| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.17 am
Mr. Howard Flight (Arundel and South Downs): I support the Bill's Third Reading and echo what many colleagues have said. Nothing in the Bill appears to be tyrannous. It certainly has the right intentions and reflects what our citizens know must happen in the next 20 years, which is that at least the rate of growth in traffic has to slow down.
I do not for one moment expect the targets that have been mentioned to be achieved. In my constituency, I have not been lobbied in support the Bill, but I have had many letters from pensioners in rural areas complaining about the increase in the price of petrol and wondering how they are going to cope with that.
I hope that the Bill will tease out precisely what the Government's policy on targeting is. I do not wish to put at risk the Arundel bypass scheme, which will be a very necessary relief to congestion on the A27. I thought that the Minister was in favour of a specific 10 per cent. national target, but the fact that the Government have taken the teeth out of the Bill suggests that they are not. I do not know whether they are looking to a targeting system that is aggregated from local targets, or whether they are abandoning the entire concept, which in any case has many flaws. I hope that the Minister will comment on that in her reply.
I am disappointed that the Bill does not focus more on ways of relieving traffic growth and congestion; I had hoped it would widen the territory on which the Minister was required to report annually. I should like to concentrate specifically on fiscal incentives.
One of the largest employers in my constituency is a mushroom grower that employs 500 people, mostly ladies who work different shifts. The company used to run a bus that took them to and from work. When the Inland Revenue told the company that the bus was a taxable benefit in kind, that records would have to be kept and all sorts of other nasty things, the company said, "Forget it," with the result that there are now another 300 cars on the road.
I wrote to the previous Government and, shortly after having the privilege of being elected to represent Arundel and South Downs, I also wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister, but I regret that I received no reply. Fiscal support, not discouragement, to companies, to bus people into work, particularly in rural areas, could be an important factor in reducing traffic growth and congestion.
Reference has been made to children being driven to school. I would comment selfishly that, as I drive to and from the House, I notice the dramatic difference in London traffic in the school holidays and in term time. A fiscal incentive for schools to provide more buses could be extremely positive.
Mr. Swayne:
It is not always a matter of transport not being provided. I recently visited a sixth form college and was aghast to discover that a large proportion of the pupils drove to school, despite adequate transport provision. It was a matter of choice.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. We appear to be having what is almost a Second Reading debate. On Third Reading we must discuss what is in the Bill and not our experiences in the constituencies we represent.
Mr. Flight:
I was alluding to the matters on which the Bill requires the Minister to report, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They probably include the causes of congestion and increase in traffic. Having visited the United States a great deal--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Let me help the hon. Gentleman. At this stage we should not worry about the causes, which should have been addressed on Second Reading and in Committee. Now, on Third Reading, we must consider only the Bill that is before us.
Mr. Flight:
I hope that the Government will take the reporting requirements in the Bill to cover a survey of the causes of congestion and rising traffic usage. I hope that such a survey will also include analogies with the way in which other countries are tackling the problems addressed in the Bill.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby):
First, let me declare a minor interest. It is not one for which I receive money; indeed, I pay for it. I have been a member of Friends of the Earth for some years, although I do not always agree with that organisation--I often disagree with organisations that I support, and that included the previous Conservative Government.
I welcome the Bill--I am a junior sponsor of it--as an important step in the right direction. We heard that it wasted a lot of paper, but it is a very small Bill. Sadly, I do not think that it is printed on recycled paper. It is also very cheap at £1.10, if anyone wishes to buy it. It represents a step towards reducing traffic.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion(Mr. Dafis), who represents a particularly beautiful part of the country that I hope will remain part of the United Kingdom for the foreseeable future. He has stuck tenaciously to the issue, and the Bill is now progressing to Third Reading.
We all know that the Bill is not perfect, but we have to start somewhere. We have to consider how to reduce road traffic. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) made some excellent points, and I shall reiterate two or three of them.
Cycling to school was commonplace when many of us were young. I cycled or walked to school most of the time. It is an obvious way of reducing what accounts for
25 per cent. of traffic in some places during school terms. I hope that the Minister will be active in encouraging road traffic reduction by those means.
Old photographs from the 1930s and post-war show that a huge number of people cycled to work. Now it seems infra dig. We cannot compel people to ride bicycles, but we should encourage them to do so. People drive to the shops when it might be just as easy to walk. I shall not dwell long on my constituency, where there is a large shopping centre at Fosse park. At Christmas time people have to park nearly half a mile away and walk to the shops because of the congestion.
There are many ways of reducing traffic. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs(Mr. Flight) mentioned the fiscal angle. He is absolutely right. We have to encourage a change of behaviour, attitude and culture, and the Bill takes us one step towards that. We all want to reduce congestion, emissions, noise and the incidence of asthma. We want to stop new roads being built through attractive countryside. That is self-evident. The Government and all hon. Members can play a part in influencing and managing the choices that people make.
Mr. Paterson:
As a member of Friends of the Earth, can my hon. Friend enlighten us as to what practical measures Friends of the Earth would take to achieve those desirable targets?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to remind us what Friends of the Earth would do. He must address the Bill.
Mr. Robathan:
Not only do I bow to your wisdom, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am not a walking encyclopaedia of the policies that Friends of the Earth would have us pursue. I have already mentioned two or three that I know it would support, such as encouraging people to cycle to work and school.
The Government have a role in influencing and promoting choices. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I am against compelling or restricting people or legislating unnecessarily, but the Bill encourages us in the right direction.
In defence of the previous Government, may I saythat the former Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire(Sir G. Young), is most committed to cycling, and was chairman of the all-party cycling group. He is also more committed than most hon. Members to reducing road traffic. It was unnecessary for the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) to attack the previous Government, because, in the previous Parliament, I attacked them for displaying much the same attitude as is now displayed by the Labour Government. A former Minister, Steve Norris, became a convert to, and an active promoter of, the cycling strategy, as I am sure the Minister for Transport in London would admit.
The present Government's reaction to the Bill, which is the most pertinent point in this debate, has been to remove from the face of the Bill the road traffic reduction targets, which are what the Bill was all about. Its title is the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill, yet it
contains no targets, which I find rather distressing. I should like genuine targets to be put into the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will set such targets at some stage.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |