§ 2.51 p.m.
§ Lord Marlesfordasked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they will consider introducing a scheme whereby those individuals whose quality of life, or whose property's value, would be enhanced by the provision of a bypass for their community would be enabled to make a voluntary financial contribution to public funds to defray part of the cost of providing such a bypass.
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, we have no plans to introduce such a scheme.
§ Lord MarlesfordMy Lords, I am not surprised that that is a fact. However, does the Minister understand my surprise that Her Majesty's Treasury should not welcome the idea of private contributions to the public purse, especially when those contributions are for public purposes and because in this situation, although the more affluent contribute, the less affluent will also enjoy? Does he recognise that this country urgently needs more bypasses for people whose quality of life has been made miserable by the increase in traffic, particularly on trunk roads? My suggestion is one means whereby more bypasses could be made available. Will he at least have another look at it?
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, my first Answer was an answer of fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, knows. Of course our minds are never closed to any new ideas. If the noble Lord would like to prepare a paper on the subject putting forward his arguments, I am sure that John Spellar, the Minister responsible for roads, would be interested to read it and, no doubt, to meet him to discuss it. He will be aware, as we all are, of the potential difficulties. Any 685 road scheme benefits some people and disbenefits others. The thought of private money coming in to pay for an enhanced quality of life and property values for one person, although that might have the reverse effect for somebody else, is clearly a potential difficulty.
§ Lord BradshawMy Lords, does the Minister agree that the main obstacle to building such bypasses is the time that it takes to consult, plan and to get the line of route orders, which usually take up to 15 years? Will he also tell us what the Government's policy is towards the problem that besets us all; that is, road traffic congestion?
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, part of the answer is one that I perhaps should have given to the second question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford; that is, that we recognise the benefit of bypasses. Of the 56 road plans in the current programme, about half are bypasses.
I shall answer the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, more directly. Since the roads review in 1998, we have very much speeded up the process of approval for new road schemes. In the old days, under the previous government, the road programme was something of a wish list and it could indeed take 15 or 20 years before anything was done. Now, because we have set more precise criteria, nothing goes into the road programme until there is a real desire to complete it and the money has been allocated.
§ Baroness NicolMy Lords, is there not a danger in the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that the priorities might be distorted in terms of providing bypasses? If one group can provide some of the money, that might attract the available money from the Government or from local government, although the priority for that bypass might not be as great as the priority for another scheme that was squeezed out?
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, that is one of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, will no doubt address in the paper that he will write for the Minister responsible for roads. Imagine, for example, that someone proposed a bypass around Woodbridge in Suffolk and that there were questions about whether it should be on the east or the west side. Would that be decided on the basis of which side paid more in contributions?
§ Lord Peyton of YeovilMy Lords, can we take it that the noble Lord's answers are an acceptance of the fact that financial contributions to the Treasury are already at a more than adequate level?
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, I do not think that the Treasury would ever agree with that! On the issue of road projects, to which I am sure Lord Peyton wished to refer—I am sure that he would not wish to stray from the Question on the Order Paper—it is true that there are private contributions towards 686 road projects. If a trading estate, for example, needs access to a new trunk road, those who run and pay for the trading estate will pay for that access; and quite right, too.
§ Earl FerrersMy Lords—
§ Lord Renton of Mount HarryMy Lords—
§ Lord Campbell-SavoursMy Lords—
§ Lord Campbell-SavoursMy Lords, would not the answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, be an unconditional "yes" in the event that he would consider deleting the words "part or in line five of his Question?
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, the issues that have emerged in this short debate make it clear that it is not the amount of the contribution that is the problem but the issue of equity between one citizen and another.
§ Earl FerrersMy Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House consider it correct that one of his Ministers should continually reject the advice of the Procedure Committee on appellations, which we discussed a week ago? He continues to call people just "Lord So-and-so"—he referred to "Lord Peyton"—as opposed to "the noble Lord, Lord Peyton".
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, I believe that it is for me to answer the question of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, if any Member of the House is offended by the appellation that I use, I undertake to address him as I have addressed the noble Earl.
§ Lord Renton of Mount HarryMy Lords, does the Minister accept in general terms that my noble friend Lord Marlesford has a point? As Treasury money is certainly going to run out on present forecasts in the next few years unless income tax is raised, any suggestions for new public/private partnerships should surely be welcomed by the Treasury rather than spurned. Whether the money is for bypasses or private contributions to healthcare plans, a broader vision is needed.
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, I do not accept the premise—the forecast—that Lord Renton of Mount Harry advanced.
§ Earl FerrersMy Lords, the noble Lord!
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, however, if there is anything in the idea, I repeat that our minds are not closed to new ideas.
Lord BerkeleyMy Lords, surely the answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is that rich villages should be able to fund a bypass and that they should also be able to put a toll on it so that we can get back to the days of turnpikes!
§ Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, that is another issue that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, might well consider in his paper, which he has not yet undertaken to write. However, I am sure that he will.