§ Mr. Nicholas WintertonTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to consult(a)local authorities, (b)industry bodies and (c) representatives of the unemployed about the impact upon regeneration 493W projects of those aspects of the Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill which are supported by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [16013]
§ Mr. WattsWe have made it clear that, in deciding whether to set traffic reduction targets, local authorities would need the flexibility to take into account traffic growth consequent on regeneration projects, so that these objectives do not conflict, and that the Bill would need to be amended to this effect in order to secure our support. We would want to consult a wide range of bodies in drawing up guidance to local authorities on this point.
§ Mr. WintertonTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the administrative and operational impact upon local authorities of the responsibility for implementing those provisions of the Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill which are supported by his Department. [16011]
§ Mr. WattsWe shall be discussing detailed implementation of the Bill's requirements with local authorities. The approach we support would result in little if any additional administrative or operational impact above the activities local authorities should already undertake in compiling their transport capital investment strategies.
§ Mr. WintertonTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications for planning policy and procedure of the implementation of those provisions of the Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill which are supported by his Department. [16012]
§ Mr. WattsThe process of setting traffic targets would need to dovetail with local land use plans, which in turn would need to reflect local authorities' traffic forecasts. We would intend to issue guidance on this area.
§ Mr. WintertonTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to undertake a compliance cost assessment of the Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill; and if he will make a statement. [16009]
§ Mr. Watts[holding answer 17 February 1997]: The Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill will not impose a cost on business; there is no need, therefore, for a compliance cost assessment.
§ Mr. WintertonTo ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from(a) the Confederation of British Industry, (b) the British Roads Federation and (c) other industry bodies, in connection with the impact on the economy of acceptance of the principles of the Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill; what was the thrust of those representations; what response he intends to make to them; and what plans he has to consult with industry bodies prior to proceeding with, or facilitating the progress of, any legislation to impose restrictions on road traffic. [16010]
§ Mr. Watts[holding answer 17 February 1997]: We have received representations from the CBI, BRF, other bodies and a large number of individuals. The vast majority of these representations have been in support of the principle underlying the Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill: that local authorities should have a clear vision of the pattern of road traffic growth in their areas, and establish targets as part of their strategy for addressing that growth. Our response to these representations is to 494W indicate the Government's position, which I explained in my speech on the Bill's Second Reading. Subject to the Bill completing its remaining stages we plan to consult a wide range of bodies on the mechanics and process of its implementation.