Standing Committee E
Wednesday 11 March 1998
[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]
10.30 am
The Chairman: For hon. Members' information, there is a misprint in the Chairman's provisional selection of amendments. Under clause 2, amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 should be deleted.
Clause 1
Meaning of ``Road Traffic''
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch): I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 6, leave out `but excluding public transport'.
The Chairman: With this we shall take the following amendments: No. 25, in page 1, line 6, leave out `public transport' and insert
`vehicles constructed or adapted to carry more than eight passengers in addition to the driver.'
No. 6, in page 1, line 6, after `transport' insert
`and transport for people with disabilities'.
No. 7, in page 1, line 6, after `transport' insert
`and bicycles and motorcycles'.
Mr. Chope: First, Mr. Stevenson, may I welcome you to the Chair. I note that you are a signatory to early-day motion 18, and that you therefore have a great interest in this subject.
I had not intended to say a great deal at this point, but the Bill's promoter and some of its sponsors appear to be confused about the purposes of the Committee stage. Last night I received one or two telephone calls telling me that I was being unreasonable in tabling amendments, and that the Bill should go through on the nod. One of the four amendments before us has in fact been tabled by the Bill's promoter, and the majority of the 48 amendments tabled are in the name of the promoter, the Government, or Labour or Liberal Democrat Back Benchers.
Although I am a source of concern to the Bill's promoter and sponsors, I hope that you, Mr. Stevenson, will protect the right of Committee members to amend, scrutinise and test the proposals before us, and to consider them with the detail that Parliament requires.
Road trafic is at the heart of the Bill. As I understand it, the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), is not against road traffic, but against its adverse impacts. On Second Reading, I made clear the Opposition's view. I said:
``In government and now in opposition, the Conservative party has adopted a consistent stance on the issue. We want to reduce road traffic congestion and increase the proportion of travel by public transport. We believe that an arbitrary target for reducing road traffic is, in itself, meaningless. Targets are no use unless the means by which they are to be achieved are spelt out and command popular support.''--[Official Report, 30 January 1998; Vol. 305, c. 675.]
The Bill's sponsors appear to be confused about its purpose. Amendment No. 5, which seeks to omit the words ``but excluding public transport'', is intended to deal with that confusion. The Bill's sponsors wish to confine the definition of road traffic to the types of mechanically propelled vehicles that can cause adverse impacts.
I tabled amendment No. 5 because public road transport vehicles are capable of generating seriously polluting exhaust fumes. The Bill's sponsors are behaving inconsistently by excluding public transport from the definition of road traffic.
I have here an extract from page 3 of the briefing entitled ``Answering the Arguments'', which was sent out in January 1998 by the Bill's sponsors to their supporters. It asks:
``Why do we need road traffic reduction?''
It states:
``There is so much evidence on this point that we can only summarise here.''
The briefing puts forward two main points in support of the argument for road traffic reduction. First, it states:
``Millions of people breathe air heavily polluted by exhaust fumes. 53 per cent. of all nitrogen oxides, 90 per cent. of all carbon monoxide, 46 per cent. of all hydrocarbons and 47 per cent. of all black smoke emissions come from road traffic.''
Secondly, it comments:
``Up to 15 million people could be suffering health problems caused by traffic fumes. Up to 10,000 people die prematurely as a result of particulates pollution every year.''
Are the adverse consequences for personal health resulting from traffic congestion and pollution to be regarded as public enemy No. 1? If so, public transport vehicles--many of which heavily pollute the atmosphere--should be included in the definition of road traffic.
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West): Some of the buses that run on old-style diesel are a disgrace. Is it not critical to tackle public transport vehicles directly through their engines and fuels, rather than indirectly through the inclusion of their mileage in road traffic reduction targets?
Mr. Chope: Clause 2 states that the Bill will deal with the adverse impacts of road traffic on the environment and on safety and health. Why, therefore, is one category of road traffic--public transport--excluded from the Bill's scope?
Mr. Bottomley: I will give my hon. Friend a partial answer. Most of the people who work in the City of London can afford to have cars, and they have cars. If 80 per cent. of them go to work on public transport, we do not want to reduce that proportion, but rather to increase it.
Mr. Chope: There is a lack of consistency in my hon. Friend's approach. I did not have the privilege of serving as a Member of Parliament during the previous Administration, but I know that there were long debates over several sessions about road traffic reduction targets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) was a prominent supporter of the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997, which contains a different definition of road traffic from that which he promulgates today. Does he now think that public transport should be excluded from the definition of road traffic? If so, why should it not be excluded from the definition of road traffic used by local authorities when they set road traffic targets?
The approach is inconsistent. My amendment supports the definition in the 1997 Act and, as a result, I hope that it would improve the Bill. Neither I nor my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West think that the sponsors are saying that public road transport does not emit exhaust, black smoke and particulates. Old buses and coaches are some of the most polluting vehicles on our roads. It is no consolation to a victim of air pollution caused by a motor vehicle to be told, ``It's okay, it's a bus. Don't worry, it's a coach.''
I know of campaigns against bus garages in residential areas because of the threat of concentrated air pollution. Everyone has been stuck behind buses and taxis pouring out clouds of black smoke. It is folly to exempt public transport vehicles from a Bill designed to reduce the adverse impact of road traffic.
The Committee may be familiar with the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, House of Lords Paper 13, which was published in 1996. I shall not quote the report extensively, but paragraph 4.15 states that another way to take a lead
``is to target those vehicles which are often the most polluting in the most environmentally sensitive areas. Urban taxis and buses are two obvious examples. They have high mileage in urban areas, many have old diesel engines which can be very polluting, and the necessary infrastructural adjustments could be made at lowest cost.''
Why do the sponsors ignore the fact that many buses and coaches contribute to the pollution that the Bill will regulate? There are approximately 72,000 buses and 400,000 heavy goods vehicles on our roads and they are responsible for 55 per cent. of the PM10s emitted by urban road transport. In 1997 those buses and heavy goods vehicles emitted twice as many PM10s as 24 million cars.
The sponsors should demonstrate that the Bill is not anti-car or anti-lorry, but that it is against the adverse consequences of road traffic and road traffic congestion. Buses and coaches were not excluded from the definition of road traffic in the 1997 Act. To exclude them now is folly.
A recent example demonstrates the extent of the problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West knows. City diesel is available in London and in other cities. It reduces particulate pollution and is effective in reducing the adverse consequences for the environment and for people's health.
Are coach and bus operators rushing to fill their vehicles with city diesel because of their concern for the environment? No. Many responsible private motorists choose to pay extra for city diesel to help the environment and the health of fellow citizens and of their own families, but many bus operators do not. Any suggestion in the Bill that a bus or coach, however unnecessarily polluting it may be, is better than a private car will give rise to the suspicion that the Bill is more anti-car than anti-pollution. The sponsors of the Bill assure me that that is not so, so I hope that they will accept the amendment.
10.45 am
Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby): How many journeys are made by coaches and buses? Why has the hon. Gentleman not mentioned light rail, tram and other sustainable forms of transport?
Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman asks a relevant question. I refer him to the transport statistics report on bus and coach statistics for 1996-97, produced by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It is available at all good book shops, and is free to the hon. Gentleman but costs £20 for others. The document contains a series of tables, which differentiate between the volume of passengers and the number of services operated by bus and coach companies, and also between conurbations, inter-urban transport and rural areas. In 1996-97, local bus service supply in Britain increased by 3 per cent. to 2,693 million vehicle kilometres, or about 1,300 million vehicle miles. That follows the upward trend over the decade. It is an awkward truth for the Labour Party, whose propaganda suggested a decline in local bus services as a result of deregulation and the promotion of competition by the Conservative Government.
Supply has remained static in the English metropolitan areas. Bus mileage increased by 6 per cent. in the English shire counties and by 5 per cent. in Scotland in the year to 31 March 1997, but it stabilised in the English metropolitan areas. There were small declines in London and Wales--the latter may be of interest to the Bill's promoter. Total bus mileage has steadily increased by a quarter over the past decade. In London, where there is the highest concentration of activity, vehicle mileage has increased in the same period, reaching a peak in 1994-95.
| 
