| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.44 pm
Mr. John Austin-Walker (Woolwich): I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) for persevering with this matter, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on bringing the Bill to this stage. I join him in thanking Friends of the Earth and Transport 2000.
The hon. Gentleman raised some important issues, including congestion, pollution, and the cost of both to the economy and to personal health. While I share the view of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) that benefits--such as increased personal mobility and social advantages--have accrued from wide accessibility to the motor car, we cannot continue to respond to road building in a totally unplanned and demand-led manner. We know that building more and more roads would lead to greater demand and increased car use, until eventually the M25 would cover the entire south of England.
We must tackle the problem by making it easier to use other means of transport. The Government and local authorities can achieve that aim through co-operative investment in public transport schemes and certain areas of planning. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) referred to bad planning policy, but we should look at examples of good planning. For example, I commend the recent decision by the Secretary of State for the Environment to refuse the car parking extension that was planned for the Queen Elizabeth hospital in my constituency, which would have encouraged people to travel to that hospital by private transport.
However, if the Secretary of State is correct in curtailing the availability of parking at the hospital, it must also be correct for Government to ensure that there are adequate public transport facilities for people to travel to the hospital. Unfortunately, the privatisation of public transport has prevented adequate provision, and the health care trust must subsidise the cost of public transport to the hospital, which is crazy. [Interruption.]
Despite some muttering from Conservative Members, there is a great deal of constructive all-party consensus about the issue--particularly in Committee. We could not have had this debate four or five years ago. I pay tribute to organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Transport 2000 and to those people who have adopted less conventional methods of drawing our attention to the dangers of ever-increasing car usage. They have played a constructive role--although I do not expect all Conservative Members to agree with me.
A few years ago, the Government proposed to build a motorway in my constituency through a site of special scientific interest at Oxleas Wood. They have now withdrawn that proposal, but I do not share Conservative Members' confidence in the private finance initiative. Although the Government have dropped their plans to
build a motorway across the Thames in east London--which would have doubled car traffic in my constituency and in Eltham--they support a private sector design, finance, build and operate initiative for a toll bridge in that area.
I agree with the comments the hon. Member for Worcester about the availability of car parking. It is a hidden subsidy on the car user and, if it were taken into account when assessing the relative costs of public and private transport, it would tilt the scales in favour of public transport. Local authorities should examine that matter in terms of the guidance that they must issue under the Bill. I do not agree that the Bill is anti-bypass. The Minister and I made that point in response to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). In some cases, a bypass may reduce congestion and pollution and increase quality of life.
The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology has referred to transport sustainability and the growth in carbon dioxide emissions. It has said that, if road traffic is to do its pro rata share of reducing national emissions of carbon dioxide, vehicle mileage must be reduced by between 20 per cent. and 33 per cent. Local authorities can play an important part in producing plans that could lead to a reduction in car usage. We are not opposed to car ownership but we are trying to reduce reliance upon the private vehicle while improving public transport.
As the hon. Member for Worcester said, accessibility to schools should not be accompanied by bad planning. Local authorities can do a great deal to encourage shared car use and safe routes to school. There are many examples of good practice in many areas.
I welcome the decisions that the Secretary of State has taken more recently against out-of-town shopping centres. These centres have increased car usage and have reduced the quality of life of many people in city areas who do not have access to a private motor vehicle. In many instances they have lost shops, the local post office, the local chemist and the rest. Those people should have their interests taken into account.
I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson). I, too, am sorry that targets have not been set out in the Bill, as we would have liked. That, however, is not an argument for opposing the Bill. The measure is a good first step in the right direction. I hope that in the next Parliament we shall build upon it.
There are benefits to be obtained from sound planning policies, including encouragement to use public transport. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South mentioned his twin town of Karlsruhe, where passengers can use a tram and arrange for the driver to telephone for a taxi, which will pick them up on leaving the tram. There are many imaginative proposals to enable local authorities to work with and develop public transport undertakings and cab operators.
Mr. Hartley Booth (Finchley):
I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I have a personal interest because I am chairman of the all-party
I very much support the spirit that lies behind the Bill and I am glad that the measure has been introduced. It is clear that the Bill will stimulate debate. With great respect, I do not agree with the proposed solution as a whole. At the same time, however, I agree with part of it. If we only debate these great issues, having been stimulated by my friend, if I may so call him, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), he has done us a service. I have much respect for the hon. Gentleman, bearing in mind his interventions in Committee when we considered the Education Bill. I found the hon. Gentleman's contributions to be helpful and constructive. I was muzzled as a mere parliamentary private secretary, but I listened carefully to him.
Road traffic reduction is subject to about eight principles, which I shall go through quickly. There is a series of rights and wrongs that represent the way to go forward. I have many points to make because I have thought about the issues over many years. First is the guiding principle that we should have freedom to choose. The individual should be free to choose the best way of reducing road traffic and emissions, for example. We do not want to get into the French and/or socialist technique of dirigisme, of control from the centre--"You may not use your car or bus, whatever, on the streets."
We should reduce traffic not only for the eminent reasons that are stated in the excellent document from the Library, but because of my second principle, which has to do with the character of our neighbourhoods and cities. That is being destroyed by the practice of in-filling between houses, which has been the guiding rule of planners. As a consequence, more and more cars are on the street. The spaces by the side of our homes where cars could be parked have been used for more houses. Lateral thinking is required from the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport, so that planning and transport decisions can be linked.
My third principle concerns the interchange of transport--intermodality is the modern phrase--which is desperately important. To my horror and shame, because it occurred under a Conservative Government, Liverpool Street station, the great cathedral to modern railways, was refurbished without provision for a car park. No thought was given to providing adequate interchange between different modes of transport. How many hon. Members know of a bus stop, apart from the out-of-city, park-and-ride facilities, that has a dedicated car park? People have not thought through the problem of intermodality: changing from a car to public transport. That applies right through the system.
No group of people in Imperial college in London or in the Department of Transport is dedicated to intermodality. There are dedicated groups to study transport, water, rail, road and air, but there is no dedicated group to consider ways of getting people from one means of transport to another. There should be, and we should have a debate about it.
My fourth principle is the provision of more comfortable transport. We should think about comfort in transport to magnetise people away from their cars--their metal capsules--and into public transport. I have thought
for many years that the Thames could be an amazing facility for public transport. Boats could come up from Woolwich, on which breakfast could be served. They could be comfortable boats of the future, and could have car parks at the access points. There is scope for greater comfort in public transport to encourage people to use it.
My fifth principle is that councillors throughout the country should be given guidance on best practice. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) referred to the practice in Germany.
My sixth principle is the better use of science: reference to that has already been made. The experiment with hopper buses is a fascinating example of the better use of public transport, and has led to much reduced emissions. They could be used by elderly folk or people who would otherwise be tempted to use their cars for lack of comfortable transport. We should be imaginative and use science better.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |