TRANSPORT (LONDON) AMENDMENT (Hansard, 20 January 1971)

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Acton)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower the establishment of further transport users' consultative bodies within Greater London. Before I turn to the reasons for the Bill and its proposals, the House should know that, throughout London—[Interruption.]—and particularly in my constituency of Acton, there is great concern about the services provided by London Transport and relations of that body with the travelling public. We are all aware of the difficulties faced by London Transport, particularly due—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Russell Kerr (Feltham)
On a point of order. Some of us are having difficulty in hearing my hon. Friend. May we please either delay proceedings or ask the rest of the House to be quiet?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his point of order. I hope that it may have served its purpose.

§ Mr. Spearing
I too am grateful for the intervention of my hon. Friend.
The House will appreciate that these matters are of concern to people in London, despite the great matters of State which we are about to debate. When differences of view occur between local authorities in the London area and the London Transport Executive, there are difficulties in resolving them, and this is giving cause for concern to local authorities. I wish to stress that, throughout my discussion with London Transport on these matters, I have received the greatest courtesy. There are people throughout London Transport who are very keen to provide the best possible services for the public.
I would commend this Measure by outlining the existing statutory provisions, explaining why I believe they are inadequate, and will conclude by placing the provisions of the Bill in a context of some political themes which are common today.
As the House will know, the direct responsibility for London Transport was 1076 transferred from the former Minister of Transport to the Greater London Council under the Transport (London) Act, 1969, section 14 of which makes provision for a users' consultative body with powers to consider any matter covering the services and facilities provided by the London Transport Executive, other than charges and the closure of stations or railway lines. Consultative procedures for services provided by British Rail are not covered by that Act.
The Greater London Council has established a Passengers' Committee, members of which have been appointed by bodies representative of people travelling in London. When the Bill was going through the House, there were moves by hon. Members on both sides to provide direct representation from the London boroughs but this did not become part of the Act.
In the relatively short period in which the consultative body has been in operation, difficulties have arisen. It is difficult for a body of this sort both to deal with broad policy matters and to handle details of significance to each particular area. Further, the information provided for this Committee is provided by London Transport itself, and the committee has no direct access to information provided by London borough councils. This is of particular importance to boroughs in outer London areas, in many of which there are bus fleets as large as those of many provincial towns, and where the system and balance of operations is to and from suburban centres.
Thus, the boroughs, with great responsibility for most of their own affairs, have only tenuous links with the public authority responsible for their own public transport, and the lack of links is a cause of tension between the authorities concerned. The G.L.C. does not have powers in respect of day-to-day management, and it is therefore difficult for the boroughs to get into realistic touch with London Transport on matters where there is a dispute. If it is difficult for them, it is equally difficult, if not more so, for the travelling public, and there is a great deal of disquiet in this respect.
The purpose of the Bill is to resolve these difficulties by giving the G.L.C. additional optional powers—I stress that they are optional—and it will in no way detract from the responsibility of the 1077 Greater London Council, placed on it by Parliament, for London Transport, or the responsibility of the London Transport Executive for day-to-day management; but it will affect the way in which that management is responsible to the public it serves.
The Bill will provide a statutory framework within which the G.L.C., in consultation with the London boroughs, can create further consultative committees, either for specific purposes or to cover specific areas. I am not suggesting that this would be for every borough, and there may be a variety of provision throughout the London area. The G.L.C. will decide, after appropriate consultations, the terms of reference of any committees created and their associated powers of direction and recommendation.
Provision will be made in appropriate circumstances for the London boroughs to provide office accommodation and facilities, payment for officials who are concerned with these committees, and for their members to be eligible for the usual local government allowances. Provision will also be made for areas adjacent to the Greater London area, which also have services run by the London Transport Executive, to be brought into this new framework of consultative bodies. Indeed, non-statutory conferences and standing committees in these areas are already in operation.
While the Bill may appear of limited significance, I believe that it draws together many of the challenges which we face in democratic government today. Healthy urban living requires efficient and inexpensive public transport, and the Bill will assist in providing it. A public enterprise giving personal service should have a management which is particularly sensitive to the needs of its consumers. The Bill, by permitting a more flexible system—and one which can change over time—of consultative bodies, would maintain "the public need" as a major factor in management decisions.
In a democratic society, the public require information and explanation of the public services which they use. For many people in London today, the quality of life depends largely on the quality of their public transport. Where difficult decisions have to be made or alternative policies are available, the public should be able to acquaint them- 1078 selves swith those difficulties, Unless this is possible, lack of confidence and cynicism in democratic processes begins to increase.
I have referred to the difficulties facing London Transport. These new bodies could be channels of two-way consultation. Town planning and traffic management matters could be discussed in these bodies. Wise decisions on planning and traffic matters require full and relevant information. Where there is a public official responsible for public transport, public transport planning could become an integral part of planning from the start. That is where it should be.
Early in the 1930s, this House passed the first London Transport Act, prepared by Herbert Morrison and seen through the House by a Conservative Minister. It was thought at the time that the Act would solve the problems of transport in London. Indeed, London Transport became a great organisation envied and copied throughout the world. Today, we face new challenges. They include the maintenance of a healthy urban society and the ability to adjust our democratic procedures to complex new demands. Unless such adjustments are made, democracy itself is imperilled by cynicism and decline in public confidence.
The Bill addresses itself to current needs, not by compulsion or by detailed requirements, but by providing a framework of law in which professional transport managers, local authorities and the public can work together in maintaining and strengthening the vital passenger services of one of the greatest urban transport authorities in the world. It is for these reasons that I beg leave to present the Bill.