§ 21. Mr. Neubertasked the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has reached in response to the report by the Transport Committee on the subject of public transport within the Greater London area.
§ Mr. David HowellI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) earlier today.
§ Mr. NeubertWill my right hon. Friend ensure that the proposals that he brings forward for the next Session contain some limitation on authorities such as the Greater London Council, which are recklessly spendthrift and impose unreasonable burdens on ratepayers in the shape of inequitable transport subsidies? Is he aware that that council, which already intends to overspend its target by £110 million, is about to embark on another costly advertising campaign to mislead the London public about the situation? Is he further aware that that campaign will cost £200,000 and is the second such campaign this year?
§ Mr. HowellI am aware of that proposal. Having squandered ratepayers' money last year on a highly misleading advertising campaign, there is a proposal to do the same thing again. It has to be said, on behalf of those who wish to use London Transport services, that if the GLC proposes to take London Transport and Londoners through the same switchback as last year, with fares going down and then up and with vast inefficiencies, that is damaging to the future of London Transport and not at all in the interests of Londoners.
§ Mr. DobsonWill the Secretary of State tell us whether he would like London Transport fares to stay as they are, go up, or come down?
§ Mr. HowellIn my opinion, the fares have risen far too fast in London, due to the GLC's mismanagement and the chaotic effects on London's transport. It receives substantial subsidies from ratepayers and taxpayers. It should be perfectly possible to run a stable London transport system, but the GLC has failed to do so.