Webchat with Dr Stephen Ladyman, Transport Minister

6 June 2007

Many thanks for all your questions for Stephen Ladyman. H answered as many as he could in the time he had available. You can read the unedited Q&A transcript below.

Read the transcript

Stephen says: Hi! I'm Steve Ladyman

We are spending a huge amount on improving trains and buses, encouraging walking and cycling and we work hard to support aviation and shipping - but roads will always be a key part of our transport network. That means we have to make them safer and keep the traffic flowing and I'm interested in chatting about your ideas and concerns.

I'm afraid I have to go at 3.50 to vote in The Commons but I hope to answer as many questions as possible before then.

dave mccarthy: Is there any plan to target cycling measures more effectively? Millions have been spent particularly on short cycle lanes with many give ways at side turnings and driveways. Now we are to be told we have to use these deathtraps. I don't have to use the motorway in my car, so why force cyclists to use these lanes, however badly designed or maintained?

Stephen replies:
No-one has told you that you have to use these facilities. The Highway Code uses the terms MUST and MUST NOT when you have to do something - and advice about cycle lanes did not use these terms. But after consulting we tried to make this distinction clearer and this week after more representations from cyclists we've announced changes to make it clearer still.

Cycle lanes can make your journey safer but whether you use them is up to you - if you don't then be aware of the needs of other road users and the extra risks you may be taking.

Beyond that we are spending a lot more money on encouraging cycling - this was one of the first announcements Douglas Alexander made after he became Transport Secretary.

A Hunt: Does the government have any plans to introduce regular, competence re-testing of vehicle drivers by the Driving Standards Agency?

Stephen replies: We have no plans at present to retest drivers but we are carrying out a root and branch review of the way we teach and test drivers in the first place and have particular concerns about the way young people learn to drive.

Richard Olliffe: Would the Minister support the view that motorcycles and scooters are part of the solution to congestion and the reduction of emissions and thus should be exempt from proposed road charges and/or they be zero rated under any road charging scheme.

Stephen replies: I certainly do support the view that motorcycles are part of the answer to congestion and carbon emissions. That said we have not decided to introduce a national road pricing scheme yet and won't decide on this until we have seen how local schemes work and convince the public that charging of this type is a good idea.

So discounts and exemptions in any local schemes that may get proposed will be for the local proposers to put forward but the London Congestion Charge includes a motorbike exemption so I have no doubt that areas that follow them will take similar exemptions very seriously.

Chris Roughneen: Will the government 'advise' officials in Greater Manchester to make motorcycles & low-emission vehicles exempt from any proposed congestion charging scheme?

Stephen replies: This is a matter for the local scheme designers - but my approach so far has been to say that designing charging schemes is very difficult and the key 'target' for them has to be to beat congestion. That will be tough enough - and taking on a second priority from the outset would be even tougher.

However, once a scheme has been designed and designers are happy it will be effective against congestion. I have no doubt that they will also look to see if it offers opportunities around air quality and greenhouse gases too.

Rob Minton: If road charging is implemented, where will the extra money generated be spent? Which mode of transport are you looking to promote the most?

Stephen replies: For local schemes - the money will be ploughed back into local transport such as buses or trams. How the money is spent will be up to the local area where people will know what can be most effective.

If we do decide to go forward with a national scheme - and that decision is someway off yet - then we have always said that the overall package of motoring taxes would be reviewed as pricing has to be about encouraging people to change their travel behaviour not about revenue raising.

Dave: Would you support an extension of the 20mph limit on all city roads being pioneered in Portsmouth, being applied more widely?

Stephen replies: We have just given all local councils the power to introduce 20MPH zones where they think it will reduce accidents. Some will do this around schools, others in areas of a town and some will do what Portsmouth has proposed and have a more 'blanket' coverage. These are matters that are best decided locally, but I would certainly encourage councils to be pro-active about considering how best to use these powers.

Rebecca Lush: Given that despite the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation and improving vehicle efficiency, CO2 emissions from road transport are still forecast to rise due to traffic growth, why is the government encouraging this traffic growth and resultant increase in CO2 with a £13 billion road building programme?"

