| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Transport Expenditure (London)
4. Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent on (a) roads and (b) public transport in Greater London in 1995-96.[4005]
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. John Bowis): Spending comes from a variety of public and private sources. In 1995-96, those included Government grant of £904 million to London Transport, £37 million to the docklands light railway, £124 million to local authorities, £13.5 million to the Traffic Director for London and £220 million to the Highways Agency.
Figures for Railtrack and the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising in Greater London are not identified separately.
Mr. Congdon:
I very much welcome the significant investment there has been in public transport in London, particularly the money spent on the underground and the Jubilee line extension, as well as the commitment to spend £125 million on Croydon light rail. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is also important, particularly in south London, to ensure that access to the motorway network is improved--not so much by building new roads as by significantly improving the existing transport infrastructure to maintain the competitiveness of centres such as Croydon?
Mr. Bowis:
My hon. Friend is right: it is important to ensure the smooth running of our roads. We shall certainly
25 Nov 1996 : Column 6
Mr. Cohen:
The stop-go building of the M11 link road through Wanstead and Leytonstone has caused considerable inconvenience to local residents, is an environmental eyesore and has created crime traps. The Highways Authority has ruled out the possibility of environmental compensation for the area. Will the Minister accept that that is unreasonable and will he consider the possibility of environmental compensation?
Mr. Bowis:
The hon. Gentleman pays tribute to the Government's plan to improve London's roads, particularly the M11-Hackney link. I do not think that I heard him pay tribute to the fact that, in the past couple of weeks, the go-ahead for the last two sections of that road has been announced--his constituents' problems should be moving towards a resolution. The hon. Gentleman may want to have a word with his own Front-Bench team, who have imposed a moratorium on all new road building.
Mr. Evennett:
I, too, welcome the figures that my hon. Friend has given this afternoon. Is he aware that people in my constituency are demanding a balance between road and rail expenditure and are looking to a new crossing of the Thames between Woolwich and Dartford? When will he be able to say more about those issues?
Mr. Bowis:
My hon. Friend is right to say that river crossings are important to his constituents and to many others. He will know that a package of river crossings, including Woolwich, Gallions Reach and Blackwall, is being carefully examined as part of the infrastructure that London needs to be effective. If he has read today's Evening Standard--I believe everything I see in that--he will know of the welcome news that we have given the go-ahead for the escape ramp for the Blackwall tunnel, which will also be good news for those trying to get across the river in an efficient and effective way.
5. Mrs. Bridget Prentice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the annual cost to business of congestion in London.[4006]
Mr. Bowis:
We have made no such estimates.
Mrs. Prentice:
Is that not a limited and disgraceful answer from the Minister? Does he not agree that London is in virtual gridlock most of the working week? Apart from the air pollution, effects on health and general inconvenience for travellers, does that not have a devastating effect on London's businesses? Is it not now time to have an integrated transport strategy for London?
Mr. Bowis:
Again, the party that says it will have no more roads building and that has announced today that it
25 Nov 1996 : Column 7
As for good news for those concerned about congestion, I should have thought that the hon. Lady would spring to her feet to welcome the progress of the docklands light railway down to Lewisham--her part of the world--and the fact that, once the Jubilee line extension is built, those extensions will connect at Canary Wharf. That will provide relief for her constituents, which will enable her to join the executives of Europe, who have highlighted London as their favourite city and its transport as one of the reasons for that.
Mr. Dunn:
May I first make it plain that we do not want another river crossing in Dartford, thank you very much? Is the Minister prepared to consider greater use of the River Thames, greater use of park-and-ride facilities and greater use of light transit railways in south London in particular? Will he accept our congratulations for doing all that he can to speed up traffic on the A2, a subject which is down in my name for debate later this week?
Mr. Bowis:
I will certainly take note of my hon. Friend's wish not to have the new river crossing to Dartford, even if it were to come from Woolwich, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) suggested earlier. I will not prejudge the debate later this week, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) is right to highlight the need for us to continue to work in partnership with the local authorities, the Highways Agency, the highways authorities, London Transport and others to make sure that, in his part of London and the south-east and in areas that others of us represent, we have an efficient traffic and transport system that continues to ensure that London is a powerhouse of the British economy.
Ms Glenda Jackson:
Has it escaped the Minister's notice that his party has been in government for the past 17 years? It is their abject failure to create a properly integrated transport system for London that has produced ever-greater congestion on London's streets and ever-higher levels of air pollution and which prompted the Corporation of the City of London to state only last year that transport issues are a key competitive threat to London's economic position. What, in their dying days, do his Government intend to do to ensure that London's economic future is not threatened by their failure in the same way as they significantly threatened its past?
Mr. Bowis:
As the hon. Lady moves into her next period of opposition, I hope that she will learn to pay tribute and give credit where it is due to a Government who have been investing in London's infrastructure to an extent far greater than previous Labour Governments could have dreamt of. I have mentioned the fact that, this year, London Transport is investing in real terms four times the amount invested in 1979, the year in which the Conservatives came to office.
25 Nov 1996 : Column 8
Even excluding the Jubilee line extension, in real terms we are investing twice what was invested in the 1980s and three times what was invested in the 1970s. The Opposition can only come up with a policy of no spend on roads and no spend on new rail lines but, instead, the promise of a Thames tax, so Londoners will know that they will pay through the nose in Labour's taxes and get nothing in return.
Mr. John Marshall:
My hon. Friend will agree that public transport plays a major role in reducing road congestion in London. Can he therefore comment on the article in today's Evening Standard, suggesting that there will be no new trains on the Northern line until September 1997, which would mean that GEC was much too far behind schedule, and which would make many of my constituents and many commuters in London very angry indeed?
Mr. Bowis:
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that, thanks to the private finance initiative, new trains will be coming on the Northern line, serving his constituents and mine. It is equally right to say that there have been delays in those trains' manufacture. They are now starting to come through for trials, and they will be in service by next summer, as promised by London Transport--or according to the understanding that I have from London Transport.
6. Dr. Godman:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to modify the rules and regulations governing the occupational safety of the crews of United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels.[4007]
Sir George Young:
The occupational safety of crews in United Kingdom fishing vessels is being pursued through the development of regulations to implement EC health and safety directives.
Dr. Godman:
I know that the Secretary of State has an abiding concern for the safety of fishermen. Does he agree that, when a fishing vessel must be abandoned and the crew forced into the water, crew members stand a far greater chance of survival and rescue if they are wearing survival suits--that is, if they have had time to don them? Why is the Department of Transport reluctant to introduce a regulation governing the carriage of such survival suits on all UK-registered fishing vessels? Is that not the case with the European Union's directive on occupational and safety matters relating to fishermen? Why not give owners and skippers a one-off grant to purchase such suits?
Sir George Young:
I hate to challenge what the hon. Gentleman said, because I respect his knowledge of these matters, but my information is that the existing international and European obligations do not require the carriage of immersion suits. None the less, that would clearly be valuable in the circumstances that he outlined, and my Department will shortly promulgate a recommendation that fishermen should wear an automatic single-chamber inflatable lifejacket when working on deck.
Mr. Waterson:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have done a great deal to enhance the
25 Nov 1996 : Column 9
Sir George Young:
Yes, indeed. That is a valuable initiative, which the Department introduced two or three years ago. We do detain ships when they do not reach the right standards, we publicise their names to exert peer group pressure and we keep the vessels until such time as the necessary repairs have been carried out.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |