§ 4.15 p.m.
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport in another place. The Statement is as follows:
§ "With permission, I should like to make a Statement about the Government's plans for investment in national roads in 1993–94. I made a Statement to the House on 15th December about the Government's record level of support for expenditure on roads by local authorities. I am now pleased to be able to announce similar good news for the national road network of motorways and trunk roads.
§ "I am authorising the start of construction works in the coming financial year on 41 new road 365 schemes. Assuming the remaining statutory processes are completed, we will have started all these schemes by March next year. They represent new investment in the nation's infrastructure of over £1.3 billion. I am arranging for a list of the schemes to be included in the Official Report and made available in the Vote Office.
§ "Expenditure on new construction and maintenance of national roads will reach £2,092 million in 1993–94. This is the highest level for over 20 years in real terms, and one of the highest ever. In a difficult year for public expenditure, this level of spending clearly demonstrates the extent of the Government's commitment to capital expenditure and to investing in the nation's roads and, as we showed on Tuesday, rail infrastructure. The sum includes £550 million for the capital maintenance of roads and bridges and £1,369 million for new road construction.
§ "The 41 new starts are in addition to the substantial construction programme which is currently taking place. We have 51 schemes under construction, mostly started in the last couple of years. During the course of 1993–94 100 miles of new or improved roads will be opened to traffic.
§ "One aim of the programme is to tackle increasing congestion on the core motorway network: we will be adding a fourth lane to 18 route miles of motorway, including the M.25 in Surrey and the M.62 in Greater Manchester. The North-West will also see the start of construction on the long-awaited remaining link on the M.65 around Blackburn. The biggest single project to start will be the upgrading to motorway of 13 miles of the A.1 between Walshford and Dishforth in North Yorkshire, part of the A.1 motorway between London and Newcastle.
§ "Another key objective of the road programme is removing through traffic from our towns and villages. Nineteen bypass schemes will be built across the country, taking heavy traffic away from streets in towns and villages. In addition, on-line improvements will be started on 11 other routes, including the A.66 northern trans-Pennine road, the A.11 to Norwich, and the A.27 south coast route.
| National roads: New starts for 1993–94 | ||||
| Region | Road number | Scheme name | Total works cost 1£ million | Miles |
| Northern | A.66 | Stainmore—Banksgate | 11 | 3.7 |
| North West | M.62 | Junctions 14–17 widening | 13 | 2.5 |
| North West | M.65 | Blackburn southern bypass (Contract 1) | 56 | 13.1 |
| North West | A.6M—M.56 link (Central section) | 16 | 2.2 | |
| Yorkshire and Humberside | A.1(M) | Walshford—Dishforth | 113 | 13.1 |
| Yorkshire and Humberside | A.65 | Burley in Wharfedale bypass | 9 | 1.8 |
| Yorkshire and Humberside | A.65 | Gargrave bypass | 7 | 3.7 |
| West Midlands | A.45 | Stonebridge grade separated junction | 12 | 1.3 |
| West Midlands | A.50 | Blythe bridge—Queensway (Phase 1) | 73 | 3.0 |
| West Midlands | A.435 | Norton—Lenchwick bypass | 24 | 7.5 |
§ "I am particularly pleased that we will now be able to start work next year in tackling some of the worst bottlenecks in London through a programme of nine junction improvements and other schemes. Taken in conjunction with the red routes network, which will also come on stream from 1994, this is a sensible, cost-effective and environmentally friendly response to congestion in the capital.
§ "All these 41 new schemes will bring substantial economic, safety and environmental benefits to road users and the country as a whole. They are particularly important in helping to reduce the costs of congestion to industry. The value of the benefits from these new schemes in terms of accidents avoided and time savings to road users has been assessed at £2.5 billion, and this is before any allowance for the net environmental gain achieved by reducing urban congestion and taking traffic away from town and village centres. All the new schemes have, of course, been subject to full environmental assessment and have been designed sensitively, so as to fit into the landscape as closely as possible. This is how we aim to minimise any adverse environmental effects; indeed, we can sometimes reduce the environmental effects of an existing road with a new scheme.
§ "The £550 million to be spent on capital maintenance is a 12 per cent. increase in real terms. I will be announcing the details of the maintenance works before the start of the new financial year, but can confirm now that sufficient funding will be in place in 1993–94 to avoid deteriorating road conditions, as well as ensuring that the programme of bridge strengthening remains on course. Higher expenditure on maintenance will also mean that the latest techniques of traffic management can be applied to minimise delays to the road user.
§ "The levels of investment I am announcing today will continue to meet the needs of business and the community and provide the right conditions for economic growth. In addition I shall be publishing a Green Paper on the basis for charging for the use of inter-urban roads which will also examine the scope for attracting more private finance."
§ My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
§ Following is the list of schemes referred to in the Statement:
367| Region | Road number | Scheme name | Total works cost1£ million | Miles |
| East Midlands | A.17 | Leadenham bypass | 3 | 6.0 |
| East Midlands | A.17 | Wigtoft—Sutterton | 7 | 3.0 |
| East Midlands | A.52 | Ashbourne relief road | 4 | 1.6 |
| Eastern | A.11 | Besthorpe—Wymondham improvement | 25 | 5.4 |
| Eastern | A.11 | Stump cross—Fourwentways improvement | 28 | 3.4 |
| Eastern | A.12 | Lowestoft eastern relief road | 1 | 0.8 |
| Eastern | A.47 | Walpole—Tilney High End bypass | 23 | 6.2 |
| Eastern | A. 140 | Scole—Dickleburgh | 12 | 1.3 |
| Eastern | A.428 | Bedford southern bypass | 51 | 5.4 |
| Eastern | M.40 | Junction 1A-3 widening | 55 | 7.5 |
| London | A.12 | Hackney—M.11 (Contract 2) | 62 | 1.5 |
| London | A.12 | Hackney—M.11 (Contract 4) | 60 | 0.9 |
| London | A.13 | Cotton street | 8 | 0.6 |
| London | A.13 | Butcher row | 1 | 0.1 |
| London | A.13 | Heathway—Thames avenue | 54 | 5.0 |
| London | A.13 | Thames avenue—Wennington | 58 | 3.1 |
| London | A.40 | Long lane—West End road widening | 4 | 1.5 |
| London | A.406 | East of Falloden way | 42 | 1.4 |
| London | A.406 | Dysons road | 63 | 1.5 |
| London | M.1 | Junction 1 | 5 | 0.4 |
| South East | A.27 | Patching junction improvement | 11 | 1.6 |
| South East | A.249 | North of Iwade—M.2 improvement | 47 | 7.0 |
| South East | A. 303 | Bullington cross | 4 | 2.5 |
| South East | M.25 | Junctions 10–11 widening | 36 | 4.8 |
| South East | M.25 | Junctions 7–8 widening | 32 | 3.1 |
| South West | A.30 | Shallowater hill | 2 | 1.3 |
| South West | A.30 | Indian Queens, Fraddon, St. Columb road bypass | 21 | 5.3 |
| South West | A.31 | Ashley heath grade separated junction | 11 | 1.0 |
| South West | A.46 | Batheaston—Swainswick bypass | 51 | 3.3 |
| South West | A.417 | Brockworth bypass | 32 | 3.3 |
| South West | M.5 | Junction 18 improvement and Avonmouth relief road | 13 | 1.0 |
| TOTALS | 41 Schemes | 1,148 | 141.6 | |
| 1 Including VAT. |
§ 4.22 p.m.
§ Lord Clinton-DavisMy Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is a very full Statement and a very important one. Perhaps I may ask a number of questions. First, are we to take it from the Statement that all the money is to be provided by the Government or is some of it to come from local authorities? That is not made very clear. Secondly, is the Minister aware that there is still no sign from the Government of an integrated transport strategy? The policy is fragmented. It is heavily weighted in favour of roads. There is no indication as to how the Government propose to meet the sustainable transport objectives agreed at Rio when, despite their assertions, appalling under-investment remains so far as the public sector is concerned.
Can the Minister confirm that however the road building programme may be stepped up and obviously some increase is required, it cannot begin to meet the Government's own estimates of an increase in road traffic in the United Kingdom of between 83 per cent. and 140 per cent. by the year 2025; and in rural traffic of between 127 per cent. and 267 per cent. over the same timescale? Are those burdens not completely unsustainable?
How is the expenditure to be divided between construction and maintenance? There has been massive neglect-potholes all over the place will be the 368 experience of all noble Lords —making our roads more like those of a third world country than those of a country in modern Europe. Should not maintenance take far the greater share of the priorities accorded?
The Statement says that environmental impact assessments have been carried out. Are those wholly in conformity with the European Community directive, bearing in mind the fact that this country still faces litigation from the European Community in relation to Oxleas Wood and other projects associated with the Channel Tunnel?
While increased road spending will result in employment-I should like to hear the Minister's estimate of the growth—how does that contrast with the number of jobs currently and in the future being lost on the railways and other public transport modes? Is it not a fact that due to the 8 per cent. return required from British Rail's freight sector, customers are already moving from rail to road? Is not that move, estimated at something like 100,000 lorry loads and involving cider from Somerset, cement from Cornwall and chemicals from outside Cambridge, in conflict with the Government's assertions that they wish to encourage a move from road to rail? And that is just the beginning.
We have argued that a massive re-ordering of priorities in terms of public expenditure in the transport sector is required to enable a proper 369 transport strategy to evolve capable of meeting the environmental objectives set out at Rio and within the European Community and accepted by the Government. How does the Minister propose to go about achieving those objectives? Finally, does he recognise that planting trees on motorways does not represent a substitute for a transport policy which would properly integrate all the environmental considerations to which I have referred?
§ Lord TordoffMy Lords, I join in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is difficult at short notice to disentangle the wheat from the chaff. I think it is true to say that so far as numbers are concerned, we are merely fleshing out the Autumn Statement. So often in government Statements these days we see the same amount of money coming before our eyes three or four times. So while some of what the Statement says is welcome, we should not go overboard as if suddenly £2,000 million has appeared from the Exchequer. It has not.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, one is glad to see jobs being created in the construction industry. We have all been calling for that for a long time. But what the Statement means in net terms remains to be seen. We are still in a position where the Government do not have a transport strategy: the Statement is no substitute. I remember not many years ago, when I asked whether the Government had a transport strategy, being told that the Government had a strategy for roads and British Rail had a strategy for rail. Now, there will be no British Rail to have a strategy for.
Some of the details in the Statement can be confusing. According to paragraph 4 there will be 100 miles of new or improved roads opened in 1993–94. But in paragraph 2 we are told:
Assuming the remaining statutory processes are completed, we will have started all these schemes by March next year".Are we talking about new roads or roads already under construction? The numbers can be extremely confusing.The environmental consequences of some of the projects being started are rather worrying. The widening of the M.25 is being undertaken, it seems, without any reference to studies that might have been made of expansion at Heathrow. How far has that been integrated into the road programme? What increased volume of traffic do the Government anticipate as a result of the extra roads? We know perfectly well that traffic expands to fill the space available on the roads. It would be interesting to know whether the department has any idea of how many extra vehicles will be enticed on to the roads as a result of widening.
There is no doubt that parts of the A.1 are desperately in need of improvement. But it is noticeable that there are no improvements north of Newcastle. I am sure that some of our Scottish friends who look to the A.1 as part of their transport system will not be best pleased in that regard. Most of the investment, as usual, is in the South-East of England.
370 I notice that the value and benefits from the new schemes is assessed at £2.5 billion. I wonder how that was arrived at and by whom. The Statement says,
before any allowance for the net environmental gain achieved by reducing urban congestion and taking traffic away from town and village centres".It is not a reduction in environmental pollution; it is merely a shift. I am not saying that I oppose bypasses being built to take the congestion away from villages and towns. But let us not pretend that there is an enormous environmental gain. Overall there is not. In common with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I believe that the Government's pretence that landscaping is an answer shows insufficient understanding of the environmental problems caused by traffic.Can the Minister say, in regard to paragraph 9, whether the programme of bridge strengthening includes the bridges in London? If so, how many more bridges will be closed and when? If we continue to close them on the scale that has occurred none of us will be able to get across to the south bank. Also, I was amused to see that the latest techniques of traffic management will be applied to minimise delays to road users. I understand that on Hammersmith Bridge that will be done by a man with a red flag.
I believe that there is a mistake in paragraph 10 where it says:
In addition I shall be publishing a Green Paper on the basis for charging for the use of inter-urban roads".I presume by that the Statement means "intra-urban roads". Are the Government considering road pricing between towns or in towns? As always, we have piecemeal policy on transport from the Government. It is about time that they woke up to the fact that it is not as simple as just widening a few motorways. It is a much broader problem.
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, I think I can thank both noble Lords for their welcome to the Statement, although both asked a number of questions which I shall try to answer.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked whether the money was government money or local authority money. Of course it is government money. We are talking of trunk roads and motorways which are not local authority concerns. They are the concerns of the Department of Transport; so it is government money. On 15th December we announced the programme for local authorities.
With regard to whether or not the investment that we are carrying out is heavily weighted in favour of roads, as the noble Lord suggested, I would take issue with him. Our investment in roads, both national and local, is £2.9 billion; our investment in public transport is £2.2 billion. But as the public travel on roads, everybody stands to benefit by the considerable sum of money that is being invested.
Of course the current programme and the proposals announced in the Statement are not enough to meet the forecasts published in 1989. However, they are part of an ongoing programme. As I said in the Statement, they represent nearly the highest level ever in real terms and certainly the highest for 20 years. The environmental impact assessment meets all EC 371 requirements, just as we believe that the existing environmental impact assessments meet those requirements.
Employment was mentioned by both noble Lords. On the basis of CBI estimates, the investment announced in the Statement will sustain over 30,000 jobs in the construction industry. I can understand the confusion of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, with regard to road starts and completions. The schemes are not started and completed in one financial year. There is a situation where a number of schemes are started, probably in the previous two years and perhaps before that. We have announced 41 new schemes, and during the next financial year there will be an investment of just over £2 billion in those works.
§ Lord TordoffMy Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to intervene. Is he saying that what is said in paragraph 4—in other words, the 100 miles of new roads during the course of 1993–94—has nothing to do with new money?
Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, that will be the completion of works already in progress. In addition, there will be the 41 new starts. It is a rolling and continuous programme.
The noble Lord was concerned about the environmental consequences of some of the works proposed. However, the environmental consequences of not carrying out the works are just as worrying and there are certainly benefits from our proposals for changing existing road pattern use.
With regard to bridges in London, I cannot give the noble Lord the answer he seeks. Some bridges are local authority bridges and some are government bridges. The commitment that we have made is to improve the standard. The noble Lord is right with regard to the policy announced in the Statement. The pricing document to which the Statement refers is the pricing of roads between towns. As the noble Lord knows, there is a separate discussion and inquiry taking place for road pricing in towns.
§ 4.38 p.m.
§ Baroness WhiteMy Lords—
§ Lord Brabazon of TaraMy Lords, I believe it is the turn of our side.
§ Baroness WhiteMy Lords, no. It is our turn.
§ Lord Brabazon of TaraMy Lords, I think not. We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and my noble friend replied. No one from our side has yet put a question.
Unlike noble Lords opposite I warmly welcome the Statement made by my noble friend. He is to be congratulated on having maintained the size of the road building programme under the threat of difficult economic conditions. The fact that a large number of jobs will be retained in the construction industry must be good news. Does my noble friend agree that it is not only those involved in the construction of the new roads who will be grateful for the maintenance of' the programme, but that it is also the case that road construction is probably one of the quickest ways of 372 translating government capital expenditure into benefit for the economy as a whole, bringing in as it does cheaper transport for all those involved in trying to make this country wealthy? Does my noble friend agree that what he has announced today, particularly the new bypass programmes and the expansion of the M.25 and the A.1, will be widely welcomed?
My noble friend may be able to remind the House what proportion of taxation and expenditure by motorists in the form of road tax, fuel duty and so forth is actually being spent in the programme. It is still not a high proportion when one starts to make comparisons with expenditure on railways and so forth.
My noble friend mentioned also that the new roads comply with the European Community environmental impact assessment studies. That is to be welcomed because those environmental standards are part of our domestic requirements. Does my noble friend agree that under the new doctrine or wish for subsidiarity, that is something which should be clawed back from Brussels? There can be no real reason why Brussels and the European Community should have a say in something which should be purely a domestic issue —the construction of our own roads. Perhaps my noble friend can say whether that is one of the things which, under the new desire to translate subsidiarity into action, we can ask to be clawed back. I am prepared to accept that there are transport issues which cross frontiers in which the EC should have a say. But something such as this, which is a purely domestic issue, we should get back under our own control.
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. He was right to draw attention to the fact that we have maintained the size of the road programme in times of economic difficulty and of constraints on public expenditure. That, as he agrees, is to be widely welcomed. It is to be widely welcomed by the travelling public and in particular by industry. There is nothing worse for industrialists than having their lorries and vans stuck in traffic jams, with all the consequent environmental pollution that that causes, and also the increased costs of moving goods from one place to another.
As a result of this programme, as my noble friend rightly says, the completion of the roads which are at present under construction and the 41 new starts will give a boost to industry in excess of that given to the sustenance of jobs in the construction industry. I agree with him about the EC impact assessment. I think he would agree with me that it is right that we all obey a common rule as to the effect on the environment. But it is certainly not up to the European Community to tell us where to put our roads. We can put our roads where we want to put our roads. However, we also ought—and it is right that we do—to carry out an environmental impact assessment first.
§ Baroness WhiteMy Lords, can the Minister assure us that none of the 41 new constructions will pass through a national park? We have been told about the environmental assessments that are being made and about the requirements of the European Community. 373 However, certainly so far as the approaches to Snowdonia are concerned, I should have thought that the suggestions from the European Community would be quite unacceptable to anyone concerned about the environmental consequences thereof. I hope that he can at least tell us that none of the propositions that he has put before us affects our national parks.
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, so far as I am aware and from the information that I have, none of the proposals that I have mentioned in the Statement today affects a national park. I shall write to the noble Baroness if I prove to be wrong. The noble Baroness mentioned Snowdonia. Of course this Statement has nothing to do with Wales or Scotland, only England.
§ Baroness WhiteSplendid!
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, I do not know that I can welcome this Statement at all. The Statement accepts the fact that there will be a huge growth in road traffic in the next decade or two; whereas I believe—and I thought in fact the Government believed until this afternoon—that we need to deter a huge increase in road traffic, and indeed that it should be policy to transfer traffic, particularly goods traffic, from road to rail. There is everything in this Statement that encourages traffic to move from rail to road, and that is precisely what we do not want.
Furthermore, the Government appear to be dealing with traffic, roads and transport in a piecemeal fashion. It is undoubtedly true—and a read of today's Evening Standard will show this—that there is increasing evidence of a good deal of ill health arising from road traffic in towns because of the pollution that the internal combustion engine and road vehicles cause. There is a wider range of diseases now that are thought to be caused by road traffic fumes. There is nothing in this Statement, so far as I can see, that will discourage traffic from entering urban and built-up areas. Indeed there is everything in this Statement that will encourage more vehicles to arrive more quickly in the urban areas.
I find this particular Statement disappointing because it deals with only one part of the transport system, only one issue relating to the road system. It does not deal with the real problems being faced not only by road users but by the general population because of the effect on their health now and in the future due to the rising incidence of disease from traffic fumes.
§ 4.45 p.m.
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, of course the noble Lord is right: this Statement deals solely with roads. It is designed to do exactly that, and it deals with that effectively. I was disappointed by what the noble Lord said. I should have thought that he would have welcomed the Statement, and the increase in choice that we maintain for the consumer to travel by whatever means the consumer finds desirable. There is no question that, unless one imposes enormous restrictions on the liberties of people, which I know 374 the noble Lord would be the first to condemn, there will be a rise in traffic, and it is right that we cater for that.
I know that the noble Lord would wish to read what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading on the British Rail Bill in another place earlier this week. There he will see a statement made by my right honourable friend with particular reference to increasing the amount of freight on rail; to move it from road to rail. I hope that the noble Lord will not forget the shipping industry. The shipping industry takes 25 per cent. of the freight that travels within this country. I am one of those who is keen to see freight transferred not only from road to rail but from road and rail onto our ships that ply our coasts.
The noble Lord was rightly concerned about road traffic in towns. So am I, and so is my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and that is why we have made the proposition for bypasses. The noble Lord will remember the debate that we had on traffic in our cities on Wednesday of last week in which he took part.
Lord HuntMy Lords, will the noble Earl clear up one point that arose during the earlier exchanges with his noble friend? Did I understand him to say that in our construction programme of trunk and motorway roads we respect, and intend to respect, the European environmental standards; that it is not true to say that our road building programme is simply a local domestic matter; that, in that respect, subsidiarity cannot be a sort of panacea and a general rule for all our road building programmes; and that we are in fact subject to the standards of the European Commission?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, let me make clear what I said to my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, and I hope that this is welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It is right that we meet the environmental standards not only of our own laws but also those that have been agreed in the Community. But it is wrong for the Community to tell us where we will build our roads. Yes, we must meet the standards, but where we want to put roads and bypasses surely is up to this country. I hope that the whole House would agree with that.
§ Baroness O'CathainMy Lords, I welcome this Statement for four reasons. First, it will give a welcome boost to the construction industry throughout England. Sometimes we get boosts to the construction industry in various parts of the country, but this seems to be fairly widespread. Secondly—and there is no mention of this in the Statement—to my certain knowledge three of the proposed changes are currently accident black spots. There is no reference at all in the Statement to the effects on reducing accidents; it is all about congestion and environmental impact. That reduction will be very welcome indeed.
Thirdly, I welcome it because of the bypasses, a point that has already been mentioned. Although people will be able to enter towns easier because of bypassing other towns en route, we hope that we will 375 not have the same situation as we have on so many sunny Sunday afternoons with some small towns becoming clogged up with endless traffic jams and asphyxiating fumes. Bypassing some of those towns will avoid that.
The other point I want to make concerns the EC. I find it staggering that when I travel elsewhere in the Community I find a lot of posters saying, "This road was constructed with the help of European Community funds", and you see these little blue flags with the 12 stars. Is there a case for some of this funding to come from the European Community for these necessary roadworks? Including VAT some £1,148 million—which is only 2 per cent. of the total road fund taxation—is received from motorists. We should go to Brussels to see whether they can make some contribution. I shall be grateful for the Minister's comments.
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, I am very grateful for the welcome which the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, gave to the Statement. The measures will certainly benefit the travelling public and industry. One of the special areas of anxiety to the noble Baroness which will be met is in reducing the accident black spots at junctions in London which I mentioned in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will know them well in Hackney and on the M.11. I am sure that he too will welcome these measures. I welcome the noble Baroness's concern for the villages and towns which will now be bypassed. I agree so much with her on that matter. There is nothing worse than villages and towns being affected. If we can get the traffic to go round a town on a bypass, that will be welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, as well.
As regards EC funding, limited funds are available under the transport infrastructure programme. I am not quite clear how much will be available for the road programme in England. However, I gather that some might be available for the road programme in Wales; but that is subject to something totally different.
§ Lord Brougham and VauxMy Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and the Government on the Statement. I believe it was agreed all round the House in the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Oxfuird last Wednesday that the car is here to stay, and that one cannot legislate as to when people can use their cars. This Statement is very apt in that respect. There are a couple of points which I wish to ask my noble friend. Are there any plans (they might already exist) for widening the M.1 and M.3 just past the M.25? When one drives out of London, either to the West Country or to the North, one comes to a complete stop because of traffic congestion. Are there any plans for adding an extra lane for a certain length after one joins the M.1 or M.3 after the M.25?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, I am grateful for the welcome which my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux gave to the Statement. As regards his particular anxieties, from the map in front of me, I am unable to give him quite the answer that he would like.
§ Lord UnderhillMy Lords, we welcome certain road developments. This side of the House recognises that there is a need for certain roads to be developed, particularly bypasses. We fully support the need for them. Listening to the debate this afternoon—if one can call it that—it is one which we have heard so often. I must echo the point which has been made; namely, where is a real strategy for transport planning in this country? That is missing in the Statement. There was a debate in the other place on Monday on rail privatisation. I have read the report of that debate very carefully. If the Minister reads fully the whole of that debate, where will he see any indication of an integrated policy for road and rail? It is not there.
This afternoon the noble Earl compared the balance of expenditure between road and rail. How much of the £2.2 billion reserved for rail is for the Channel Tunnel? I am not trying to decry expenditure on it. Figures are rolled out, as they are for other ministries as well, without any detail as to their purpose. Can the Minister say how much expenditure is on railway development?
I realise that we are not debating railways today, but in view of what the noble Earl has said, I must refer to them. Is it not the fact that the Government have already decided that there is going to be a steady reduction of the public service obligation and grants? We need to have a strategy. As regards roads, we consider that bypasses are necessary besides roads to the docks. There must be a strategy.
The Government talk glibly about moving freight from road to rail. Examples have been given in the press in the past few days that because of freight charges the Freight Transport Association and other haulage people will move their goods from road to rail according to the charges. Therefore, it is essential that the rail charges are such that that is encouraged. Where do the Government indicate that they recognise that and where is their strategy? We have talked about roads, and about railways on Monday, but that is not sufficient. We need a full-scale debate to discover what the Government's intentions really are, and what their strategy is.
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who has great wisdom in these matters. On reflection, I believe that he would agree that his comments took the discussion rather wider than the Statement to which I must confine myself. I do not believe that we talk at all glibly about moving traffic from road to rail. I know that the noble Lord has read with care the Official Report of another place as regards the British Rail Bill. He will see in that report exactly what my right honourable friend said on the matter.
§ Lord Clinton-DavisMy Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister to go back to the issue of the exodus of freight from rail to road, which is the very opposite of what the Government seek to achieve. Why does the Minister introduce this red herring about the Community wishing to dictate our transport road requirements? There is nothing of the sort. What the 377 Commission is duty bound to do is to investigate whether the Government have complied with the European environmental impact assessment.
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, the first question raised by the noble Lord I have already answered; the second question was answered in response to a question asked by my noble friend Lord Brabazon.
Earl AttleeMy Lords, can the Minister say a little more about the development of technology for road pricing, especially in the cities?