Stephen replies: Because some targetted road improvements are vital if we are going to tackle congestion and because of the huge amount of money that we will lose from the economy if we don't. Of course, investing in trains and buses and making better use of the roads we have is essential, but despite this we will still need some more roads where there is no alternative.

Steve Moody: Dr Ladyman, strategy for the reduction of road based carbon emissions seems to focus on changing technology and fuel types. Is it felt that carefully conceived road pricing mechanism could be a means of further reducing carbon emissions and energy consumption through influencing travel behaviour? Would this be an all round more acceptable scheme? Could personal carbon budgets be an alternative in the long term to road pricing, perhaps as a mechanism to allow offsetting of car journeys against those made by public transport, or more ambitiously a scheme to incorporate all aspects of an individuals lifestyle?

Stephen replies:
Engine and tyre technology, renewable fuels etc will be key parts of the strategy. If we go to a national road pricing system at some point in the future then it may well be possible to design it in a way that discourages emissions, but for the reasons I gave earlier it is important to focus on it as a congestion measure first and foremost.

Personal carbon budgets have been proposed and I suspect such ideas will be very much part of the wider debate in years ahead - for our part we have been floating the idea that one day land transport might be included in an emissions trading scheme but it will take a lot of work to come up with a viable scheme.

rebecca roseff: My point is similar to Rebecaa Lush. What is the point of spending billions on the M1 widening. All this will do is speed traffic along, resulting in more car miles. What is the point of that?. Here in Herefordshire we have a single track railway that is congested, meaning services cannot be improved. A small percentage of the M1 billions would double the efficiency of our railway. There must be many other examples like this
Rebecca Roseff.

Stephen replies: But we are spending massively on the railway too! About £88m a week at present. And we spent £8bn (I think it was but don't hold me to the penny) on the West Coast Mainline. We are also doing things like employing traffic officers to clear away accidents and introducing active traffic management, hard shoulder running and real time information to make the best use of our current capacity. But despite this we still need some roads.

ray: I have heard and read that building more roads does not help congestion. Instead it simply creates extra congested roads. If this is true, what does it imply for the future of our road transport system? Isn't total gridlock an inevitability?

Stephen replies: No I don't think it is inevitable and I don't think that roads create extra congested roads. If we plot economic performance of the nation against car ownership we see that they are closely related - in other words prosperity allows people to buy cars and as car ownership is something most people aspire to then when they have the money they do use it to buy cars.

Since 1997 the number of vehicles has gone from 26m to 33m because the economy has been growing. But if we want to tackle congestion and keep the economy growing that means investing in the alternatives to the car as well as in some roads and facing up to the possibility that one day we may need road pricing.

rebecca roseff: I dont agree at all with your response to Rebecca Lush. 'Tackling congestion' means building roads, which as we all know, increases traffic. The Roads Minister has to grasp this nettle and face up to it. Labour policies say they want to encourage public transport and reduce global warming, accidents and congestion. But Labour actions just carry on building roads and exacerbating the problem. You have to face up to your policies.
Rebecca Roseff

Stephen replies: I don't think our massive investments in public transport and our willingness - despite it being very unpopular - to get the debate over road pricing going suggests we are not 'grasping the nettle.' On the contrary I would suggest that people who oppose all road building are failing to grasp the realities of a modern economy.

Sophie Hewitt: Shouldn't there be a law to restrict the selling on of second hand car seats? These potentially dangerous items can be found for sale at boot fairs, through local newspaper ads and numerous other outlets. As a mother of one and someone who works in the children's products industry I would be interested to hear your views, especially in light of last year's tightening up of the car seat laws.

Stephen replies: This is not something I've focussed on - but I will now you've raised it. My first thoughts are that it would be difficult to do - because a car seat that is just a few years old might be perfectly safe and of course family might pass them between themselves. But certainly, no-one should buy one without knowing its history. But thanks for the suggestion and I'll get my experts to start thinking about it.

Frank: Dr Ladyman, I have heard rumours about the Government wishes to pursue the idea of in-car speed limiters to reduce road casualty. Is it true? There seems to be an element of 'Big Brother' in this.

Stephen replies: No its not. We know that something called Intelligent Speed adaptation (that's a system where the 'car' knows what the speed limit is on the road you are on and keeps you under it) is starting to be discussed around the world and is interesting other governments. So we've done some research to see if its viable and ensure we don't get caught by surprise. We've also done some research to see if it could work on motorbikes where it is, for safety reasons when cornering, more difficult.

My view is that it is for manufacturers to make this available if there is a market for it as an optional extra, but we don't plan to make it compulsory.

Daniel Carlin: Why is it that we have numerous deaths and injuries on our roads due to a large number of people not wearing seatbelts , ,but unlike mobile phones , we do not attach points their licence , only give them a fine?

Stephen replies: Compliance is better with seatbelts than it was with mobile phones when we didn't make mobile phone offences endorsable. Also using a mobile when driving endangers others - not wearing a seatbelt endangers only yourself and other people in the car. That said, even as I type this I am not completely convinced so it's something I'll look at again when we are next putting a road safety bill together. So - if you don't want yet another endorsable offence on the statute book - put your seatbelt on :-)

Dan H: With a large number of local councils having taken or are in the process of taking up decriminalised parking, what are the DfT looking to do to ensure that the industry is being effectively and actively regulated?

Stephen replies: We do produce comprehensive guidance in these areas - but if you have local concerns please write to your local Council and your MP so that we get to hear about them.

Sofie: Dr. Ladyman, what do you think can be done to modernise the public transport system in order to curb emissions? Are alternative fuels really a alternative?
S. Nordgren

Stephen replies: Alternative fuels are part of the solution - if they can be produced sustainably. In the long term (and I mean 20, 30 and 40 years out) hydrogen might be a clean energy source if it can be made without using fossil fuels. In the meantime we'll continue to encourage efficent vehicles and support research. We are also in the middle of a campaign to encourage people to cut their CO2 by changes to the way they drive.

Guy Dickinson: Dr Ladyman, Can you please tell me why the planning permission for the proposed Weymouth Relief Road was not "called in" and is planned to go ahead? It will destroy an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, an ancient woodland, SSSI and, also, ignores completely Natural England's objection. On top of that, by Dorset County Council's own figures, it will produce well in excess of 2000 tonnes of CO2 in the first year alone. No significant investigation of alternatives has been made by the council. It is officially not required for the Olympics. Can you please tell me why an unnecessary road is still planned when the government (and the local council) boast great green intentions? It makes absolutely no sense and one wonders what is really going on. Thank you. Dr Guy Dickinson, Weymouth.

Stephen replies:
I'm afraid I can't discuss local planning matters as these are quasi-judicial decisions.

I can say in general though that all schemes have to be assessed vigorously to ensure they give value for money and the costs in the 'costs benefits' calculation we do does include environmental costs etc. I would also add that alternatives to a road should have been ruled out as a way of delivering the same benefits.

Adrian Butterworth: Are there less policeman on our motorways and major highways now that the Highways Agency Traffic Officers have taken over management of the system? As electronic detection methods have already largely replaced policeman in identifying speeding drivers who is going to detect those who shouldn't be on the roads in the first place. It would appear to some that it may be better to steal or clone cars and drive without documents as real policeman rarely stop drivers, cameras can't identify drivers and Highways Agency Traffic Officers have no criminal powers. What is your response to these points?

Stephen replies: Our strategy at this time is that the Highways Agency Traffic Officers are there to assist the police not replace them - this strategy was key to winning public support for them. But, that said, they are very successful and we need to review from time to time the powers they have and see if we can do even more with them.

The number of roads police is a matter for each chief constable - and I've just written to them all reminding them that roads policing is very important and they should ensure they allocate enough resource to it.

Stephen says: The voting bell has just rung in the House of Commons and I have to go I'm afraid. Thanks for all your questions.

Moderator says: Thanks for the questions.