it is in fact the richest households which spend more on rail than on buses. At all income levels to twice the national average, bus fares are about double those of rail.

Since the poorest families use the less well subsidised services, the bus services (subsidised last year to about £430 million), and the richer use the rail services (subsidised to about £800 million) one is tempted to suggest that the subsidy policies currently operating need some kind of rethink. It might be argued—and I believe there is in fact a case for such an argument—that if transport subsidies are necessary to assist poorer families and others (such as old-age pensioners, the disabled and others in that category) a greater part of such subsidy might be found from what one might call the social element of the budget, rather than the transport share. There is, I believe, a direct relationship between transport needs and social habits. If in fact we saw a dramatic change in either, then I believe we would have most serious problems which it would be difficult to find solutions to this afternoon, anyway.

In an ideal situation, transport might well be considered to be the most universally needed of all services—that is, taking people to work, to school, to play; goods to be moved, and so on. In our society we depend absolutely on this transport element. Without it we would grind to a halt. So what one then suggests is that there should be adequate resources to meet the transport needs—transport by whatever mode we employ.

My noble friend the Minister will almost undoubtedly say, "Yes, that is so, and that is exactly what is being done now". He could say that there are other pressing needs, such as education, health, defence and so on, that all must take their share and a balance has to be struck. I am suggesting this afternoon that the balance is not fairly struck.

Perhaps I may turn first to the road situation. There is no doubt that with some 20 million-plus vehicles on the road, rising to some 25 to 27 million over the next five years, if traffic flows are to be improved, congestion reduced and the environmental effects of traffic made better, it does not matter from whatever source that intrusion is (whether it is car, lorry or motor-bike) the road system has to be improved. To an extent—and a comparatively small extent, really—the system must be enlarged as well as improved, and, of course, the two are not quite the same. Unhappily, for a variety of reasons—mostly that there are not sufficient funds available—new road construction budgets have been consistently cut over the past 10 years. Nevertheless, the same does not apply to the road-user. The road-users are now paying, in the year 1982–83, some £9,250 million in taxation terms, while the forecasted expenditure on road construction and maintenance amounts only to some £2,600 million. I am suggesting that this is not a fair balance, not a fair return.

When we discussed Armitage last month we talked about some aspects of the roads and my noble friend Lord Bellwin described the Government's proposals contained in the White Paper Policy for Roads (Cmnd. 8496); and he particularly emphasised the by-pass programme. He then said that by-passes make a significant contribution to the general environment where this is affected by motor traffic. It would be unrealistic not to congratulate the Government on having some 225 by-pass schemes currently in preparation and construction. There are 100 new ones this year. In fact, I believe the department have announced a further 22 on top of the 100; and there are another 125 to be started by 1985. One has to hope that this forecast will at least be maintained. Where the White Paper in fact says that these 125 schemes are to be started by 1985, I am tempted to ask my noble friend whether he means before or in that year.

There is, on the larger scale, a slowly improving network of motorways and major trunk roads, and I believe that any neglect in speeding that road building and road improvement programme will prove to be an almost insurmountable obstacle in the years ahead, when we are looking for a recovery in our manufacturing industries. Whether or not we like it, currently the bulk of freight is carried by road, and it is essential that the major routes from manufacturing centres to the ports be completed. Welcome as the by-pass programme is, this cannot be any substitute for the major programme; and in that programme now there are so many gaps that it almost negates the value of the whole potential of the network. In particular, one has to look at the A.1/M.1 eastern link, the M.40 Oxford—Birmingham, the M.20 through to the Ashford-Maidstone road and (near, I must confess to my own heart), the M.3/M.27 Basingstoke-Southampton link which must replace the outdated Winchester Bypass.

To those who suggest that cutting concrete driveways through the country is detrimental to the environment, I can only suggest that there must be a balance between the environment and the commercial needs of the country. I do not think it is fair to suggest that motorways are necessarily detrimental. They can open up the way for people to enjoy what we term the environment, the countryside. Without such major road construction, without the opening and completion of motorways, some people—and I have described in my earlier remarks that the bulk of people move around in private motor-cars—would be denied the opportunity to reach those places. Certainly I think that road construction could be dealt with in a manner more sympathetic to the environment. I do not believe that motorways need be quite as detrimental to the eye as are some of them.

In this connection, the White Paper in paragraph 24 briefly describes the possibility of introducing new financing methods for construction. It is my understanding that a number of private enterprise companies have put forward projects in principle to the department and that these would be projects largely in addition to anything that may be in the governmental building programme which may be aided by European fund contributions. Yet after some five months—and I am thinking particularly of the M.25—there is still no firm decision from the department on whether the principle of that policy is going to be acceptable. Even were it decided this afternoon, another 18 months could very well pass by before implementation, and private capital can find an avenue for its resources quickly and the opportunities could be lost. I believe that there is a need for the department to exert greater urgency in looking at these rather different and perhaps somewhat radical methods of financing roads.

I wonder also whether, in fact, in the whole area of road construction we have the planning procedures right. It seems to me that they take an inordinate time and raise the ultimate cost of the roads out of all proportion to their value. One asks oneself particularly: is it really necessary or profitable—I am not talking in monetary terms—to allow what I call the professional objectors to move from public inquiry to public inquiry posing precisely the same arguments area after area and, at the end of the day, representing only the minority?—because it is essentially only the minority groups who attend public inquiries. From that, no one should infer that I am suggesting that minority groups should not have a fair say. But I think that we might look at who takes advantage of the system and what great value there is in the system.

There is just one other aspect on roads that I should like to touch on and to bring up to date the position since the 1980 Act, when there was deregularisation of the licensing laws with regards to the coach and coach operating. I believe that there has been a significant improvement in passenger travel by coach. Although there were at that time opponents to the scheme, and it is fair to say that only the best of the operators have stayed in the business—notably the National Bus Company have done extremely well—that is not to deny that liberalisation has been worthwhile. Nevertheless, I believe that public transport in rural areas remains an unsolved problem to which we should direct our energies at an appropriate time.

I turn now to the railways. Here I am sad to say that there is an altogether different and perhaps less happy situation. I have no doubt in my mind that the railway industry is a continuing business of great importance to this country. I believe that it has to be sustained and nurtured. I have never sought to suggest in any of our earlier debates that rail should not carry freight. I believe that rail should carry freight. There is an immense amount of freight which is only transportable through the railway system and I believe that a good deal more could be carried by rail. I hope that in the reorganisation plans that British Rail have in hand further and much greater effort will be made to secure on competitive terms a proper share of the freight business so that those assets which represent the strength of the railway system are not left idle. I do not believe that any encouragement toward the greater use of rail by either passenger or freight operator should be secured by punitive taxation on other forms of transport. It seems to me that a far better way to attract that business is by being better than the alternatives and notably the best selling feature is the rate per tonne or the fare.

British Rail made a loss of some £37 million last year, and the chairman describes the year as "good". He says in the chairman's commentary at the beginning of the annual report: The achievements of 1981 reflect our determination to reshape the railway in the recession. A year of quickening productivity and of hardening priorities for change. … We have maintained business control with sound financial management under the most difficult trading conditions. British Rail can indeed show a track record of meeting its overall financial targets over the last five years". I think that that is an encouraging statement from the chairman. However, he then says that there is a forecast loss of some £165 million for the current year, almost half of which, £70 million, is the result of disputes and strikes.

The Government in their turn have agreed in principle to some £680 million worth of investment funding for electrification and modernisation. One can understand some Government hesitancy while modernisation of working practices remains an outstanding issue. As we have said before in so many areas of industry, it is the customer who meets the wage bill, nobody else.

Both the rail policy statement which the British Rail Board published in March 1981 and the annual report set out clearly the options open to British Rail. While there cannot be total agreement over the whole range, it is not unreasonable to remind your Lordships of the opening paragraph of that policy statement: A crucial decision has to be taken soon about the future of British Rail. British Rail must prepare to take either the path of progress by re-equipment and modernisation or that of decline through a gradual but deliberate rundown of the system. We cannot continue as we have in the past. We are reaching the dividing of the ways". I believe that to be absolutely true. They talk about modernisation, but it has to be a modernisation of equipment and working practice.

I turn—because it is contained in the British Railways report and it is part of inland transport—to the current discussion regarding the Channel fixed link. Your Lordships are well aware of the history going back to the 1980s and the re-emergence in 1975 of proposals which were set aside by the then Labour Government. It was in 1978 or early 1979 that new proposals came about. We are talking here of something approaching a £1½ billion investment programme. Notwithstanding the Government's view on this, I fail to see how the Government will not be attracted into some kind of funding.

I have come to the conclusion that I would not be in favour of a fixed link. If there were one there is no doubt it has to accommodate both road and rail traffic without which I believe that there would be a total imbalance. Having got so far as the Channel, I feel obliged to say something briefly about the port service. I am disturbed to read reports of a possible dispute here over the current working practices which are enshrined in the 35 year-old dock labour scheme. I cannot feel—as I do with some of the agreements in the railway system—that a 35 year-old agreement is such a sacred cow, is so sacrosanct, that it cannot be changed, that it cannot be altered, to meet the needs of today's society.

Having got therefore to the ports, perhaps I could say a brief word on the inland waterways. With now some 1,000 miles of cruising waterways and some 350/ 400 miles of commercial waterways, there is undoubtedly a significant contribution that the inland waterways system can make in the whole of what we so often call an integrated transport system.

I also want to speak on public transport systems and congestion in our major cities. The obvious example is London Transport. I believe that London Transport is only that much more important in that its problem is that much bigger than in many of our other major cities. I have to say in the background of the recent court cases that one is tempted to suggest that in a professional business such as transport, transport might well be thought to come outside the realms of a political football. Rather than describe to your Lordships in whole the various schemes that have been put forward, I commend to you the evidence given by the chairman and chief executive of London Transport to the Transport Committee in the other House on 3rd February of this year. There is a very good case for leaving the politician to decide the general policy to be obtained through a transport system and then leave it to the professional to get on with it, ensuring that that political element does not enter into the day-to-day running.

There is no doubt that if we take a bird's eye view of the whole financing of public transport, be it London Transport, the railways or the Natioanl Bus Company, all of which receive subsidies, there should be a case made for a one-for-one type subsidy. That is, one unit of income is provided by the operating company, half a unit is provided by the central Government and the other half by the authority which is served by the undertaking.

We have one of the most expensive public transport systems in the Western world in London and that cannot be right. It discourages people from coming here and it discourages our own people from using it. Eventually we will find that much of the commercial and business activity of our major cities will decline because of the lack of public transport and the expense of it.

I feel that I have outlined in the four major areas the general scene as I see it. I hope that we will have a most interesting debate and I shall look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say about the many topics which are undoubtedly going to arise. I beg to move my Motion for Papers.

3.27 p.m.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for opening this debate. He has opened it in a very comprehensive manner and I am certain that he will understand if, through lack of time, I do not follow him on many of the points that he has raised. As he has said, the subject is very wide. A number of the issues were dealt with in debates over the past 12 months. We have debated the transport policy, congestion in Greater London, and the Armitage Report. The points that the noble Lord raises do to a great extent open up the whole question of transport policy.

All noble Lords will have experienced congestion and the problems that it brings; not only in tailbacks of traffic on roads but the problems in our towns and cities. We all realise that congestion causes delays. There are increased transport costs and waste of energy resources. This has a great effect on the environment and the lives of people and frustration is caused. I agree completely with the noble Lord that we must have a balance between the economic advantages, the convenience of road transport and environmental needs.

I should like to pose the question which I put in the debate on Armitage: it would be interesting to know whether or not the Department of Transport has an environmental section which is able to look at all aspects from an environment angle and, if so, the size and nature of that department. As I said in the debate on Armitage—and I agree with the noble Lord—I am not opening up the question of heavy lorry weights in this debate this afternoon.

The lorry is with us. The private car with its flexible means of travel is with us, and we all recognise that road traffic is indispensable for the movement of both people and goods. There is need for an adequate road system which will meet the needs of the private car and of road haulage; but we must keep in mind that, no matter how many by-passes are constructed, at some point vehicles have to come off the motorways and major roads into the conurbations. That is where tailbacks form. We have lorries which have to deliver and pick up goods in narrow streets, often with very poor access. There is obviously a need for the improvement of our roads in many towns, but I believe your Lordships will agree that there must be a limit to road development in our urban areas.

First, there is the question of the cost involved and, secondly—I was going to use the word "inconvenience" but that is putting it rather mildly—there is the upheaval in people's lives and the need for rehousing people if there are schemes for great massive urban roadways. Therefore, while there must be some development, there must be some sense of balance. Also, travelling around in the last few months, one realises the cutbacks in expenditure and grants for local authorities and the need for maintenance of our roads, particularly in urban areas. Potholes are a danger not only for two-wheeled vehicles but for motorists, and we should not have to face that problem in addition to congestion. Maximum attention must be given to traffic management schemes such as special bus lanes, parking facilities, parking controls, urban clearways, one-way systems, temporary flyovers and so on. All these things have their benefits in our urban areas.

In the debate on the congestion in Inner London considerable stress was laid by many speakers on illegal parking and inadequate enforcement. That problem is still with us and has to be dealt with. Since that debate I attended a Greater London Council seminar on the question of wheel clamps, and I noted that the Metropolitan Police were 100 per cent. in favour of the introduction of wheel clamps on an experimental basis in certain parts of Greater London. I was pleased to note that in the other place the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, said that a very good case was made out and that she will have further consultations to see whether an experiment can be conducted in one area. I shall be interested to learn whether those consultations have been carried out or whether we shall hear something when the Transport Bill comes before your Lordships.

Traffic restraint measures, however, are not the complete answer. Many towns need adequate parking, particularly the larger ones, but parking provision ties up very costly land and, even more seriously, encourages additional car traffic, which adds still further to the congestion.

There are two other aspects I should like to touch on. There have been some very interesting developments in the provision of shopping precincts in many of our towns, where streets are closed to all traffic. These are encouraging and are appreciated by everyone. Many shopkeepers at first disliked them but soon realised that they are a great advantage to them. But if we are to develop shopping precincts there must be adequate public transport facilities nearby or provision for nearby parking.

Provision must also be made in our towns, to an extent which very few have at the moment, for cyclists. Very few stores and public buildings have facilities for cycle parking but there have been some very encouraging developments on cycle routes in some towns which I hope will be considered. I do not cycle now but for many years I was a very active cyclist; and when I paid a visit again this Easter I was, as I always am, impressed by the provision of the Netherlands. Not only do they have special cycle paths in their towns and along main roads but they also have them on cross-country routes.

As to the development of cycle paths in this country, which I believe we ought to look at, I would remind your Lordships that I took part in a protest ride against cycle paths in the mid-1930s, and I would do so again if they are not of the proper width, if they contain concrete joins which hump every few yards, if there are weeds all over them, if dogs are allowed to be walked on them and if mothers are allowed to wheel babies in prams along them or if they run into garage forecourts. Cycle paths, yes; but they must be of a proper kind. When new roads or improvements are being undertaken it would be worthwhile if the department would consult with the cycling bodies to see if a start can be made on provision of cycle paths. It is something we rarely discuss in this House, and I am glad to have the opportunity to mention it.

Most of us are car drivers and we all recognise that the private car provides a flexible means of travel, but its usefulness is often dictated by traffic conditions. I would suggest that it is not realistic to proceed on the basics of completely unrestricted road traffic growth, which could reach the total of 25 million vehicles or more as time goes on.

The 1980 Census figures showed that 50 per cent. of the households in this country have no car; and that is not the whole problem. In most of the households which have a car there is only one car and only one member of the household has access to it during the working day. Half the population still hold no driving licence, and those who are affected are mainly women, children, the elderly and those less well-off. This is bad enough in the towns, but for many in the rural areas it means that they are stranded and their lives are very restricted.

We cannot ignore this. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that we must direct our attention to the problem of public transport and the bus in rural areas at some other time. I believe we must direct our attention to it in this debate, because so many people are affected by it. The noble Lord urges the need for a balanced, efficient and economically viable road transport system. I would go much further and say that we must have a safe, efficient and comprehensive transport system to move people and goods, and which ensures the best use of resources, provides a network of services throughout the country, meets social needs at fares which people can afford and safeguards the environment and the quality of life.

Such a transport system cannot be based on market forces. To do so would mean that many people would have an inadequate service and others would be bereft of any transport at all. Reliance on market forces would inevitably mean an unco-ordinated system which would not make the best use of energy resources and would not meet social needs. I must ask: have the Government a transport policy? Very shortly we shall have another Transport Bill—the third since this Government have been in office—but is there a transport policy other than one of privatisation based on political dogma? There seems to be no indication of a transport policy.

We cannot look at one mode of transport in isolation from another. We often talk of an integrated transport system, but I believe the time has come when this should become a reality and not just a slogan, not just words. That means there is a case for a national transport authority—not to be a bureaucratic set-up, but an authority that will exert the maximum influence over the co-ordination and development of all transport, passenger and freight, including local transport services.

All noble Lords will recognise that rail is more economic of energy than road, and is the safest means of transport. I hope that in this debate we shall not get involved in the rail versus road argument, because that is a sterile one. What we need to do is to look at this subject on a national and co-ordinated basis. We want efficiency, but I suggest that if passenger transport has to be run on purely commercial lines the result will be chaos. There will be restriction of services, pricing will push even more people onto the roads and that will aggravate still more the problem of congestion, which the noble Lord mentioned, which will be harmful not only to transport users but to the community as a whole. I make the assertion that the only possible way to make the maximum provision is by public transport.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has urged that no excessive burden must be placed on taxpayers and ratepayers. This depends on what one means by the word "excessive". We find that some countries do this much better than we do. The noble Lord said that we have the most expensive public transport system. What we know is that we have a transport system which receives less public financial support for its rail system, or for its transport systems in the capital and in the major towns, than any other country in Europe. That has been stated time and time again in this House. So a viable system of public transport must receive grants from central and local government.

There is need for a national network of bus services, because only a network can provide cross-subsidisation so that the better and more remunerative routes help to finance the less remunerative routes. That is the only way to get transport into the sparsely populated and rural areas. That is the only way to ensure that people with no access to a car have a means of transport in those areas.

The noble Lord referred to the 1980 Act, with its provision for a relaxation of licensing. I believe that that will make things more difficult. Agreed—there has been a development in express coach services, which I readily admit, and it was stated by the noble Lord that, to a great extent, the National Express services led the way. Let us keep in mind, because there is a Transport Bill coming before your Lordships, that that development was made possible because of the flexible position which the National Bus Company could adopt in the development of its coach services, which enabled cross-subsidisation by other parts of its network. Take that away from the National Bus Company, and you spoil their opportunity of having a network of bus services.

Very few new operators are operating normal stage routes under the 1980 Act. Those that have come in have come where we said they would, which is on the remunerative routes. There are examples, which the Minister knows only too well, of where, because of the intervention of other operators on the best routes, the network has had to cut out some of its routes in the more sparsely populated areas.

There is a need for the introduction of a sensible system of route licensing, and the basis for local authorities to be able to give financial assistance to their public transport systems must be clearly laid down. That is why I repeat that the law, and the ability of local communities to do what they want in order to help their people with public transport, must be made absolutely clear.

Before I close, may I refer to the position of the railways, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, paid a considerable amount of attention. I accept that most passengers and freight are conveyed by road, but does anybody visualise Great Britain without a railway system? If it is agreed that we cannot visualise it, then, for Heaven's sake!, we must surely have a railway system which is an efficient and proper one. A railway system which is dithering around is of no use to anyone.

We must also keep in mind that, although the majority of passengers are conveyed by road, the railways carry some 2 million passengers each day in 18,000 trains, and that without the railways in the South-East, London commuters would be in a desperate position. Many noble Lords will know of the great benefit from the Inter-City trains. If I have any criticism, it is—and I agree with the noble Lord—that many people are priced out of travelling on Inter-City trains. They would like to do it, and I hope that British Rail may be able to take a look at this aspect.

I am as concerned as the noble Lord about industrial relations on British Rail. But I prefer to say nothing about that subject, except that the co-operation between the unions and British Rail has been of vital importance in the last 18 months. I hope that both sides appreciate that the future of British Rail depends, to a great extent, on both the unions and British Rail securing an understanding.

I understand that the Secretary of State is likely to authorise a review of British Rail. I hope that we may hear from the Minister about that. I trust that it is to ensure adequate investment for British Rail, because if we believe that there must be a railway system in Great Britain, and that it must be efficient, it must be realised that we cannot continue with a situation where some 60 per cent. of the electric and diesel units are between 20 and 30 years old. But despite that, in the last year, 90 per cent. of trains arrived at their destination not more than five minutes late. If we want track renewal, if we want electrification and if we want the development of lightweight units, there must be adequate investment in British Rail.

Most freight will continue to go by road, but we need to develop as much as we can both our waterways and our railways for the maximum transfer of freight. The railways are particularly suited to the long-haul bulk traffic, and also to the movement of containers by their Freightliner system. I believe that the encouragement given to industry by the Section 8 grants for rail sidings should be developed on the lines that Armitage suggested, even extending grants to 60 or 80 per cent. where that is desirable. There should be a development of trans-shipment depots to link trunk roads with railways, as well as a development of break bulk depots, in order to avoid the biggest lorries adding to the congestion by delivering or picking up in many of our narrow roads.

May I conclude by saying that over the last 20 years there have been the Geddes Committee, the Foster Committee, the Armitage inquiry, various consultation papers and White Papers, as well as numerous Transport Acts. I believe that all the information we want is available. What we now need is action, with imaginative schemes of traffic management and enforcement; adequate investment for road construction programmes, with by-passes of towns and villages made a priority; adequate investment in the railways; effective co-ordination of road, rail and all other transport modes and the maximum development of efficient public passenger transport.