London Regional Transport

HC Deb 28 January 1986 vol 90 cc901-23 11.11 pm

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell)

I beg to move, That the draft London Regional Transport (Levy) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 16th December, be approved.

At various times, those of us who follow these matters have heard much extravagant language used about the prospects for public transport in London. Enormous progress is being made by the professional management of London Regional Transport. This is a truth which the GLC has a record of seeking to obscure by inflammatory scare stories. I quote but a few: Fares will increase by at least 25 per cent. The end of the line for at least 33 stations and 34 bus routes. Pensioners will lose their free passes. To add insult to injury, this grossly misleading and expensive propaganda has been paid for at the expense of the ratepayer. The GLC has to date provided grants exceeding £1 million to its mouthpiece "Capital". I hope that our debate can be conducted in a more level-headed atmosphere.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new-found responsibilities. Has he had a chance yet to ascertain by how much fares have increased since London Regional Transport took over London Transport?

Mr. Mitchell

I shall be delighted to deal with that point if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop the point I am seeking to make. I intend to come to his point.

The objectives for London Regional Transport of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were to secure a period of stability for LRT's management following the troubled years under the GLC. That stability is essential to permit LRT and the professionals who man it to root out inefficiencies in the organisation and provide a better service to the travelling public.

We asked LRT to reduce the unit costs of its business by at least 2.5 per cent. in real terms each year and to reduce its need for revenue support from the £190 million planned by the GLC to £95 million for 1987–88. To improve accountability, LRT was required to establish its underground and bus undertakings as separate limited companies and that was achieved in April 1985. We also gave the chairman the objective of establishing LRT's ancillary businesses as separately accountable units of management and of reducing costs by competitive tendering for services where that was a sensible course. We also made it clear that, while we wanted to ease the financial burden on London ratepayers and on the taxpayer by reducing the grant paid to LRT, that reduced total would support the programme of investment which was vitally needed to improve the quality of service to the customer and save costs in the longer term.

Services were to be matched to demand and fares to be kept broadly in line with prices generally and those charged on British Rail's commuter services in London. LRT was asked to pursue opportunities for better co-ordination of services with British Rail and to improve conditions for disabled travellers.

I greatly welcome, and I believe that the House welcomes, the excellent response which Dr. Bright and his board have made to this challenge. They pointed the way forward in their statement of strategy published in June 1985. Their aim is to secure better services and an improved passenger environment at no real additional cost to passengers by reducing costs in all areas. I commend their strategy statement to the flouse. Hon. Members have also seen LRT's annual business plan for 1986–87 which places on record its performance over this financial year. I hope that the House found that and the plans for next year as encouraging as I do.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

Will the Minister tell us how what he has just said accords with the view of the London regional passenger committee which, when commenting on bus services in the capital, said that demand has gone up while the frequency of service has gone down? The Minister will know that the costs have not gone down; they have gone up.

Mr. Mitchell

I will come to that point in a moment. However, matching the supply and demand in some areas means changing services, in some areas increasing them and in others reducing them but an efficient business is one which matches supply and demand as closely as possible. It would not run services for which there is not an adequate demand.

The business plan shows that next year LRT will need only £79 million in grant to support its revenues. That means that not only will it have bettered our target for subsidy by £16 million but also that it will do so a year early and after taking on responsibility from next April for funding dial-a-ride services for the disabled. That is an astonishingly good performance by LRT. Since it has been achieved—as I am about to describe—without massive increases in fares or cuts in services it represents an absolute vindication of our policies.

Cost-cutting is the key to LRT's success. Progress in securing greater efficiency in provision of services for the public has been excellent.

Mr. Nigel Forman (Carshalton and Wallington)

My hon. Friend mentioned dial-a-ride. Will he give a much needed reassurance to my constituents in the London borough of Sutton that the arrangements which have been made will not disadvantage them in terms of local government finance?

Mr. Mitchell

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he is seeking.

The reduction in real unit costs of 2.5 per cent. per annum which we set on the basis of the then current business plans was, at the time, a tough target. In fact, unit costs will fall by 6.4 per cent. on the buses and by 3.7 per cent. on the underground this year in comparison with 1984–85; and are planned to fall by another 4.4 per cent. overall next year. That demonstrates the strength and imagination of LRT's managerial approach. It has secured more efficient operating and engineering practices and it is pursuing economy and efficiency in the provision of its ancillary services through contracting out and other means.

What about the level of services? I am happy to say that LRT plans to maintain at least the overall level of bus services, and to respond to the rising patronage that it is attracting on the underground by increasing services by 3 per cent. next year. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will join me in congratulating LRT particularly on increasing tube provision by 3 per cent. next year.

Mr. Tony Banks

Surely the Minister knows that since LRT has been responsible for London transport there has been a 3 million mile cut in bus routage. That is not an expansion.

Mr. Mitchell

As I said, it is important to match supply and demand. If there are services for which there is insufficient demand, it is right to reduce them, and if there are other services for which there is increased demand, it is right to increase the provision of services. That is exactly what LRT has been doing, which is why I can refer to increased provision for London tubes.

Last year Opposition Members made the most outrageous claims about loss of services for pensioners and cuts that would take place. I bitterly resent the way in which elderly people were needlessly frightened and used, in the worst sense of the word, by Opposition Members for their political purposes.

Investment will be increased. This year LRT expects to spend about £230 million on capital expenditure, towards which a grant of £193 million will be paid. Next year it plans to increase investment by £31 million, and our grant will also increase, by £23 million.

On the underground, the customer will see further modernisation of stations. Recently, I saw the proposals for Bank station, which are encouraging, and involve expenditure of £5 million. That will provide substantial improvements to a heavily used station. Passengers will also see work start on the new automatic ticketing system which will be in place by 1988. That will bring major benefits to passengers in terms of convenience and savings in cost.

The bus passenger will see the introduction of new vehicles better adapted for use by the disabled and designed to speed up services to passengers generally. I hope that that will be welcomed by hon. Members, as it will be by anybody who is unbiased and certainly by passengers. Further work is in progress to provide modern garages and efficient operational and engineering services, and to replace the present power generation for the underground by cheaper power from the national grid. So much for the sinister tales of London's public transport in decay.

With my full encouragement, LRT has been pursuing its statutory duty of seeking tenders for bus services which it considers appropriate for contracting out. London Buses Ltd., LRT's operating subsidiary, tenders for routes specified by LRT in competition with other operators. The first 12 routes were announced last April. The mileage operated increased overall by 2.5 per cent. and an annual saving of £750,000 million is expected on a subsidy bill of £4 million for these routes. The second tranche of 12 routes announced in December will see frequencies increased on three routes and maintained on the rest. Yet annual savings of £1 million are expected over those 12 routes. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will be on his feet in a moment to welcome that.

Of the twenty-four routes so far put to tender, nine were retained by London Buses Ltd., nine were gained by subsidiaries of the National Bus Company and the remaining six went to private operators. In this way the private sector is being given a fair chance, under competitive conditions, to enter the London bus market.

Like any other business, LRT has to adjust its prices in the light of inflation. But it has not been allowed the easy route to reduction in subsidy by real increases in fares. The 9 per cent. increase in January 1985 covered nearly two years and restored the fares to much the same value as after the previous change in May 1983. The January 1986 increase maintains them broadly at that level and leaves them lower than they were in real terms in 1981. Current fares represent excellent value for an improving quality of service. LRT has kept the increase in the cost of travelcards at less than the average, so building on their evident success.

As fares now stand, travellers are paying a realistic price for a good service. Passengers agree. Patronage is booming. Underground travel has grown by 8 per cent. since last year. The long-run decline in bus patronage is being arrested. Hon. Members may care to glance at the figures in paragraphs 1 and 2 in LRT's annual business plan where they will see the underlying stability in LRT's policy on fares.

That is the background to the levy order for 1986–87 which we are considering. The House will know that section 12 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 empowers my right hon. Friend to make grants to support LRT's capital and revenue spending. Section 13 of that Act permits him to recover by a levy on London ratepayers up to two thirds of his spending on grants. This financial year we are paying £323 million in grant, and are recovering £212 million in the levy. That works out at 65.63 per cent. of the total grant, and it means a rate poundage of 10.8p in the pound. The remainder of the grant is funded by the taxpayer.

LRT's excellent performance means that for 1986–87 the grant need be no more than £295 million. That is the estimated grant mentioned in the draft order. We have decided to keep the proportions funded respectively by ratepayers and taxpayers the same as last year. It seems right that both should share the benefits of better management—professional management, I may add—in the proportion in which they have contributed. That consideration requires us to raise only £193.6 million from London ratepayers and we are able to reduce the rate poundage by just over a penny, to 9.79p in the pound. That is excellent news for the domestic and business ratepayer.

In sum, I have shown that the Government are delivering in full measure the promise of the policies which we put forward for LRT and I have no hesitation in commending the draft order to the House tonight.

11.27 pm

Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell) on his promotion to Minister of State, Department of Transport. I do that with all the sincerity that I can genuinely muster. I hope that he will enjoy it while he can because after the next election I hope to be taking the position from him; or perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will do that. We shall have to see.

The order gives power to the Secretary of State to precept the London boroughs in order to sustain the capital and revenue support for LRT. I hope that I shall not be using "extravagant language". I do not believe that the GLC, in its campaign for the retention of London Transport, used extravagant language either. What we shall be doing this evening is using the correct and factual statistics that are to hand.

Mr. Matthew Parris (Derbyshire, West)

We were told in Standing Committee that 20 or 30 underground stations would be closed within a short time. If that was not extravagant language, I wonder what is.

Mr. Stott

I shall deal with some of these issues later. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East was a member of that Standing Committee and made several statements in it which, sadly, have proven correct.

The 1984 Act gives the Secretary of State responsibility for judging what level of collective revenue and capital support should be given to LRT. This is one of the first occasions that the House has had to assess the role and financing of LRT since that Act came into operation. When the Bill was debated in the House, many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East, told the Secretary of State that removing control from the GLC and putting it with a Government quango would result in a worse service. I am sorry to have to say that many of their predictions have come true, even in the short time since the legislation was enacted.

One of the main reasons for the deterioration in services is directly related to revenue support. In addition to the requirements laid down in the 1984 Act, the Secretary of State has to set LRT a series of objectives. One is that revenue support is to be reduced by £95 million by 1987–88. That compares with £190 million of revenue grants provided by the GLC during 1984–85. LRT has made it clear that it is determined to attain most of that £95 million reduction in the first year. That aim is a major determining factor of the strategy that it has adopted, and the strategy is one of cuts in services and cuts in jobs.

Broadly speaking, the savings are made by reductions in bus services on the assumption that bus use will decline by 2.5 per cent. during the next year. LRT staff are already admitting that there is little evidence of such decline. The latest figures show continuing growth. For example, bus passenger miles in the first quarter of 1985 were 9 per cent. higher than in the corresponding period of 1984. LRT is embarrassed by the number of passengers who want to travel by bus. Savings from reductions in services cannot be made without serious reductions in fares and revenue receipts.

Mr. Forman

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, if there has been an expansion of the number of passengers while, at the same time, the number of people employed has been reduced, that indicates a more efficient service which benefits the taxpayer and the ratepayer?

Mr. Stott

I shall deal with that intervention later.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes)

When the hon. Gentleman deals with that matter, would he care to explain the fact that, between 1970 and 1982, under the GLC, passenger demand fell by 25 per cent.? Surely that is no great success story.

Mr. Tony Banks

That is because it was under Tory control most of that time, you see, ha, ha!

Mr. Stott

If the very efficient Hansard reporters caught that sedentary interruption from my hon. Friend. I need not answer the question. It is important to consider these matters in the context of what they mean for those who pay to support the services. In the financial year 1984–85, when the GLC still had control of London Transport, London ratepayers contributed £280 million towards the running of London Transport. In the financial year 1985–86, they must pay an extra 35 per cent. as the bill increases to £281 million. They also have to pay increased fares and watch some of the capital's services decline.

The Government have deliberately chosen to bring about those increases. The Secretary of State for Transport has given himself the power to levy a rate on Londoners for LRT up to the maximum of two thirds of the total subsidy. In 1985, in the first year of operation, the Secretary of State had to decide what that levy should be. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the order shows the maximum.

Mr. David Mitchell

Will the hon. Gentleman at least have the courtesy to admit that, although there have been reductions in some services in some areas, there have been increases in others? That is a sign of an efficient matching of the market to the supply and provision of transport.

Mr. Stott

I do not accept the scenario that the hon. Gentleman has painted, and I shall deal with that matter later.

Another factor that has increased the burden on ratepayers is the outstanding debt for capital grants to London Transport that the Government left to the GLC. When the London Regional Transport Act was passed, in real terms London Transport was nationalised, but. the Government refused to take over the council's outstanding debts in respect of London Transport, and London ratepayers have had to meet the costs in the GLC's 1985–86 rate precept.

In the past year, London's bus services have suffered from a major programme of curtailment of routes. Reduction in frequency and the conversion to one-person operation has meant a serious loss of jobs. The Minister mentioned the separate London Bus Company, which has been created to run London's buses. It is clear that it has little real autonomy from LRT. During the past year we have seen a series of cuts in bus mileages. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) drew the Minister's attention to the serious reductions in bus mileage during the period of LRT's existence.

Under the London Regional Transport Act 1984, subsidy to London Regional Transport is decided on by the Secretary of State, following consultation with the Treasury and, as he is doing now, he must seek Parliament's approval. Up to two thirds of the total is raised from the ratepayers of Greater London. The exact amount is specified in the order.

For 1986–87 the Secretary of State has set a total subsidy to LRT of £295 million of which 65.63 per cent. is to be levied from the ratepayers, amounting to a sum of £193.6 million which represents a rate of about 9p in the pound. The total grant for 1986–87 is slightly lower than it was for 1985–86—£323 million—as is the ratepayers' contribution. Since 1984–85, the last year under CiLC' control, the total cost has not reduced, despite the Secretary of State's comments inside and outside the House. The total cost of London Transport during 1984–85 was £249 million—16 per cent. less than the subsidy in 1986–87. Let us consider the breakdown of the figures and the GLC budget for 1984–85. Revenue support stood at £190 million and debt charges were £59 million, making a total of £249 million. The LRT budget for 1985–86 is £323 million; in 1986–87, it decreases slightly to £295 million. Despite the fact that the costs at LRT have not declined since the GLC lost control, the quality of public transport has declined.

I have to declare an interest, because I use London Transport every day—

Mr. Forman

So do I.

Mr. Stott

I know that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) is the only Conservative Member who does not drive a car, and I accept with alacrity that the hon. Gentleman has as much right as I have to relay to the House our opinions about London Transport.

The quality of the service, in my view and that of my hon. Friends, has declined; there has been a 16 per cent. increase in fares, compared with 10 per cent. inflation during the same period, and a 2 per cent. cut in bus services, or an equivalent of 3 million bus miles. If one lives on one of those routes, the cuts will have a great effect, whether one lives on the outer rim of the city or in one of the inner areas. It is all very well to take buses off the road, but that does not help nurses to get to work early in the morning or late in the evening. We should provide a service for the people of the capital city.

Although fares have increased faster than inflation, LRT has declared that it does not intend to take the entire subsidy for 1986–87. It will hand back £16 million to the Government, leaving the revenue support at £79 million instead of £95 million. That reduction in revenue support represents bad value for money, because, according to London Transport's own estimates, every pound of subsidy forgone leads to £l.34 of missing benefits. That represents a total loss of about £21.4 million of benefits. According to the London Regional Transport Act, the £16 million does not go back to the ratepayers of London; it goes straight back to the Treasury. Therefore, the real share of the subsidy increase to the ratepayers of London is 69.4 per cent.

If LRT had not decided to forgo the £16 million, fares could have been held down, services could have been increased, or there could have been a combination of both.

A survey conducted for the GLC by the Harris Research Centre among a representative cross-section of Londoners asks the respondents to select their preferred way of using that £16 million surplus. They were given four possible options, and their transport, employment and financial needs were taken into consideration. Those options were: first, to hold down bus and underground fares; secondly, to increase bus and underground fares; thirdly, to reduce rates in London; and, fourthly, to reduce taxation throughout the country. The result of the survey was that 42 per cent. were in favour of the first option to hold down fares; 26 per cent. favoured increasing fares; 17 per cent. favoured reducing rates; and 15 per cent. favoured reducing taxes. More than two thirds of Londoners wanted the money that LRT was returning to the Treasury to be used to hold down fares, a popular process that they have enjoyed while the GLC has had control of London's transport.

Mr. Parris

I gather than one option on the opinion poll to which the hon. Gentleman referred was that the savings should be made available to taxpayers nationally. Did the people questioned in the poll include a sample of those taxpayers nationally, or were they all Londoners?

Mr. Stott

The poll was conducted among a representative cross-section of Londoners. While the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) was asking that question, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) reminded me that unintentionally I may have misled the House when dealing with the second option in the poll. It was to increase services and the figure was 26 per cent. I may have been somewhat confused in the wording of the option.

The Minister referred to the expansion of the London underground. It is to the advantage of everybody in one of the greatest capital cities in the world that the underground system is improved, for many millions of people are readily accepting the usefulness of the underground service.

The Minister said that automatic ticketing would not come in until 1988. Earlier in the evening I could have taken him to Wesminster tube station, where he would not have found anybody selling tickets. People could ride on the trains, but they could not buy tickets. There is a shortage of staff, not only at Westminster but at tube stations throughout the capital city. Nor do the machines work.

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)

Millions of pounds in revenue is being thrown away, and the Minister knows it.

Mr. Stott

The Government propose to spend £2.5 million on trunk roads in London. I do not oppose the building of roads where there is a practical reason for building them. But the return on that type of expenditure, unless the Government are making some extremely optimistic assumptions, will be negative.

Mr. Hanley

May I correct the hon. Gentleman on that point?

Mr. Stott

No. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.

The option of the Labour party and of the controlling Labour group on the GLC would be to use the financial resources to provide an integral, decent public transport system in our capital city. The GLC was attempting to provide just that, and the Fares Fair scheme was a bold, Socialist initiative by the GLC which proved popular throughout London.

The people of London have been denied the bus service that that positive, bold initiative would have provided, because the Government, out of sheer spite, are getting rid of the GLC and are taking the running of London's transport away from elected London councillors and giving it to a Government quango.

Public opinion on transport will be put to the test when we take our campaign on to the streets of Fulham. The people there will have an opportunity to pass judgment on what the Government have done, not only to the GLC but in destroying a public transport service of which every Londoner could be proud.

11.49 pm

Mr. John Wheeler (Westminster, North)

I join in congratulating the Minister of State on his appointment. I am sure that he will be in his office for some time to come and will enjoy every minute of it.

I assure the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) that my constituents remember the activities of the GLC. They recall vividly the increase in subsidies in real terms, from £6.5 million to £369.8 million. The people of London paid for those subsidies through their rates, and I remember the anger and anxiety of my pensioners and others who had to foot the bill to pay for that expenditure. I remember too, that from 1970 to 1982 fares rose in real terms by 85 per cent. There was gross overmanning, gross inefficiency and gross political manipulation of the transport undertaking in the capital.

We must congratulate the chairman and the board of London Regional Transport on a great success story. By any standards, the success of the new management in improving the efficiency of the service is something about which we can all be proud. I know that the people of London are proud of it. It is particularly gratifying to know that capital investment has been increased to £200 million from the GLCs £155 million investment programme. It is good to know that in its second year the business plan envisages that service levels will be maintained on buses and improved on the underground. Investment will increase by a further £30 million and revenue subsidies reduced again from £130 million to £79 million.

Mr. Parris

The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) said that there were no staff to sell tickets at Westminster underground station. I have just been over to check, and staff are selling tickets there.

Mr. Wheeler

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Like most hon. Members on the Government side, he is a regular user of the transport system, and we know how good it is and how it has improved.

Mr. Snape

Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me, as someone who regularly uses Westminster tube station late at night, that on many nights of the week there is no one to sell tickets at the ticket office? Regularly after 8 o'clock in the evening, most of the machines there are switched off. Because of staff shortages, it is quite possible to travel for nothing. That is the wonderful management that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. and right hon. Friends, like the Minister, who rarely travels by public transport, are talking about.

Mr. Wheeler

At the end of the journey, the fare is collected.

Mr. Snape

No, it is not. There is no one there either.

Mr. Wheeler

Yes, it is.

Of the plans produced by the LRT, I particularly welcome the investment of £135 million in a new automatic ticketing system which will reduce costs and fraud. Any hon. Member who has seen the modern underground system in the Crown colony of Hong Kong will know how successful automatic ticketing can be, especially in transporting people more speedily.

I welcome the substantial investment and the investment of £16 million in new buses. That will produce employment for people elsewhere in the United Kingdom as well as producing new equipment and new standards of comfort that will be of immense benefit to people in London as a whole. LRT has also managed to hold down fares. Although by last summer fares had been eroded by at least 20 per cent. in real terms since May 1981, the overall increases that took place with effect from 6 January this year were around 9 per cent. that is a commendable achievement.

I welcome the order and I particularly commend the professional management of LRT. I hope that my hon. Friend will convey to that management the congratulations of the House and its best wishes for continued success.

11.54 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

I too welcome the Minister to his new role. A belief was expressed by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) that his tenure of office in this Government was bound to be long. I do not think that has been recent experience, but we hope the Minister is able to enjoy getting his teeth stuck into the more senior position which he has just inherited.

Mr. Hanley

He did not inherit it; he earned it.

Mr. Hughes

Well, into which he stepped through his service previously as Under-Secretary.

We judge the performance of London Regional Transport principally by three tests. The first is what the Secretary of State told those of us who were in the House for the Second and Third Readings of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 and what he told us in Committee. I should like to remind the House of some of the phrases that he used during the passage of the Bill. On Second Reading, he said: The Bill provides the opportunities. The securing of better value for money will be one of the first and most important tasks of the new chairman of LRT and his board. I shall look to the board to achieve this. Later in the same speech he said: In the longer term the level of fares will reflect the degree of success LRT has in cutting costs and improving efficiency. I see no reason why fares and charges should continue to outstrip the increase in prices generally, given the scope that there is in LRT for substantial cost savings." —[Official Report, 13 December 1983; Vol. 50, c. 860, 864.] On Third Reading he said: It is crucial that we get a better deal for travellers,"— not for ratepayers— and that is the prime objective of the exercise … I am also confident not only that travellers will see a steadily improving system in London but that that will be accompanied by a reduction in their rate bill."—[Official Report, 9 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 109.] That, as it were, was the prologue of the coming into force of LRT.

There are two other criteria by which I suggest to the Minister that we should properly judge LRT's achievement. I shall not paint a picture that is all one-sided. We have to use fair and objective criteria. One is the opinion of people who take an objective view and a professional interest in what goes on. My earlier intervention was from the same source, which I hope the Minister accepts is valid and honourable, the committee that was set up to look after the interests of passengers in London, the London regional passenger committee. I might point out that after much pressure from the Opposition in Committee the London regional passenger committee was improved so that it would have at least some accountability to consumes.

There will be agreement about some matters. The passenger committee has said that on the underground the demand has gone up, services have improved and modernisation has also taken place. I commend that. Some stations are considerably more pleasant than they were a few years ago. But the same has not applied on the bus services. The committee says—and this is an objective test—that there has been a reduction in bus services so far despite increased demand. We know why demand has increased. I hope the Minister will accept that it is principally because of the increased number of passes and special concessions that people have been using the services more frequently. There is nothing wrong with passes; they are a good thing and they have encouraged demand. That is the result a couple of years on.

Perhaps the board did not foresee that demand would increase, but services have deteriorated both in bus mileage and in frequency and therefore in efficiency, reliability and acceptability. The figures have been confirmed by other interventions. Passenger miles, on the other hand, in the second quarter of 1984 were 579 million; in the second quarter of 1985 they were 584 million, with an annual total of 2,620 million in the first year and 2,670 million in the second year. But the services have gone down. The number of million bus miles travelled in London has been reduced.

I can then put the third criterion to the Minister for judging success, the criterion of a London Member of Parliament who has had many occasions to go to meetings, to deal with letters and to look at requests from constituents who cannot have the same level of service and the same convenience of travel now, in parts of my constituency and around, as they had one or two years ago. I want to give the Minister an example of the sort of thing that London Regional Transport certainly cannot be proud of.

There was a bus service round the Surrey docks, the P5. Surrey docks is a very isolated peninsula, away from the main travel routes. That service was, at the end of last year, reduced in the second of the LRT route revisions. there was no consultation process of the right length. The matter is now going to court because the consultation process promised did not take place. The result has been that, although immediately after the service was changed there was an effort to sustain the same level and reliability, it has dropped off considerably. People who have no other public transport at all, who have no easy access to the tube because the tube stations are quite a long way away, say regularly and in large numbers, at meetings to hundreds, rather than tens, of people, that they believe the service to be worse.

I do not say that that applies to all services. The Minister, of course, says that a good management should ensure that the service responds to demand. But there have been substantial—and this is the best interpretation—errors of judgment in assessing that demand, and substantial attempts to cut services before the need for them to exist has been assessed.

When the Minister next talks to LRT about its plans for the coming year—and obviously I have consultations both with my area manager in Selkent and the chairman and officers of the board of LRT—I ask him to undertake to talk to it about the things which are clear evidence of the valid discontent in areas of the capital about the way in which the cost-cutting exercise has resulted in a service-cutting exercise, when the demand has been in the other direction. That is a serious complaint which reveals a lack of responsiveness to the consumer.

We know why it is possible for LRT not to be responsive: it is a Government body. It has no direct accountability. The people who run it do not have to stand for election. As was quite rightly pointed out in the sedentary intervention made in response to the question from the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), the reality of 1980–81 was that the GLC elections for 1981 were fought largely on the issue of the transport policy of the Labour group, fighting for control at county hall. Its promises to use subsidies from the ratepayers generally were popular. It gained substantial support. The result, as the Minister knows, was that fares were held down below the level of inflation and, in many respects, people at least had the service near where they lived, even if there was not on occasions a massive demand for it; it was still needed by them, however big or small the demand.

It is no good saying to a community like that in Surrey docks two years ago, a few thousand people, "I am sorry, but there are not enough of you to justify a bus service", when there is no other public transport service available to that community.

It is unfair to believe that the policy of keeping fares down is incompatible with having support from the public and from the customer and with the increasing demand which is possible if one is then imaginative about the schemes, the passes and the general forms of service that are offered to the consumer.

My last point to the Minister, which I made to his predecessor, I make in part in a parochial way but also more substantially. Some of the complaints seem to be to do with the regular day-to-day management decisions of London Transport. They go something like this: if we had shorter routes, less delay would be caused by congestion. All the predictions are that our streets will be more congested, and we need to counter that in the planning of the routes of London Transport, and not allow delays to build up, which, unfortunately still occurs on some routes.

However, we need to concentrate on some of the more important capital investment to which the Minister pays so much attention, particularly in some of the areas that continue to be badly served by public transport. In Committee, the two priorities in capital investment terms were said to be improved services to Heathrow and improved services in the docklands. There has certainly been a movement in the case of the docklands light railway, but south of the river there has been little improvement, if any, in docklands. It is still the gap in the London Transport map.

I ask the Minister to take away from the debate a much less complacent attitude than that with which he came to it. People in London are not saying that it is a wonderful new service in all respects as the result of London Transport. More often than not they are saying—and I ask him to accept that I represent the views which I hear and the experiences which are relayed to me—that there is not as much control, the prices are going up and the bus services in general and in many specific cases are not being improved. That is not sufficient to make LRT anything like the success that the Minister's predecessor and the Secretary of State said it would be.

12.6 am

Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes)

Contrary to the belief of many Opposition Members, the Conservative party believes that public transport is absolutely vital to the capital. It is vital as a service to those who need to use it, it is vital as a service to the economy of the whole region and it is vital as a service to those who ought to use it more. It is only by a professional service, by an attractive service and by a well-run commercial service—indeed, by a proper public service—that we can bring more people on to public transport which will help to reduce the already overburdened roads throughout the capital. The only way to reduce the terrible traffic conditions in London is by making public transport more attractive.

I well remember the Standing Committee in February 1984 when we discussed this subject. I well remember the scare stories put out by the Opposition. However, there is one important thing to remember about that debate in Standing Committee: what were the objectives of the London Regional Transport Act 1984?

London Transport was taken from the Greater London council, first, to restore a stable framework for public transport planning; secondly, to reduce unnecessary costs and provide better value for money for travellers, ratepayers and tax-payers; thirdly, to bring bus and underground services into the same policy framework as BR commuter services and to improve co-operation between the two; fourthly, to redirect resources to cost-saving investment; fifthly, to ensure fully professional management; and, sixthly, to encourage competition and contracting out.

Have those six objectives been achieved? The first—to restore a stable framework—has certainly been achieved by taking LRT out of the directly political arena. There are no political appointees there now.

Mr. Tony Banks

They are all political.

Mr. Hanley

They are there for quality. It is not jobs for the boys or jobs for the girls.

With regard to the second objective—reducing unnecessary costs—bus costs have gone down by 6.4 per cent. and the costs of running the tube by 3.7 per cent. No longer is LT a job-protection scheme; it is a service for the consumer. I cannot blame Opposition Members for wanting to keep LRT as a job-protection scheme.

Any party founded and funded by the unions has a duty to those unions. Now the duty is to the consumer, and not to those who work in the industry. LRT is now a partnership between the employees and the consumer. It is an organisation that runs with pride in itself and not embarrassment about the political kickbacks that occurred.

Bus and underground services have been brought into the same framework as British Rail. There is through-routeing and there are imaginative ticket schemes. The present system encourages people to use London's services. It is one of the London Regional Transport Act's great successes. People can now use public transport without unnecessary restrictive practices to make their journeys harder.

The fourth objective related to redirecting resources to cost-saving investment. We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) of the increases in capital expenditure. Those increases are vast. There are new buses, stations and ticket machines. Anyone who uses the underground system, as Conservative Members regularly do, will feel the pride that exists in the attractiveness of the underground stations, the new designs and the cleanliness which was never present in GLC days.

We have also ensured that there is a fully professional management. That has worked. London Regional Transport is no longer run by a bus driver who was promoted above his ability. It is run by a professional manager who has learnt how to drive a bus, and does so regularly, to find out about the problems of buses in London. That is the right way to run the system.

We have also encouraged competition and contracting out. Recent announcements are excellent for the consumer and for future competition.

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that fares have gone up. It is always a sad reflection on those who are meant to lead the community that they tend to pick statistics to try to prove their own sectional point. [Interruption.] As an accountant, I hope that people will believe the statistics that I choose to quote. Since 1983 and the GLC fare rise of that year, fares have increased in line with inflation. The plea of Opposition Members was that fares should not rise by more than inflation. Fares are now 87.2 per cent. of what they were in May 1981. That means a reduction of 12 per cent. since then.

Mr. Simon Hughes

The hon. Gentleman cannot believe that he is proving his case with those figures. He is well aware that between 1981, when the GLC went into Labour control, and 1984, when it went out of its control, fares hardly increased. In the past two years they have increased by 15.1 per cent. That is considerably more than inflation since LRT took over. Please let the hon. Gentleman be honest with the House if he is trying to prove that he is an accountant.

Mr. Hanley

By last summer, LRT fares had been eroded by about 20 per cent., in real terms, compared with their May 1981 values. The recent increase was 9 per cent. Therefore, overall there has been a 12 per cent. reduction in real terms since 1981.

Mr. Stott

It is essential to have this matter correct. The figure to which the hon. Gentleman referred—the increase that took place in January when we all returned to the House of Commons and found that bus and underground fares had been increased—was an increase of 6.5 per cent. Inflation at that time was 4.5 per cent. Fares have increased above the level of inflation.

Mr. Hanley

Let us look at the facts put out by the Opposition. Many Conservative Members remember the scare stories that were put out, not just in Standing Committee in February 1984 but in printed leaflets funded by the GLC. The scare stories were funded by the rates. A GLC-funded body, Capital, a so-called voluntary body, raised rates being spent involuntarily on a body which could not survive voluntarily if it tried. It produced leaflets and distributed them on buses, and I received them myself on the day of a lobby here at the House of Commons. It said that 20 to 30 tube stations would close within one year of the LRT Bill coming into force, and that a sixth of the bus routes would be withdrawn and not replaced.

The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) remembers very well a poster which I brought to his attention, saying "Come on in No. 9, your time is up." The No. 9 bus runs through the centre of my constituency. Many people use it every day. For posters to say that that service would be withdrawn was a wicked lie. When I said to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, "The No. 9 bus service I hear will not be withdrawn. Why did you choose that poster?", he replied, "We didn't mean it literally. We had to choose some number."

Mr. Tony Banks

The hon. Gentleman should have referred to the No. 172, because that was the route that went.

Mr. Hanley

The only reason why the Advertising Standards Authority did not discuss that poster campaign was that political advertising was not covered by the legislation.

I also remind the House of the scare campaign directed at the disabled and elderly to the effect that the concessionary fares would be taken away. For the first time under this Government, concessionary fares have been protected in statute—the complete reverse of what the GLC was trying to put out at ratepayers' expense. I pay fulsome tribute to the board and chairman of London Regional Transport, and to the chairman and managing director of London Bus Company whom I have always found to be responsive to the needs of bus passengers in my constituency.

Mr. Telford Beasley has driven a bus through some of the problem spots of London, and has learnt by looking at the areas that I have brought to his attention. He has always been sensitive to any requests for services which are not being supplied currently. That is imaginative and flexible management, and it can exist in a free society but not under political control.

If the people of London believe posters and stories put out in February 1984 which were created by politically motivated lies, all I say is that those posters, that scare campaign, and those leaflets have been proved to be untrue. I believe that all of the scare stories we have heard tonight will be proved to be untrue in the future.

12.19 am

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

If the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hauley) thinks that control by the Under-Secretary of State or the Secretary of State is not political, there is something basically wrong with his constitution. Hon. Members representing the ratepayers of London are permitted to discuss London's transport affairs for one and a half hours a year. What wonderful democracy that is compared to what used to exist. The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes should remember that when he talks to his constituents.

I have a Travelcard. With my muscles, it provides the only way I can get around London, as it does for the majority of my constituents. I hope to speak for the ratepayers of Newham, South and the rest of Newham—

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

And Islington.

Mr. Spearing

And the whole of London. All hon. Members can do that.

On 13 January, the Minister of State said, to the surprise of the House, that the docklands light railway —LRT is an agent of that railway—would be privatised and would never make a profit. Previously, the Secretary of State had said that public money would not provide an eastern extension to that much-needed form of public transport. The Government's attitude to London's public transport turns on private profits and investment-not by the community but by a private organisation which will make money out of the recently purchased royal dockyards, if it can, to the detriment of the rest of the Newham people. That is to Government's plan for the rest of London.

Mr. David Mitchell

The hon. Gentleman's constituents will agree with me, even if he does not, that developments with private capital in the docks area will bring a remarkable increase in prosperity that those constituents have not experienced for many years.

Mr. Spearing

The hon. Gentleman is not right. The mere fact that he is requiring private capital to carry the capital and revenue costs of such a development means that that development is much more likely to bring prosperity to bankers and property developers than to the people of Newham. The borough council does not agree with what is going on. The Government want to develop that area, and elsewhere in the docklands, not for the benefit of the people who live there or who use public transport to get there, but for the benefit of big City and international businesses. The Under-Secretary of State knows that very well.

In London Transport terms, there has been a remarkable turn-around. Until 1982, the number of passengers on buses and trains was decreasing. There has been a remarkable upsurge. From the base 100 in 1979, between 1982 and 1985 the number of rail passengers increased from 82 to 120 and bus passengers increased marginally from 87 to 96. The Conservative Government should not crow about that. What is the reason for the sudden and welcome increase in the number of passengers using public transport in London? The Travelcard has been responsible. It was introduced by the GLC when the Conservative party took office. That is the reason for the buoyancy in public transport.

Although bus passenger mileage has increased by a small amount, there have been major cuts. Efficiency has been increased, but only by causing inconvenience to the passenger. Costs have decreased—that might be welcome—but income has increased. That is the magic formula for fattening calves and chickens for killing. Those routes might be ripe for privatisation. That is the key to the Government's policy. The Government are already introducing their policy on the buses in outer London. They are trying to have super efficiency in the centre of London by getting rid of bus conductors. People in London want bus conductors to be retained, in central London at least.

Although there has been a welcome increase in passengers because of zoning and Travelcards, there have been anomalies, which should be cleared up. If people in my constituency wanted to travel from Green Gate to Plaistow station, it would cost them 30p for less than a mile. That is rather more than the equivalent Civil Service House of Commons car allowance for one person. Therefore, although I welcome the principle of Travelcards and zoning, there are anomalies inside that zone. There should be a much lower fare for people travelling over a shorter distance. There is a bizarre problem illustrated by travel on the underground. If I and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) wanted to go to the Home Office and it was raining and we did not have Travelcards we would go to Westminster underground station for St. James's park and we would have to pay 50p for half a mile. That is £1 each there and back and £2 for the two of us.

Mr. Parris

Use your Travelcard.

Mr. Spearing

Perhaps I should not use the example of my hon. Friend and I, because I am talking about ordinary people who do not have the benefit of their employers paying some of their travel expenses. They would have to pay £1 each there and back. It would be £2 for two of them which is a huge multiple of the cost of company cars or, in our case, the House of Commons travel allowance. Therefore, I support the Travelcard and zoning scheme for what it has done to produce a buoyant system, but for people travelling short distances in east London, Newham in particular, there are anomalies that need to be sorted out. There is a bizarre cost of 30p which applies for short distances between two adjacent stations in the outer London area. The cost per mile is bizarre relative to the cost of the transport provided.

The turn-around has been achieved only by GLC policies and the Government have reaped the benefit for the future. The Government are getting a public system of transport the profits of which they ultimately want to pay to private contractors. One might ask how that can be the case, because everybody knows that public transport, even in London, does not pay. The Government are doing that in the outer area on selected bus routes. What happens is that the service is subsidised by rates and transport supplementary grant and then the contractor is allowed to make the profit, just as the Government are allowing many contractors, instead of London Transport Building Services, to make profits. No doubt that is the case in all the reconstruction schemes we see around, where safety has been a problem. That is the plan for the future.

The Government do not worry too much about the quality of service. For example, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes knows that the Richmond service on a Saturday is every 20 minutes and that those trains are fairly full. That is not good enough. Central line tubes in east London in the evenings on the Newbury park branch in Redbridge—a Tory area—run every 20 minutes and they have escalators. That is not good enough. It shows a lack of sensitivity. Even reducing the interval to 15 minutes, let alone 10, would be a marginal cost to transport management, but they are snipping money wherever they can, irrespective of the convenience to the public.

Therefore, the improvements that have been brought about by a Labour-controlled GLC are now being used to prepare LRT services for privatisation. Why else would the Government split the buses and the railways into separate companies? It is all being produced over a period of time so that the next phase, no doubt with the enthusiastic co-operation of the non-political gentleman named by the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes, will be to privatise what was a public asset, not for the benefit of the people of London, but for continuing the Leeds school of non-political economy—the social market philosphy of the Prime Minister. She should have paid more attention to the views of her constituents because if she had, she would not be preparing LRT services for so-called profitable privatisation at the expense of the ratepayer.

12.29 am

Mr. Nigel Forman (Carshalton and Wallington)

The order and the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister show the solid progress now being made by the London Regional Transport, and I pay tribute to it. The order also gives the lie to the scurrilous GLC stories which were spread at the expense of ratepayers, including those in my constituency, because of contributions which they were obliged to make to the GLC.

I am glad that, through greater efficiency, LRT now provides better services at no discernible extra cost to the travelling public. That shows the wisdom and rightness of the Government's policy, flowing from the London Regional Transport Act 1984. It is especially good that the unit costs have been reduced by 6.4 per cent. on the buses, and 3.7 per cent. on the underground.

It is good for my constituents in Sutton that their position in relation to dial-a-ride is to be safeguarded All in all, a good story lies behind the order, which I support.

However, I have four suggestions for my hon. Friend the Minister which I hope will be drawn to the attention of the excellent new LRT management. First, I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) about the need for shorter bus routes. My constituents often find themselves at the end of such routes in the outer part of the greater London area, and the difficulties facing some of the hard-working drivers and staff are unavoidably increased by congestion The map of LRT's routes shows clearly that, unlike other metropolitan cities in advanced countries, we have inordinately long routes.

Bearing in mind the congestion problems, which have not been fully solved even by bulldog clamps, which I support, LRT should consider linking shorter routes. Secondly, I welcome the progress made on the underground in creating cleaner, brighter tube stations. That is important psychologically, because it makes the travelling public feel better. More salient, in these days when people worry for their safety, it makes nervous people more confident if stations are well lit, clean and not covered in graffiti. LRT should spend small sums on improving the look and feel of tube stations.

Thirdly, as a frequent traveller on LRT and not owning a car, I am acutely aware of the deficiencies of the Circle Line. If a train is cancelled it invariably seems to be on the Circle Line rather than on the District or Metropolitan Lines. During the rush hours it is sensible, if there is a staff shortage or an operating problem, to give priority to the radial lines. At other times when Members of Parliament, tourists and others use the trains, it is important that the integrity and reliability of the Circle Line service is preserved. It pains me when I and others must wait about 20 minutes between Circle Line trains because one has been cancelled. Half the point of the tube service is its convenience.

Finally, I want to congratulate LRT on it brave decison to ban smoking from the underground. I declare an interest in that I am an aggressive non-smoker, but even allowing for that foible, on health and cleanliness grounds and the general acceptability of the environment underground, quite apart from on safety grounds and the danger of fire, LRT has led the way splendidly. I hope that it will extend the policy to the buses so that we do not have to have a lower deck where life is tolerable and a cancer deck upstairs. We should have smoke-free buses for the sake of common sense and health.

This is an excellent sign of progress for LRT and I commend my hon. Friend the Minister on his efforts to push LRT in the right direction.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Mr. David Mitchell.

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has already addressed the House once and must ask the leave of the House in order to do so again. In the circumstances, I would object to that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Minister does not need the leave of the House. I thought that the House wanted a reply from the Minister. The debate must finish at 12.41 am. I assumed that the House wanted to hear the Minister's reply to the debate. Mr. David Mitchell.

Mr. David Mitchell

If the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) feels that he has been cut out, and if you will allow me to split the time with him, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am prepared to try to sum up in rather less time in order to meet the wishes of the House.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Mr. Tony Banks.

12.36 am

Mr. Banks

I shall split the time available with the Minister and I am grateful to him for that.

It is unfortunate that we have had a debate of one and a half hours yet some hon. Members still want to speak. This is what London Members now have as a substitute for the democratic accountability of the control of the GLC over the affairs of London Regional Transport.

A lot has been said about the GLC in an accusatory fashion by Conservative Members. Let me remind them that, under the control of the GLC from 1981, until London Transport was snatched back from the ratepayers of London in order for the Government to make a better case for the abolition of the GLC, the GLC kept fares down. Since LRT took control of London transport in 1984, the fares have gone up 16 per cent.

The GLC produced, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) said, a radical blueprint for the future for the integrated transport system of London, dramatically increased public transort usage and, in doing so, reduced the level of traffic congestion on London roads and cut down on the number of road accidents.

In the final year when the GLC had London transport taken away from its democratic control, a £35 million operating profit was made by London Transport. That does not seem to me to be a record of which the GLC should feel ashamed. On the contrary, it seems to be a record of which the GLC and London ratepayers should feel proud. Since then, the record has been quite the reverse.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said that the sudden change in the fortunes of LRT, as Conservative Members see it, has not come about simply because of a new management structure. It has been the result of building on what the GLC established by the new management of LRT. Incidentally, those managers were appointed by the GLC. I was a member of the committee that appointed Dr. Bright as the chairman of the executive. Frankly, that point should also be made by Conservative Members when they congratulate the management. We not only built the fare structure at county hall; we also appointed the managers to carry it out and they are the same ones who are here now.

We now find that LRT presents an annual plan. We have an hour and a half for people to rush in a few points. There is no consultation on the annual plan. No alternatives are put to the people of London and there is no real scrutiny. LRT's financial benefit derives from the 1983 Travelcard package, which the GLC introduced against the advice of and in opposition to the present senior management of LRT. LRT's success is entirely predictted on the successful policies of the GLC.

12.39 am

Mr. David Mitchell

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) took rather more of the time than I suggested he could barely have.

Mr. Tony Banks

I am sorry.

Mr. Mitchell

That is perhaps a further illustration of the unreliability of some of the assertions made by Opposition Members.

The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) said that many of his hon. Friends' predictions had come true. He failed to show where the 33 tube stations that it was predicted would close have closed. He failed to show where the 34 bus routes that it was predicted would close have closed. He failed to show where pensioners have lost their free passes, as was predicted. It is clear that the passengers of London are voting with their feet by using services more. LRT is now providing what passengers want at a fair price that passengers are prepared to pay. That is why more people are using its services. It is therefore clear that LRT is achieving what it was asked to achieve and what the people of London want from it.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business):—

The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes 109.

Division No. 54]	[12.41 am
AYES
Adley, Robert	Bright, Graham
Alexander, Richard	Brinton, Tim
Amess, David	Brooke, Hon Peter
Ancram, Michael	Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)
Arnold, Tom	Bruinvels, Peter
Ashby, David	Bulmer, Esmond
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)	Burt, Alistair
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Butcher, John
Baldry, Tony	Butterfill, John
Batiste, Spencer	Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Bellingham, Henry	Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Bendall, Vivian	Carttiss, Michael
Best, Keith	Cash, William
Bevan, David Gilroy	Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Chope, Christopher
Blackburn, John	Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Bottomley, Peter	Coombs, Simon
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Cope, John
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)	Couchman, James
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Currie, Mrs Edwina
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Dorrell, Stephen

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	McCurley, Mrs Anna
Dover, Den	Macfarlane, Neil
Durant, Tony	MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Dykes, Hugh	MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)
Evennett, David	Maclean, David John
Fairbairn, Nicholas	McQuarrie, Albert
Fallon, Michael	Major, John
Farr, Sir John	Malins, Humfrey
Favell, Anthony	Maples, John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Mather, Carol
Forman, Nigel	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Forth, Eric	Merchant, Piers
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)	Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Freeman, Roger	Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Gale, Roger	Miscampbell, Norman
Galley, Roy	Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Moate, Roger
Gregory, Conal	Moore, Rt Hon John
Griffiths, Sir Eldon	Moynihan, Hon C.
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)	Mudd, David
Ground, Patrick	Neubert, Michael
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)	Newton, Tony
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Nicholls, Patrick
Hanley, Jeremy	Norris, Steven
Harris, David	Ottaway, Richard
Haselhurst, Alan	Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Hawksley, Warren	Parris, Matthew
Hayes, J.	Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney	Pawsey, James
Hayward, Robert	Pollock, Alexander
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Portillo, Michael
Heddle, John	Powell, William (Corby)
Hickmet, Richard	Powley, John
Hind, Kenneth	Proctor, K. Harvey
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)	Raffan, Keith
Holt, Richard	Rathbone, Tim
Howard, Michael	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)	Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Hubbard-Miles, Peter	Roe, Mrs Marion
Hunt, David (Wirral W)	Sackville, Hon Thomas
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Jackson, Robert	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Jones, Robert (Herts W)	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Key, Robert	Thurnham, Peter
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)	Trippier, David
Knight, Greg (Derby N)	Twinn, Dr Ian
Knowles, Michael	Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Lang, Ian	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Lawler, Geoffrey	Watson, John
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Watts, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Wheeler, John
Lester, Jim	Wood, Timothy
Lightbown, David
Lilley, Peter	Tellers for the Ayes:
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Mr. Francis Maude and
Lord, Michael	Mr. Tim Sainsbury.
Lyell, Nicholas

NOES
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)	Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Campbell-Savours, Dale
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)	Clarke, Thomas
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Clay, Robert
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Clelland, David Gordon
Barnett, Guy	Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Barron, Kevin	Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Beckett, Mrs Margaret	Cohen, Harry
Beith, A. J.	Conlan, Bernard
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)	Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Bermingham, Gerald	Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Corbyn, Jeremy
Boyes, Roland	Crowther, Stan
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Cunliffe, Lawrence
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)	Dalyell, Tam
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)	Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Bruce, Malcolm	Deakins, Eric
Caborn, Richard	Dewar, Donald

Dobson, Frank	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Dormand, Jack	Martin, Michael
Dubs, Alfred	Maxton, John
Eadie, Alex	Meadowcroft, Michael
Eastham, Ken	Michie, William
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)	Nellist, David
Evans, John (St. Helens N)	O'Brien, William
Ewing, Harry	O'Neill, Martin
Fatchett, Derek	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)	Park, George
Fisher, Mark	Patchett, Terry
Flannery, Martin	Penhaligon, David
Forrester, John	Pike, Peter
Foster, Derek	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Foulkes, George	Prescott, John
Godman, Dr Norman	Randall, Stuart
Golding, John	Redmond, Martin
Gould, Bryan	Richardson, Ms Jo
Hamilton, James (M'well N)	Rogers, Allan
Harman, Ms Harriet	Rowlands, Ted
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith	Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)	Skinner, Dennis
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)	Smith. C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Spearing, Nigel
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)	Stott, Roger
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Strang, Gavin
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Lamond, James	Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Leighton, Ronald	Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)	Tinn, James
Litherland, Robert	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Wareing, Robert
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Welsh, Michael
Loyden, Edward	Winnick, David
McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Young, David (Bolton SE)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor	Tellers for the Noes:
Madden, Max	Mr Don Dixon and
Marek, Dr John	Mr. Frank Haynes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft London Regional Transport (Levy) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 16th December, be approved.

12.51 am

Mr. Spearing

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that the Chair was put in some difficulty during the previous debate, and that the courtesy of the Minister of State, Transport allowed three, not two, Back-Bench Members of the Opposition from London to contribute to the debate. But for his courtesy, only two London Members of the Opposition would have been able to speak. In view of the importance of London Transport services, the money involved and the parliamentary democracy which Britain is fortunate to have. I must put it on the record that the time allowed for the debate was insufficient. I hope that those responsible will take note that that view was expressed not only by the Opposition, but by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Tony Banks

rose—

Mr. Corbyn

rose—

Mr. Cohen

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Are these points of order on the same matter?

Mr. Banks

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) in thanking the Minister for his courtesy in allowing me to grab slightly more than half of the remaining time when I rose. I would ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the custodian of the rights of Back-Bench Members to represent their constituents' interests, to say that the time and opportunities for the scrutiny of London Regional Transport are grossly insufficient.

I am not altogether sure how you can assist us in this respect, but every London Back-Bench Member was either severely constricted in terms of the time available to speak or, in the case of some of my hon. Friends, was not allowed the opportunity to address the House. That is wholly unsatisfactory, and I would ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to consider the points of order and see how you can help us to look after the affairs of London in terms of travelling on London Transport. It used to be done by the democratically elected councillors of the GLC.

Mr. Corbyn

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Is this exactly the same point of order?

Mr. Corbyn

My point of order is simply that, in one and a half hours, we have dealt with the transport affairs—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order.

Mr. Corbyn

I am just trying to make the point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It is the same point that I have already heard from two hon. Members.

Mr. Cohen

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. First, I wish to apologise for causing you difficulties with my point of order during the debate. But that difficulty arose because I had sat through the debate and tried to speak—I was one of three Labour Members who tried to do so—and was given no opportunity because of the shortage of time. What I wanted to put to you—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making the same point. I appreciate what hon. Members are saying and I sympathise with them, but the point that they are making is not one for me but for the procedures of the House. We have been following the procedures as laid down in the Standing Orders. If hon. Members are dissatisfied with those procedures, that is not a matter for me but, rather, for the Committee of Procedure and the House. Until the Standing Orders are changed, the Chair and the House must observe them.