HC Deb 10 November 1988 vol 140 cc571-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Promoters of the London Regional Transport (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid; That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House; That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session; That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed); That since no Petitions remain against the Bill no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the Committee; That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session; That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House. —[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

8.54 pm
Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury)

I urge hon. Members to agree to this Bill being carried over. Many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will be aware that, for some considerable time, I have been urging this House to encourage London Regional Transport to go ahead with the improvement of Angel Underground station. That is precisely the purpose of the Bill.

Angel is almost certainly the worst station in the entire Underground system—many hon. Members will have had personal knowledge and experience of that. The Bill contains a number of important measures to ensure that improvement work can go ahead. Principally those measures involve the removal of the present lifts, which work, at best, sporadically, and, at worst, not at all, and their replacement with new escalators leading to a new ticket hall and entrance to the station to be built on Islington high street.

In addition and most importantly, the Bill contains the provision for the removal of the island platform which is located in the middle of the tracks at the station and its substitution by proper normal platforms as in other stations on the Underground system. Presently the island platform is extremely dangerous, especially with the enormous increase in the numbers of people who use Angel. In recent years, in the immediate vicinity of that station a large amount of office development has taken place. That has meant that the number of people using that station has considerably increased. During the rush hour the press of people trying to get on and off the island platform has become great. The obvious danger to passenger safety should be all too clear to the House, especially on the day when we have considered the report of the inspector into the King's Cross tragedy. The safety of passengers in other stations on the Underground system should be uppermost in our minds.

The Bill will seek to put many of the problems right and it is important that the carry-over motion is passed by the House to ensure that the necessary work can take place as quickly as possible.

It is not entirely the fault of the promoters that a carry-over motion has become necessary. The Bill was tabled at a fairly late stage of the Session principally and regrettably because it took the Government some considerable time to come forward with the capital funding necessary to ensure that the work could proceed. I am delighted that that financial commitment has now been made by the Government to ensure that that work can be done, but it is a pity that it took so long for that commitment to be forthcoming. There were also lengthy discussions between London Regional Transport and the borough of Islington about the precise way in which the work should be carried out, the location of the new entrance and the detail of the necessary construction to improve the station.

All those discussions have now reached a positive conclusion and there are no outstanding petitions against the Bill.

Dr. John Marek (Wrexham)

Will my hon. Friend put our minds at ease so that we may be absolutely sure that there are no outstanding petitions and that all the problems have been solved? I apologise to my hon. Friend for not being absolutely in the know about what has happened to this Bill, but there are many private Bills and it is simply not possible for any Member to know exactly what is going on at any stage.

Mr. Smith

I can certainly assure my hon. Friend on that point. The motion specifically says that there are no outstanding petitions against the Bill. I urge hon. Members on both sides to vote for the motion. My constituents and I have asked for these works for many years. At long last, in the past year, we have secured the agreement of LRT and the funding commitments from the Government that will ensure that they can go ahead.

The station is in dire need of improvement. Safety considerations are overwhelming, and I very much hope that proceedings on the Bill can be concluded in both Houses as rapidly as possible so that the works can commence as soon as possible.

9.1 pm

Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes)

I am in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith).

I should declare an interest as a director of a company which has recently moved to the area close to Angel tube station, in White Lion street. The building is used by more than 400 accountancy students each day. It is symptomatic of the improvement in the area that many businesses are moving into the streets surrounding the tube station, and it is only right that London Regional Transport should succeed in upgrading the station, thereby improving the conditions of houses and businesses in that part of north-east London.

I hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage and that LRT will treat safety as a priority, remembering that litter and the general lack of cleanliness helped to fuel the awful tragedy at King's Cross. The station is a disgrace at the moment and the improvements will increase the comfort of residents and business users and of all who travel through the area. I welcome the Bill.

9.2 pm

Dr. John Marek (Wrexham)

I do not intend to vote against the Bill, which, on balance, is a good one. I do not know the details of the changes to the Angel station. Perhaps the Bill's promoters or my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) can provide me with reassurances that will enable me to vote for the Bill with enthusiasm rather than passivity.

We know LRT's record. I do not blame it for trying to cut the manpower and womanpower involved in rubbish collection, maintenance and servicing the Underground system. LRT is the monkey in the game: the organ grinder is the Department of Transport. The Secretary of State for the Environment is the man who should have resigned over the King's Cross disaster if he had had any integrity.

The Department of Transport has authority over LRT's actions. It is plain for all to see that any Bill brought forward by LRT will be coloured by the financial constraints of the Department of Transport. We now have what are called Thatcherite policies—value for money, efficiency and no waste—

Mr. Hanley

Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise substantial investment in public transport when he sees it? Is that not in itself a reason to support the Bill?

Dr. Marek

I believe these things when I see them. None of us has seen the Bill. We have seen a few words on paper, but I have not seen the works and improvements that are planned for the Underground station.

Mr. Chris Smith

My hon. Friend is right, in general terms, to be sceptical about the role of the Department of Transport—especially that of the Secretary of State—in the funding of LRT. The Angel tube station is on the City branch of the Northern line, which is the Cinderella of the Underground service. Many improvements in the frequency of trains and quality of service are needed, and I am already pressing the Secretary of State for them.

My hon. Friend asked about the specific works that are included in the Bill. I refer him to the estimates of expense, which have been tabled and are before the House. The overall total is nearly £45 million. That is the amount required to carry out these important works at Angel Underground station. That is a substantial and an adequate amount.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is providing information, but he is making another speech. I must ask him to bring his intervention to a close.

Mr. Smith

I was just concluding my intervention. This is a substantial and adequate investment to carry out the works in the Bill.

Dr. Marek

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for seeking to reassure me on these matters. The estimates come to about £44 million, and that is a lot of money. On the other hand, in today's world, and at today's prices, I wonder what one would get for that amount.

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)

Without disputing the need for the work to be carried out at Angel station, some of us will be anxious to know whether the expenditure there will be within a far too limited budget, which will mean that the needs of other Underground stations may be neglected. Is my hon. Friend aware that unless we have an assurance that other funds will be available we shall have some hesitation in supporting our hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) because he may wish to put too many of the rather limited number of eggs in a basket that is rather too small?

Dr. Marek

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Perhaps he will have a chance to develop his ideas later in the debate.

We are debating a carry-over motion because certain things should have been done in a certain way and were not. That has created problems. Every hon. Member has a right to worry about what is going on and to wonder whether the £44 million will be spent properly. Secondly, is it sufficient to undertake specific works? I shall deal with one or two of the things that I mean.

In the past six or seven years, London Regional Transport has undertaken works in such a way as to spend the minimum amount of money necessary to get the public to use the Underground. It has not spent a penny more than was necessary, yet if it had spent a few more pennies it could have given the travelling public the comfort and the luxury that they desire.

The Underground walkways are far too narrow, and at times during the rush hour there is simply not enough room for people to get to or from the platforms. The frequency of service at some Underground stations is such, perhaps because of out-of-date signalling equipment or because there are not enough trains, that many people on the platform cannot get on the train and have to wait for the next one. In some cases people are not allowed on to the platform.

This important Bill is about the refurbishment and rearrangement of the Angel Underground station. The question that we must ask about any carry-over motion is whether the promoters of the Bill have got it right, so that the money will be properly spent and the House can give a fair wind to the motion. The other question that we must ask is whether the money will be spent in a cheeseparing way, because, given the expected increase in passenger traffic, very soon, and perhaps even before the works are completed, we shall see that the works were inadequate and that too many passengers are using the station in unsuitable conditions.

That is why we must consider whether we should allow the Bill to go through, or whether we should stop it at this stage because the House believes that the money is insufficient or is not directed appropriately and it is better to ask the promoters to think again.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has persuaded me that it would be reasonable to allow the Bill to be carried over into the next Session, but I wish to ask a few simple questions. The answers may be in the Bill or may already have been given in Committee, but it is difficult for any hon. Member to know the details of a private Bill. I apologise if I ask questions to which I should know the answers, but I should like to know whether escalators will be provided from ground level to the booking hall. That is important. We should all welcome £44 million being spent to refurbish the Angel station. If these questions can be answered in the affirmative—

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I am extremely tolerant when I am in the Chair, but we are now going into deep water. I remind the hon. Gentleman—if I may have his attention—that this is a carry-over motion and that we are not now dealing with the details of the Bill. We are determining whether the Bill should be carried over into the next Session. The debate is therefore very narrow.

Dr. Marek

I apologise for straying into too much detail. I do not intend to detain the House for much longer.

Mr. Chris Smith

I urge my hon. Friend to allow the Bill to be carried over because the issues that he has raised have been resolved in the discussions between the various parties. Works Nos. 1 and 2 in the Bill cover the provision of escalators.

Dr. Marek

Let me justify my case, Madam Deputy Speaker, without going into the details. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to satisfy me on this point. If so, I promise that I shall not raise it again. I shall listen to his comments and decide which way to vote. Obviously, escalators will be included, but will they be from ground level to the booking hall?

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. We are going into the details of the Bill. I have drawn the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we are not dealing with the details of the Bill. They have already been dealt with. We are dealing with whether the Bill should be carried over into the next Session. That is the only thing with which he should concern himself now.

Dr. Marek

I am slowly being hemmed in. If the Bill is carried over to the next Session, there will be plenty of time to consider all these details. I hope that we will be able to consider them carefully, to ensure that the Bill is right. We may sniff at £44 million, but the Government are now intending to allow London Regional Transport to invest that money. We all agree that that investment is necessary, but is it right? This money will be included in the public sector borrowing requirement.

Madam Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is now straying.

Dr. Marek

That is an important matter that we can discuss when the Bill has been carried over. I hope that I shall be able to support my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury when he gives me an assurance that all those things will be looked at—perhaps they have been looked at and I need have no qualms whatsoever about supporting him in carrying over the Bill.

9.15 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)

My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) suggested that I intervene, and I shall do so very briefly. I shall certainly bear in mind your reminder to the House that this is a very narrow matter, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall restrict my remarks to that narrowness.

My basic concern is about escalators and the time scale to which my hon. Friend referred. Occasionally I have to use Pimlico Underground station. During the past four or five months, whenever I have used the station, an escalator has been closed for what is said to be repairs. I was told that it was under repair last week, the week before, the week before that and way back in June or July. I am worried that if we agree to the carry-over motion, presumably it will be quite some time before the Bill is given further, and presumably final, consideration in the next Session, and it may be that the Pimlico escalator will be waiting for months while London Regional Transport tries to make sure that the £40 million or so earmarked for Angel station remains available for that station.

I feel somewhat hesitant about making that point because I have quite enough to do to represent my impoverished, hard-hit Yorkshire constituency, but since the Conservatives who control the City of Westminster spend their time selling public assets for extremely small sums of money, and, presumably, travel around in chauffer-driven cars and do not know what is happening to their constituents who have to climb down a very long staircase, which must be distressing for the aged and the disabled, I feel entitled, even though my constituency is 170 miles away, to offer this very narrow point for the consideration of the House.

Mr. Chris Smith

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I would point out ever so gently that many hundreds of my constituents, many of them impoverished or elderly, have to walk up and down extremely antiquated, very steep stairs when the lifts at Angel tube station are out of action, as they frequently are. With the interests of those people in mind, I have been fighting extremely hard and vigorously for this Bill for many months.

Mr. Hardy

I commend my hon. Friend for the diligent service that he has given to his constituency. I was delighted to give way so that he could make that valid point. He is valiantly seeking to ensure that his constituents do not have to undergo the experience suffered by so many people in Pimlico as a result of the almost incessant failures to operate the escalators there.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the problem of non-functioning escalators in London is now substantial. Rotherhithe tube station in my constituency—

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I have intervened twice in the debate already to draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that we are not concerned with individual escalators and lifts not working. We are debating a carry-over motion. I ask hon. Members to discipline their arguments to that.

Mr. Hughes

I was about to convince you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it was a perfectly appropriate intervention. Constituents in London wish that we did not have so much carrying-over of repairs, and that we had less need to carry over the legislation. The sooner we get the legislation, the sooner we will get the repairs and the less need we will have for debates such as this.

Mr. Hardy

I usually find myself in substantial disagreement with members of the SLD, but I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. He touched on an important matter, but he obviously disregarded the advice that you had given, Madam Deputy Speaker, about the narrowness of the subject. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again because, clearly, he will be out of order if I do so.

Madam Deputy Speaker

I am sure that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) will remain in order.

Mr. Hardy

I have been in order from the start of my remarks.

I do not believe that we should oppose the Bill, because we should sustain the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). The needs of his constituents are such that even if it leads to Angel, Islington, having a higher value on a Monopoly board, which it may as a result of the investment in his constituency, it is right that the elderly and disabled people in his constituency should have their interests served. I hope that the carry-over motion will be passed and that the legislation will move on rapidly. During the period of delay, however long it may be, I trust that London Regional Transport will find a corner of its heart, a little of its money and perhaps a trifle of its commitment to ensure that the escalator at Pimlico station is repaired after these many months.

Dr. Marek

I want to raise an important item which I should have mentioned earlier. It is not a detail, but is a major alteration. My hon. Friend will be aware that a London Regional Transport plan is to be published within the next few months. That will propose vital alterations to public transport in the London area. One of the suggestions is for a lozenge-shaped, fast transit system with one apex of the lozenge at Angel and the other in the south-west of London. That is a major plan for London and I wonder whether the Bill, if it is worth carrying over, will take account of any proposals that might come from that major addition to London Regional Transport.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I ask the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) not to stray down that road, but to return to the carry-over motion.

Mr. Hardy

I would not take up those comments, because my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham may be causing difficulties. If he makes this matter more complex, there is a risk of delay. We must not give the Government too many things to think about at the same time. If we do, the delay will be considerable.

I do not oppose investment in transport. I have every sympathy with people who live in London, but I hope that those who live in south Yorkshire, who also need more money for public transport, will receive support. The pensioners in and around Hoober Stand, the highest point of my constituency, have no bus service, and many of them are too old to walk the considerable distance to a bus stop. People such as that need to be considered.

If we facilitate the Conservative Members who feel that London Regional Transport should have investment, we should congratulate them on their service and support for the public sector. It is nearly as commendable as the devoted service that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has given to his constituency. I hope that Conservative Members will accept that a higher priority needs to be shown to public transport in other parts of the country, not just to the escalator at Pimlico, but to the pensioners and disabled in rural areas who have been hit harshly by the appalling public transport policies that the Government have slavishly pursued.

I hope that London Regional Transport will have heard my comments about the escalator at Pimlico. I certainly would not wish to oppose the progress that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury's constituency desperately needs.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered, That the Promoters of the London Regional Transport (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered, That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered, That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered, That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered, That since no Petitions remain against the Bill no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the Committee;

Ordered, That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered, That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.