| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South): Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the CBI has come out in favour of a 10 per cent. reduction in one year--a target that seems anything but arbitrary? In the commercial sector, a company in my constituency, Boots, set a target that has produced a 10 per cent. shift towards car sharing. It has subsidised 50 routes to cut staff travelling time, as part of a commitment to a citywide reduction of 30 per cent. in commuter travelling in three years. That would seem to be anything other than arbitrary.
Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that individual companies and organisations can make targets, which they set for themselves and do their best to achieve. That is different from the Government laying down an
arbitrary target for every individual. That is why we think that it is better to look at the issue locally, where traffic issues are best dealt with.
Much was made during the debate of journeys to school. If ever there were an issue that one would have thought could be dealt with locally, it would be journeys to school. Surely we do not need national targets for the proportion of journeys to school by car--what we need is local action. It is because the Conservative party supports local action that we passed the 1997 Act, and we are pleased that the Government have issued draft guidance on it.
Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park):
It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman say that these matters should be dealt with locally. If the previous Government were interested in reducing traffic--especially in our towns--why did they persistently and continuously allow the development of out-of-town and edge-of-town supermarkets?
Mr. Chope:
Those two issues are not connected.
Caroline Flint:
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the previous Government's national policy of deregulating bus services had an impact locally, which has resulted in one quarter fewer passengers using bus services? Is not that a case of national policy affecting local supply and demand?
Mr. Chope:
I am reluctant to take any more interventions because of their poor quality. The hon. Lady misses the point. Bus deregulation delivered more bus services and more investment in buses. I can speak from personal experience of the many smaller buses that have been brought into use by private companies. Their municipal predecessors thought that double-decker buses driving around the countryside was the only way. Now we have smaller buses more suited to the purpose.
Mr. Chope:
I am not going to give way.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion made much of the idea that a reduction in road traffic would not damage the Welsh economy. I think that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) suggested that the best thing in the world would be to close off a whole lot of roads. A survey by the Welsh economy research unit at Cardiff business school showed that the building of the Bangor-Chester expressway--100 km of road in north Wales that cost £732 million--had a wide-ranging and significant impact on the economy of north Wales and the lives of its people. Increased accessibility has raised standards, improved choice and relaxed an important location constraint, improving the region's attractiveness. The diversion of traffic from seaside communities, which in the short term has reduced trade, offers opportunities for improving the coastal resorts in the longer term. Surveys show that people think that the new road has improved the region's competitiveness, and reduced journey times and congestion along the route. That is typical of the success that comes from wise road investment.
In contrast, the closure of Hammersmith bridge for repairs--there is talk of permanent closure--has meant that Putney bridge has had an increase in traffic from an
average of 49,000 vehicles a day to more than 70,000. Let us not delude ourselves that closing bridges or roads does not adversely affect neighbouring communities.
Dr. Tonge:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Chope:
I want to make progress first.
Looking at some of the arguments deployed by Friends of the Earth, I was struck by the juxtaposition of two statements:
Expensive road investment has also been supported by the hon. Members for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson), for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), for Dover (Mr. Prosser), for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) and for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard).
Mr. Dawson:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Chope:
I shall in a minute. I know that it is embarrassing for Labour Members to realise that Conservative Members have been consistent in saying that we need increases in capacity to deal with road congestion, as well as measures to discourage people from using their vehicles. We need to have both measures used in tandem, rather than simply concentrating on restricting the ability of people to use their cars.
I was saddened by the way in which some of the speeches by Labour Members and the propaganda from Friends of the Earth played on the emotional issue of child health and air quality. Nobody in the House can be other than concerned about the substantial increase in child asthma and in asthma generally, but it is wrong to assert that that is solely because of traffic pollution. A 1998 new vehicle creates only one tenth of the atmospheric pollution created by a similar car produced in 1970, such is the progress in technology in motor vehicle production. In Sweden, levels of nitrogen dioxide in urban areas have fallen by two thirds in the past decade, despite growth in traffic. Since 1992, toxic emissions from motor vehicles in this country have fallen by no less than 25 per cent.
In the draft guidance on the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997, the Government recognised that it was a Conservative Act--the Environment Act 1995--that paved the way for the national air quality strategy, which
is now in the process of being implemented at local level. We can get better air quality while not reducing the number of vehicles on the road, if each vehicle is less polluting.
Mr. Drew:
It may well be true that newer vehicles are more technologically advanced and pollute less, but what about the many old vehicles still on our roads? How are they to be improved? Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to take measures against them?
Mr. Chope:
We are prepared to take measures against them, but what is happening is that the cohort of vehicles is gradually becoming more modern, because every year about 2 million new vehicles come on to the road and the proportion of older vehicles declines. It is also fair to say that less use is made of older vehicles than of the latest vehicles: new vehicles tend to travel up to 20,000 miles a year, whereas many of what may be described as old bangers are taken out only occasionally and cover about 5,000 miles a year.
In the remaining time, I wish to draw attention to some of the points in the draft guidance on the 1997 Act, which was issued for consultation by the Secretary of State. That guidance demonstrates that the Government show a welcome understanding of the realities that must underpin policy. Paragraph 24 states:
Finally, I shall refer to a letter circulated by the three organisations sponsoring the Bill, because road users will be alarmed by the terms in which the draft Bill was presented to the supporters by Friends of the Earth, Plaid Cymru and the Green party. The letter, which was sent to those supporters earlier this month, states:
"Road building cannot solve the problem of excess traffic";
and
"this campaign has no view on whether any particular road may or may not ease a local situation. So there is no inconsistency in supporting this Bill and in supporting a particular road. For that reason, for instance, David Rendel MP supported the Newbury by-pass, but is also a keen supporter of this Bill."
I am glad that that is its view, because it is consistent with the approach of Labour Members. Only this week, the hon. Members for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) and for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) promoted a campaign in an Adjournment debate for the completion of the Bingley relief road. The hon. Member for Shipley said that completion would bring tremendous relief to the local community. He accepted that there would be an increase in the volume of traffic but said:
"Capacity will be sufficiently increased to relieve congestion in the town and ameliorate the problem of rat running".--[Official Report, 28 January 1998; Vol. 305, c. 315.]
As a trans-Pennine route, it would be important for the local community.
"An area where employment and population are growing rapidly will, other things being equal, experience a high rate of traffic growth."
That is a recognition that growing employment brings greater traffic growth. There is also a recognition that it is better to refer to reducing growth and the rate of growth, rather than to reducing actual levels of traffic. We think that that is a more realistic way forward.
"Dear Supporter
It continues:
Four Years Hard Work: Now We Spring The Trap
Enclosed is Traffic Reduction File No 10. It springs the trap that you have all worked so hard for over the last four years. All your letters; your phone calls; all your lobbying have set this trap."
"But a trap is most effective when properly sprung. In the run-up to the Second Reading of the Bill on 30th January we must snap this trap shut as hard as possible. We have this opportunity now to make all the work really bite and bite hard."
The letter then sets out recommendations to the supporters, including writing to Ministers who in the past have signed early-day motions supporting a much more extreme version of the Bill than the one before the House today. It recommends issuing press releases challenging the Government to keep to their promises. Finally, it recommends that the supporters should organise stunts and picket MPs' offices.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |