House of Commons
Friday 24 April 1998
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
PETITION
House Building (Worcestershire)
9.34 am
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): There is great concern in Worcestershire about the Government's refusal to reduce new house building targets for the county, and about the county council's insistence on building a new town of about 5,000 houses, in Wychavon district council in my constituency of Mid-Worcestershire.
The petition, from the parish councils of my constituency--Bretforton, Broadway, Charlton, Church Lench, Cropthorne, Drakes Broughton, Elmbridge, Elmley Lovett, Fladbury, Hartlebury, Honeybourne, Kington and Dormston, North Claines, North and Middle Littleton, Norton-juxta-Kempsey, Offenham, Peopleton, Pinvin, Salwarpe, South Littleton, Stock and Bradley, Tibberton, Upton Snodsbury, Whittington and Wyre Piddle--contains some 500 signatures and reads:
The petition of the residents of Mid Worcestershire declares that we are concerned about the proposals to allow significant new housing in our countryside.
To lie upon the Table.
The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to ensure that more homes are built on brown land in urban areas, instead of on undeveloped countryside, to breathe new life into our cities and towns and to protect the Worcestershire countryside for future generations.
Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill
Order for Third Reading read.
9.35 am
Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I know that many Bills are waiting to be debated this morning, and that several hon. Members--for diverse reasons--want to speak, so I do not intend to be long.I can afford to be brief, because the Bill enjoyed detailed consideration on Second Reading and in Committee, and reasonably detailed consideration on Report.
Before saying a word about the Bill, I thank all those who have ensured that it has come thus far--to the threshold of completing its progress in the House. First, I reiterate my thanks to the Minister for Transport in London, very ably assisted by her officials. She has been an active supporter of the road traffic reduction campaign, and has been keen to find a way of ensuring that the Bill could be enacted. I am grateful for her co-operation.
Secondly, I thank the host of hon. Members in all parties who have supported and attended--some are attending today--to ensure that there were no hiccups on the way, and especially those who gave up several hours of their time to attend the Committee. The support from senior members of all parties has been much appreciated.
I also thank those who have had reservations about the Bill, but who have nevertheless not blocked its passage;I trust that their forbearance will continue today. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has had reservations, but after expressing them in considerable detail and obtaining some useful amendments--clause 2(4) is the result of his amendment--he has allowed the Bill to proceed. He and I have had a few cross words, but I believe that neither of us is the worse for it, and I am grateful for his tolerance, if not his ungrudging assent to the Bill's passage.
The main thanks, however, must go to the very many people who have campaigned for this important Bill, in a variety of ways. I hope that the Government will not accuse me of plagiarism if I claim--and do so before they do--that this is a people's Bill.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
Oh, no.
Mr. Dafis:
I am sorry about that. I thought that it was worth trying to get it in.
Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster):
Would the hon. Gentleman share with the House the Welsh for "the people's Bill"?
Mr. Dafis:
"Mesur y bobl" would be the phrase that we would use. I am sure the House will recognise that the word "bobl" comes from the same root as "people".
The rest of what I have to say can be presented briefly as if in reply to three questions. Why should we reduce road traffic? By how much should it be reduced? How can it be reduced? First, why? We have been through all that, but I reiterate that the Bill, if implemented, will save significant numbers of lives, including the lives of young children, among whom road accidents are one of the main
causes of death. That is a striking and serious statistic. It will significantly reduce ill health; again, particularly among children, as the evidence from Great Ormond Street hospital demonstrated.
Incidentally, by saving in those two areas, the Bill will save significant sums of money. The measure will improve the quality of social life, which is seriously disrupted--in ways that we cannot always measure--by heavy traffic. It is an environmental imperative to reduce road traffic. That can be done without causing economic damage--indeed, it can be done in a way that brings significant economic benefit and creates significant numbers of jobs.
Secondly, by how much should road traffic be reduced? That is important, because the Bill does not contain targets. The Bill, as originally drafted, proposed a reduction of 10 per cent. on 1990 levels by 2010, and an interim target of a 5 per cent. reduction halfway through that period. That is a challenge, but, as Professor John Whitelegg has demonstrated and as other transport experts are willing to show, it can be done. However, the process must begin soon. That is an important message for the Government. The Deputy Prime Minister has acknowledged it, and he has stated that he intends to have
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby):
The hon. Gentleman and I agree strongly on this matter, and we agree also that it is easy to have fine words. Everybody would like to see congestion and emissions reduced. Does he agree that, if we wish to see action, we must set targets, as we have done on so many other issues?
Mr. Dafis:
Targets are an essential element in achieving change in environmental policy--there is no doubt about that. The issue that has been considered is whether targets should be included in the Bill. Targets will emerge as a consequence of the strategies that the Bill will engender.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough):
The hon. Gentleman is referring to clause 2 and targets, but it is unclear whether the Secretary of State is to publish and report targets that contain within them an element of local targeting. There is a deficiency in the Bill, which would allow the Secretary of State to publish bland figures for the whole of the UK--whatever that may be in the near future. However, the targets will have no effect whatever, because the traffic in the hon. Gentleman's part of the country may be entirely different from that in the Minister's constituency, for example. Does he envisage the Bill encouraging the Secretary of State to localise targets?
Mr. Dafis:
The hon. and learned Gentleman may not know enough about current legislation. Following the willingness of the previous Government to respond, road traffic reduction legislation applies to local authorities, and requires authorities to set targets. This Bill is called the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill--in this case, "National" applies to Wales, Scotland and England.
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West):
And Northern Ireland.
Mr. Dafis:
Yes, although that is through a different mechanism. We have the strategic framework for delivering road traffic reduction locally, but the point of the Bill was to place that within an overall framework.
I was referring to the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister is on record as saying that targets are important in this field, and that he wishes to see significant reductions in car journeys by June 2003. It is worth mentioning that a 10 per cent. reduction is, in all probability, necessary to enable the Government to meet their other important target--the 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. I was pleased that the Government announced that they were to stick to that target, as announced by the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry during the debate on energy policy on Wednesday. If we are serious about the matter, we need a significant reduction of about 10 per cent.
"more people using public transport and far fewer journeys by car"
by June 2003.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |