Transport

HC Deb 07 February 1989 vol 146 cc820-60 4.40 pm

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)

I beg to move, That this House expresses its deep concern at the transport tragedies of the last two years of the 'Herald of Free Enterprise', King's Cross, Clapham, Lockerbie and the M1 air disaster; condemns the Government's failure to invest in an integrated transport policy, which has created an unprecedented level of congestion in all modes of transport, has increased fare levels and produced a poorer quality of service in public passenger transport, has reduced safety standards and heightened concern for personal security, especially amongst women; calls for an urgent inquiry into the Government's failure to ensure either that the nation is able to take full advantage of the economic and social benefits of the Channel Tunnel or that environmental concerns are protected; and believes that the Government's policies of deregulation, privatisation and reduced public spending have met Treasury requirements but have also produced one of the worst transport systems of any developed economy, placing an ever increasing burden on both British industry and the travelling public who feel less secure and pay more for a poorer service, and that these problems have been worsened by a Department of Transport that does not believe in a public transport system and is inept in administering its responsibilities.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)

Before we begin the debate, I must announce to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Prescott

Transport debates like today's are normally called by the Opposition because the Government have provided no time for them. The making of the White Paper statement today was, I believe, a parliamentary tactic, reducing the time available to discuss the Government's record. I admit that such tactics are not unique to Tory Governments : Labour Governments have been known to do the same. Both parties, in such circumstances, do not wish to debate the issue that is to follow—in the present instance, the Government's record on transport. Again, the Government are attempting in their amendment to the motion to blame their Labour predecessors—after 10 years in office.

As well as the White Paper, our motion has produced a number of measures. The London Underground has responded to the Fennell report on underground safety. It was announced today that a freight integration centre is to be built in the Yorkshire-Humberside area in connection with the Channel tunnel, and I was told on the telephone last night of a new initiative by the Secretary of State to bring in yellow stickers advising air passengers of the part that they can play in improving safety. We can at least say that we have contributed to obtaining more information from the Government for today's debate.

Perhaps the most astounding development has been the report in The Independent today that tolls are to be introduced, despite the claim by the Secretary of State at Question Time that he did not believe in them. That may still be the case, but The Independent seemed very sure of its sources, and reported that he had been calling loudly in Cabinet for the return of private financing. Perhaps we shall learn his true stance this afternoon.

Our motion reflects the sad decline in what was once recognised worldwide as a good integrated public transport system, implemented by various Governments. Today we have increasing congestion, increasing fare levels and increasing violence, against the background of a reduction in quality and choice and lower safety standards. After 10 years of Tory ideology, a commitment to privatisation, competition, deregulation and massive cuts in public financial support have produced nightmare travel conditions and increasing insecurity in cars, trains, buses and planes. A decade of Tory rule and Tory policies has produced what last night's "World in Action" programme described as a national scandal. I think that anyone using public transport today will identify with that term, and with the description of the London transport system as a European black spot.

Unfortunately, we can only expect the position to worsen, despite all the Secretary of State's rhetoric and the plans that he has announced over the past couple of weeks. Certainly the possibility of Cabinet changes concentrates the minds and statements of various Secretaries of State. [Interruption.] If we are to accept that what the Secretary of State does is associated with his future, I am bound to say that he is more concerned for that future than for the travelling public.

Even if the Government's rhetoric and promises are accepted, their proposals will not deal with the growth in the transport system that we anticipate by the end of the century. It is predicted that the number of cars will increase by at least 25 per cent., lorry movements by 15 per cent. and London peak demand by 20 per cent. All the proposals in the central London rail study will at most deal with the growth—I do not believe that they will meet the new demands—leaving us with our present levels of congestion, even if promises materialise as resources.

The daily experiences of most people as revealed on television and in newspapers does not coincide with the views expressed in the Government's amendment. Nor can we accept that the Labour Government, who have been out of office for 10 years, can be blamed for the transport mess that the Government claim they created. In the rail industry, demand since 1979 has increased by 20 per cent. and the number of seats has been reduced by 13 per cent. That inevitably means congestion.

The claim that passengers will not have to stand for journeys lasting for more than 20 minutes in the south-east, the inner city or the provinces is a national joke. Even the buses are less used, less reliable, less accessible—as minibuses—slower, dirtier, older and clog up bus lanes. That leads to some increases and redundancies. Inner-city car movement has declined from 25 mph under a Labour Government to speeds of 8 mph and 12 mph under the Tory Government. The Prime Minister promised us Victorian standards, and now we have them. We are moving as fast as the horse and cart of 100 years ago. When the Prime Minister said that she intended to put Britain back on its feet, I did not know that she meant that we would be walking because that was faster than using public transport in the inner cities.

That is a humorous interpretation, but when inner London is so clogged that no one can be guaranteed an immediate response from the ambulance or the fire engine, a dangerous situation is developing. It is all very well for the Secretary of State or his Ministers to say on television that students are causing traffic jams, as though such incidents were unique. Super-jams are becoming a regular feature of inner-city movement in London and other parts of the country.

It is laughable for the Secretary of State to tell the House that he has discovered a new solution, a new technical toy—the autoguide. We must all fit it on to our cars and ask where is the empty road to which we are to be diverted when our route is congested. I know of no roads that are free of congestion around London, and anyone who drives a car will have the same experience.

