Transport (London) Act 1969 (Hansard, 10 February 1982)

§ 6. Mr. Dubs
asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is now prepared to seek to amend the Transport (London) Act 1969.

§ Mr. David Howell
As I told the House on 18 January, I am not prepared to legislate to let the GLC go back to its unbalanced policies which placed such huge burdens on ratepayers. I am prepared to introduce legislation on travel concessions for the elderly.

§ Mr. Dubs
When will the Secretary of State introduce travel concessions for the elderly? In the light of yesterday's clear-cut decision by the House in favour of new legislation, is the right hon. Gentleman seriously saying that he will disregard the view of the House? Does he take pleasure in causing chaos to London Transport and distress to many Londoners?

§ Mr. Howell
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is "Soon". As to causing chaos, one has only to look back over the past seven or eight months to see the failure of the experiment attempted by those at County Hall. I voted against the Bill proposed by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) because I did not wish Londoners to be exposed to the crucifying levels of rates with which they were being threatened. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on getting approval for it, but we shall have to see what progress the Bill makes on Second Reading.

§ Mr. Stephen Ross
Does the Secretary of State wish to see London exposed to even heavier traffic, heavier lorries, machines that cannot give change, odd amounts on the buses and the chaos that existed before we had a more sensible pricing system on our buses and tubes, which was one of the most sensible ideas that the GLC introduced, or does he have a policy that will bring people back to public transport and get traffic off the roads?

§ Mr. Howell
If the hon. Gentleman studied the matter with care he would see that successive Governments, including the Labour Government, concluded that indiscriminate subsidies of the sort that were being practised in the second half of last year are not necessarily the best answer and may not help the traffic problem. They damage business in central London, because of high rates, and create the sort of imbalance and difficulties that London travellers face today and which the Government are leaning over backwards to try to help the GLC to resolve. The GLC has brought the difficulties upon itself.

§ Mr. Squire
Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of my constituents are genuinely confused about the current difficulties and the responsibility for them? Does he agree that that confusion may be marginally reduced if the Labour majority on the GLC can agree on what it wishes to do?

§ Mr. Howell
It would be valuable if the GLC could now agree a budget, as it is entitled to do within the law and as it has been advised carefully, so that London Transport can settle down to a period of stability. It has a substantial subsidy of about £250 million. London takes by far the largest proportion of Britain's support for transport. On that basis it is possible to develop an efficient, low-cost system of transport in Greater London. I am sure that is the right way forward rather than attempting to go through the chaotic experiences of recent months.

§ Mr. Robert Hughes
The Secretary of State was probably as surprised as anyone by the House of Lords decision. The Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) will restore the law to what everyone thought it was. Taking account of the will of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that on Second Reading he will allow a free vote and will not connive with his Whips to avoid the decision of the House being repeated, which was that the GLC should have the powers that it believed it had and under which it believed it was operating legally?

§ Mr. Howell
I can give no guarantees about the progress of legislation in the House.

§ Mr. Chapman
As the GLC reduced public transport fares by 25 per cent. less than five months ago—an act found subsequently to be illegal—will my right hon.
961 Friend inquire why the GLC has the effrontery to con the people of London into believing that fares must necessarily be doubled next month?

§ Mr. Howell
The problems created by the so-called bold experiment that led to the threatened large increase in fares had to be put right. The experiment was described by some as successful, but it is evident that it was running into severe difficulties even before the Lords judgment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Like what?"' The House of Lords declared that what was being pursued was illegal. It is necessary for the 1982 London Transport budget to be approved by the GLC so that some progress and stability can be achieved. It is regrettable that it involves a 100 per cent. increase in fares, but it is necessary to get London Transport back on track after the chaos of recent months.

§ Mr. Spearing
Does the Secretary of State agree that the doubling will not bring the accounts completely into balance? The chairman of London Transport, when talking about traffic balance, said that after 21 March the cost will be 12p per mile for tube and bus passengers and that it would be cheaper for two people to travel in a private car. Is that the balance that the Secretary of State wishes to see in London Transport, or will he legislate in some other way so that, like every other city in the world, we can have a properly balanced system?

§ Mr. Howell
The balance must take into account from where the money comes. The hon. Gentleman cannot condone a policy that involves a tenfold increase in the transport element of rates for this year and a twentyfold increase next year. That would involve another £200 million or £300 million to be paid by London ratepayers. A fairer balance must be struck.