London (Road and Rail Developments)

Oral Answers to Questions — Transport – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 13 February 1989.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Jeremy Corbyn Jeremy Corbyn , Islington North 12:00, 13 February 1989

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the comparative costs of road development in London and the proposed public financing of rail developments.

Photo of Mr Michael Portillo Mr Michael Portillo , Enfield, Southgate

As the House may know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is attending a meeting abroad today and has asked me to give his apologies to the House.

Expenditure on road developments by my Department, the London local authorities and the London Docklands development corporation is expected to amount to some £300 million in 1988–89. That compares with planned investment of more than £450 million on rail development by British Rail Network SouthEast, London Regional Transport and the London Docklands development corporation.

Photo of Jeremy Corbyn Jeremy Corbyn , Islington North

Is the Minister not concerned that the road assessment studies for London propose the expenditure of £3·5 billion and the destruction of 6,000 homes, and that all of that would be borne by the public purse and taxpayers, who would pay for the whole road development? Yet a much smaller cost of £2 billion for the central London rail study would largely be borne by the fare-paying public, either through interest charges to private investment being put into the rail system or by increased fares for those who wish to use the central London rail system when it is developed. Does the Minister not think that it is time that the majority of people who travel by public transport benefited from public expenditure and the minority of commuter motorists who drive in and out of London were forced to pay for the destruction that they are causing our city and the exorbitant cost of the road development that is planned to appease them?

Photo of Mr Michael Portillo Mr Michael Portillo , Enfield, Southgate

The position is not as the hon. Gentleman has represented it. The assessment studies are consultants' studies, not departmental ideas and the consultants are still looking at ways of minimising the effect. All the options will have to be considered in a framework that takes full account of the environmental impact. On the central London rail study, no decision has been taken on how the funding will be achieved.

Photo of John Maples John Maples , Lewisham West

Does my hon. Friend agree that major road developments in central London cause enormous environmental damage and often do little for traffic congestion? They simply encourage more people to use cars. Will he confirm that such environmental arid other externalised costs are taken into account in deciding levels of public subsidy for other forms of public transport?

Photo of Mr Michael Portillo Mr Michael Portillo , Enfield, Southgate

My hon. Friend is right. In answer to the previous question, I stressed that the environmental impact was most important and that we would not support any schemes that did more harm than good. My hon. Friend is also right to say that when proposals are made for investment the Department can look at any external benefits that there may be to non-users.

Photo of Mr Chris Smith Mr Chris Smith , Islington South and Finsbury

The Minister will be aware of the enormous concern among my constituents and others in north London about the likely impact of the east London assessment study proposals. He will be further aware of the growing concern at the extension of the private consultants' studies to the King's Cross area. Have any costings been done of any of the proposals that were drafted last year and which may come forward later this year from the study? Would it not be better if the Department of Transport scrapped the whole idea now?

Photo of Mr Michael Portillo Mr Michael Portillo , Enfield, Southgate

It would be better if people did not misrepresent what is going on. The important point is that we are looking at ideas from consultants which have not yet been finalised. They will be brought forward in the course of the summer and at that time we shall be able to judge the value of those ideas, to reject those that are not very useful and to proceed on those that have a promising future.

Photo of Mr Robert Adley Mr Robert Adley , Christchurch

Does my hon. Friend agree that in assessing road versus rail costs in London or elsewhere it is important to be both sensible and honest? Does he agree, for example, that all the police costs connected with motoring must be taken into account as part of the costs of motoring? Is he aware that, despite lengthy efforts, I have failed to obtain from the Metropolitan police or the Home Office any idea of the amount of police time involved in policing London's motorists? Will my hon. Friend do his best to ensure that that information is available and is taken into account?

Photo of Mr Michael Portillo Mr Michael Portillo , Enfield, Southgate

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is one of our principles that we expect those who use the roads to pay their full track costs, which would cover not only the cost of building the road but of maintaining it and, importantly, policing it.

Photo of Joan Ruddock Joan Ruddock , Lewisham, Deptford

Will the Minister explain why his Department banned the use of a computer model developed by the transport and road research laboratory and designed to evaluate the merits of different traffic policies for London? Will he confirm that the Government's policy of building more roads in London and cutting public transport subsidies scored lowest in that evaluation, and that a policy of investing in public transport scored highest? Despite his obvious embarrassment, will he now lift the ban so that the TRRL can get on with its work?

Photo of Mr Michael Portillo Mr Michael Portillo , Enfield, Southgate

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position, and I hope that she will be very happy in it.

What the hon. Lady says about a lack of subsidy to public transport is not right. She will be aware that the amount of public subsidy to London Regional Transport is proposed to be increased, much to the displeasure of some of my hon. Friends behind me. That was not a powerful point. She will know that big investment is going on in London—about £1 billion on the roads programme, and a further amount of money as yet unsettled because we are still studying the central London rails subsidy proposals.

Photo of Mr Bernard Weatherill Mr Bernard Weatherill , Croydon North East

I make a plea for brief supplementaries today to enable us to get more quickly down the Order Paper.