Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

'U-turn' on road plans attacked

Mary Fagan,Peter Rodgers
Wednesday 15 November 1995 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

This election is still a dead heat, according to most polls. In a fight with such wafer-thin margins, we need reporters on the ground talking to the people Trump and Harris are courting. Your support allows us to keep sending journalists to the story.

The Independent is trusted by 27 million Americans from across the entire political spectrum every month. Unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock you out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. But quality journalism must still be paid for.

Help us keep bring these critical stories to light. Your support makes all the difference.

MARY FAGAN

and PETER RODGERS

The CBI yesterday launched a bitter attack on what it claimed was a government U-turn on transport policy, and strongly criticised the performance of the private finance initiative.

Robert Napier, chairman of the CBI transport policy committee and chief executive of Redland, said that in May 1989 the Government had launched a White Paper promising higher priority for the needs of industry for a modern strategic road network. "Eighteen months on and two secretaries of state later, this government has done a U-turn down the motorway," Mr Napier said.

He said that by 1994 the U-turn had become a policy vacuum. Despite calls by the then transport secretary, Dr Brian Mawhinney, for a great transport debate the Government had taken no lead whatsoever.

"Infrastructure spending has already been cut and seems set for a further major reduction on 28 November [Budget Day]." Against the background of industry fears that the private finance initative will be used as a fig leaf by the Chancellor to cut public spending in the Budget, Mr Napier said the CBI found this unacceptable. The private finance initiative was offered as the private sector solution to replace the cuts, "but as is well known, has so far failed to deliver. The PFI won't compensate for the reduction in central government funding."

Treasury ministers had sensed the political mood in favour of environmental protection and found little resistance to cutting infrastructure spending, Mr Napier said.

Yet transport was vital to competitiveness and the current UK infrastructure was not competitive.

Mr Napier said it was perfectly possible to spend on transport in an environmentally sensitive manner as the Dutch had done. He called on the Government to make the difficult decisions required to reverse the inadequacies of Britain's transport links, without which Britain would fall down the competitiveness league table. Investment must also be increased in the railways, he said.

The West Coast main line was a national disgrace, Mr Napier said.

The UK needed to invest pounds 2bn a year more than it does in transport infrastructure. A Budget that cut transport spending and placed too much emphasis on the PFI was "not acceptable to business".

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in