| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. That is an interesting point. As he is well aware, one school of thought is that, the more roads we build, the more traffic we encourage, and I am intrigued that, in expressing his broad support for the Bill, he should almost in the same breath make a plea for a bypass. People whose views on this matter are much more sophisticated than mine argue that the M25 is a classic example of something that was designed to ease traffic and has done the opposite. We have to resolve that question clearly before we go much further.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion, the Bill's promoter, cited buses as one of the things that his pet expert, in whom he has obviously touching faith, had suggested to make progress and to solve the problem. No matter how many buses we produce and how sophisticated and pollution-free they may be, I cannot for the life of me see
how they are going to replace the vast majority of those journeys that are undertaken by the citizenry in their cars for personal, family or private purposes.
Let us look more specifically at that, and take the vexed question of children's journeys to school. One of the arguments of the hon. Member for Ceredigion was that the Bill would save lives. He then mentioned children's lives. I wondered about that when he said it because it occurred to me that there is at least a possibility--I shall put it no higher than that--that, if we were to lure or force children out of their parents' cars and have them take the bus or walk, as schoolchildren did when someone of my generation was at school, or even my own children did, there is at least a possibility that the accident rate among school-age children might increase, not decrease.
Mr. Robathan:
My right hon. Friend makes an entirely fair point, because, if all children were to walk or bicycle, particularly, to school, the chances are that there would be greater casualties. However, he must go one step further and ask: whose fault would that be? Would it be the fault of the child walking or bicycling, or of the motorist going too fast and driving too badly?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. We cannot go as wide as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst(Mr. Forth) is going. There are items in the Bill, and it is up to him to speak to those and not go beyond the scope of the Bill.
Mr. Forth:
I am, as ever, grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was perhaps making the mistake of picking up the points that the hon. Member for Ceredigion had made in his speech. I thought that that was what debate was supposed to be about, but perhaps the modernisation of the House has hit that on the head, along with so many other excellent traditions.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I am sure that, if the right hon. Gentleman were the promoter of the Bill, he would be given some leeway, but we have gone beyond that and I am going to be very firm. It is nothing to do with the modernisation of the House. It is to do with the rules of the House, which are that, on Third Reading, comments must relate to what we have before us--and that is the Bill.
Mr. Forth:
God forbid that I should ever be the promoter of a Bill, but perhaps my time will come. Then other colleagues will be able to have much fun at my expense, but I hope that that is a long way off.
I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but I did want to put the few views that I have expressed on the record, if only so that, if any more of my constituents telephone me, I can send them the extract from Hansard to show them what I have to say, rather than take the trouble of writing lengthy letters of explanation. As colleagues will be aware, Hansard is extremely useful in that regard. More important, I wanted the hon. Member for Ceredigion to understand the extent of my reservations about the Bill, although I am sure that it will proceed in a gentle and orderly fashion to its next stage in the legislative process.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield):
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on Third Reading, to welcome the Bill and to welcome the endeavours of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) in bringing it before the House. I do not share the scepticism of some of my hon. Friends--not because I do not appreciate their view that there is a measure of exhortation, as opposed to substance, in the Bill, but because I believe that it is going in the right direction. Let me explain why.
First, although there will be general approval throughout the House, and, indeed, among large percentages of people in opinion polls, for the concept that road traffic should be reduced, the reality is very different, as I know from my constituency. My constituency has three motorways going through it and faces the threat of motorway widening and of motorway service areas being built, usually in deciduous woodland that will be gutted or blown like an egg so that no more than the fringes around it are preserved.
In my constituency, there is much opposition to road traffic, and much concern about the way in which it reduces the quality of life. However, I also have to accept the fact that I represent a constituency--indeed, I have my own car on the edge of the constituency--where car ownership is the highest in the UK. When representative polling samples are taken in the constituency and people are asked their primary local concern, they answer, "Free car parking places." I must accept that, in those circumstances, my constituents are sending a double message.
Mr. Howard Flight (Arundel and South Downs):
Double standards.
Mr. Grieve:
No, not double standards. My constituents genuinely wish their quality of life to improve--in relation to traffic, exhaust emissions and the like--but, at the same time, they share the problem faced by people throughout this country: the motor car remains the only means by which they can get from the place where they start their journey to the place where they intend to finish it. Most of the alternatives start from a place where they do not intend to start and finish at a place where they do not intend to finish. Until that issue is dealt with, or until there is a change in culture, we shall not make progress.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and I--I am sorry that he has just left the Chamber, but he has already sat through quite a lot of peroration from hon. Members, so I will forgive him that--have the privilege and pleasure of serving on the Environmental Audit Committee.I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would agree with me about what has emerged during our deliberations over the months. Leaving aside my constituency, there is an enormous gulf between the revivalist aspirations
represented by Ministers coming before the Committee and the environmental improvements that they wish to achieve, and the reality; and structures that may enable us to deal with that reality have not been set up.
Although it has been said that the Bill has been gutted by Government intervention, it appears that two key matters remain in the Bill. The first is the duty on the Secretary of State to publish and report road traffic reduction targets, and the second is that, even if he can wriggle off that hook so that he does not have to comply with the requirements, he will have to explain why, and publish that explanation.
Because of that, I--and, I should like to think, the hon. Member for Ceredigion--have a fertile area for further questioning on the Select Committee. We have a number of opportunities to question the revivalist approach--more characteristic of a Welsh chapel than anything else--that appears to animate some Ministers as they explain to us the wonderful new world that we are about to enter, and to introduce a little more hard reality. Even if the Bill achieves that purpose alone, it will still be worth while.
Road traffic reduction is a highly desirable goal, but it is also extremely difficult to achieve. One should not hazard oneself to prophesy, but when the reports are published in the next few years I should be surprised to find anything other than clear evidence that road traffic reduction targets are not being met and that road traffic is increasing. That is the grim reality.
Mr. Green:
What is the use of targets if there are no penalties for failing to meet them? If the targets have to be met by the Secretary of State, it is inconceivable that any Government would allow legislation that would impose meaningful penalties on him. If there are no penalties, how useful are the targets?
Mr. Grieve:
I accept that targets of themselves will not necessarily lead to a beneficial result. However, they will at least oblige the Secretary of State to set out what he believes to be achievable and, subsequently, to come before the House or the Select Committee to explain why he has not been able to meet them. He will then have to face the reality of why the targets are difficult to meet. To be more optimistic, the Secretary of State could come before the House or the Committee to say how, by some great and wonderful miracle, the targets have been achieved or are near to being achieved. That is desirable--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |