HC Deb 09 April 1984 vol 58 cc6-8
8. Dr. Twinn

asked the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department is spending on publicity to advertise the consequences of the new London Regional Transport Bill.

Mr. Ridley

Nothing in contrast with the GLC, which has now voted itself £3 million for its political campaigning. It is for consideration whether it is tolerable for ratepayers' money to be spent on grossly misleading literature and advertising.

Dr. Twinn

I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. As the Government are not able, and should not he able, to spend money on disgraceful advertising campaigns of the sort that have been embarked upon from across the river, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to deny the rumours that are often repeated from across the water that the Government have a hit list of bus and tube services in London and that the old-age pensioners' bus passes are still in danger?

Mr. Ridley

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I have repeated the assurance—so many times that I forget the number of times that I have done so— that neither the hit list nor damage to the old person's bus pass is part of our plans. It is difficult for Londoners to realise that instead of having local authorities which issue factual material in a rather dry way, which has been their experience in the past, they have a local authority which is actively campaigning and issuing propaganda on the basis of extremely dubious material. They are being subjected to a dubious type of hard sell, and not an accurate description of the facts.

Mr. Anderson

Should not the ratepayers of the GLC be allowed to decide for themselves, through the ballot box, whether the expenditure is worth while? As the Minister has said that he will not use advertisements to state that some of the GLC's propaganda is wrong, is he prepared to give a solemn and binding undertaking to the House that the underground stations that have been mentioned will not be closed?

Mr. Ridley

I have given the undertaking for which the hon. Gentleman asks on so many occasions that it is astonishing that he has not heard it. I can only assume that he has not attended the House for months on end. In response to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I ask him to consider when the ratepayers were ever consulted by the GLC on the cost of London Transport or on any of its other extravagant policies, including the £3 million cost of its political campaigning. When have these policies been put to the ratepayers to ascertain whether they want them?

Mr. Tracey

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that £30,000 of ratepayers' money went from the GLC to an organisation called Capital, which has spread scurrilous propaganda about the Government's proposals? Will he confirm also that London Transport is unnecessarily costing over £2 million a month because of the actions of the GLC's transport committee?

Mr. Ridley

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Large sums have been spent on a political campaigning organisation. The Government would not be empowered to do that without specific legislative provisions. I must tell my hon. Friend, with regret, that his estimate of the cost of the GLC's stewardship of London Transport is, I believe, very much on the low side.

Mr. Norman Atkinson

The Secretary of State implies that there has been a lack of morality. How does he justify the statement that he made earlier following his authorisation of the discussions that are taking place about the privatisation of the line between Victoria and Gatwick? He was doing so——

Mr. Speaker

Order. The question is directed specifically to publicity on the London Regional Transport Bill.

Mr. Atkinson

My supplementary question is directed to that, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned about Greater London transport because a part of the discussions that are taking place, which have been authorised by the Secretary of State, concern the privatisation of the line from Victoria to Gatwick. The discussions are taking place on the authorisation of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is ingenious enough. Hon. Members must relate their supplementaries to the questions that appear on the Order Paper. It is unfair to return to an earlier question. I had to stop the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) doing so earlier this afternoon, and I must stop the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Atkinson

So is Mr. Speaker being unfair.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I call the Secretary of State.

Mr. Atkinson

I wish to prove my ingenuity.

Mr. Speaker

I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to persist.