It is noticeable that more people are travelling on foot, and the increase in deaths and accidents among pedestrians is worrying—although the improvements in other kinds of accident figures are welcome. Our motorways and main roads are massively congested. A report from the Civil Aviation Authority this week tells us that by the end of the century congestion and rationing of flights from Heathrow is likely unless immediate investment is made in airports and new runways.

In the British Rail system we see the Government's prejudice against any form of public transport. Tragedies such as the Clapham junction crash show that investment in the railways is inadequate. The Government's amendment claims that investment is at record levels and contrasts it with that under the last Labour Government —[Interruption.] I refer the Minister for Roads and Traffic to the evidence given to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into the rail system. He seems to be disowning the remark, and indeed it is not true. The report states that the average investment under a Labour Government, given 1985–86 prices, was £518 million a year, while under the Tories it has been £421 million a year. It simply is not true that the real investment in British Rail is higher under a Tory Government. It is another Tory lie.

Consider the resources available for British Rail, via the public service obligation grant. In 1983 it was running at £1 billion. It is now being reduced in real terms, at 1988 prices, to £800 million.

I see the Minister for Roads and Traffic gesticulating. I do not understand what he is trying to tell me and I will willingly give way if he wishes to intervene. We have got used to his rhetoric, but unfortunately he never backs up his statements with facts. I shall continue to give him the facts.

The public service obligation grant at 1988–89 price levels was running at over £1 billion. That will now be reduced to £800 million in 1986–87 terms. The Government have thereby saved £270 million. That represents a cut of 25 per cent. The Government are now requiring the grant to be cut further, saving another £200 million, or 25 per cent., by 1988–90. The grant is to be slashed to £470 million by 1990–92.

The Government have saved that sum in their public service obligation grant to the British Rail system. It means that almost £3 billion has been lost by BR in financial support. In other words, while the Government have withdrawn that huge amount from the BR system, fare levels have been increasing, and we shall see fares increase well above inflation levels in the coming five or six years. Perhaps the Secretary of State will say, when he replies to the debate, how he sees the future of fares.

We have also witnessed a poorer quality of service, with overcrowding, poor arrival times, declining cleanliness and maintenance and longer ticket waiting times. All have deteriorated, yet all are measures of the quality of service.

I received a letter from a passenger who uses a route on the central Kent rail network system. Her letter complained about the deterioration in the quality of service. She informed me that the letter had also been sent to the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman did not reply; somebody in his Office answered the letter and told the writer to complain to the central rail consultative committee. The lady then complained to that committee. Will the Secretary of State explain what difference such a complaint can make, when the central rail consultative committee said in its last report: The committee was unanimous in the view that the quality of British Rail services had been adversely affected by the reduction in subsidy and … senior BR staff often cited this as a reason for cuts in service quality."? Here the central body dealing with consumer complaints is making precisely the point that, because the Government have reduced the level of support for BR, there has been a decrease in the quality of service. Indeed, my hon. Friends and I believe that that reduction in resources has had an effect on overall safety provision.

At the time of the Clapham tragedy I pointed out that the number of collisions on BR between 1982 and 1987 had increased considerably, that serious collisions were up by 18 per cent., that serious injuries and deaths had increased by 30 per cent. and that derailments had gone up by 5 per cent. My statement at that time was derided by the Secretary of State, who in a later parliamentary reply confirmed the statistics that I gave. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now retract what he said on that earlier occasion. It is clear that there is increasing concern about safety.

In personal security terms, the number of assaults and crimes of violence on the British Rail system and on the Underground have been increasing alarmingly. Hence the need for the Guardian Angels, who are arriving. Now the Government are rushing to bring in more police, an action that they should have taken from the beginning instead of deliberately keeping their numbers at a low level.

Perhaps the Secretary of State will comment on a BR report which received publicity in the Evening Standard recently. That newspaper spoke of a secret report produced by BR dealing with the fear felt by women when travelling on city trains and the fact that the report would not be published. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that such evidence should be published and debated so that we may have a proper assessment of safety and security on BR?

The Opposition view is that more public resources must be put into the system if we are to improve the quality of service. Indeed, looking at the issue from a European point of view, instead of the £800 million in public support that we have at present, the figure—if we pitch it at the same level as that operating in France and Germany—should be £2 billion. That shows the sort of public resources given to the transport systems of other European countries.

The Government's solution is to privatise everything, including British Rail, by the 1990s. With that in mind, BR has embarked on a policy, as with all privatisations, of creating surpluses and cutting costs. It is achieving that by selling assets and property, thereby receiving hundreds of millions of pounds; it is reducing costs by sacking tens of thousands of workers; and it is proposing to reduce the extent of the network, as we see with the Carlisle-Settle railway and the bus substitution possibilities. At the end of the day the consumer is worse off, the Treasury is better off and the railways are not able to do anything to relieve the congestion on the roads.

On London Underground it is the same old story, and King's Cross reminds us of the tragedy in the industry. The Government claim that no investment proposals have been turned down. I am reminded of the question in the Fennell report, when the manager was asked why he had not put forward proposals to change wooden escalators for metal ones. His reply was that, despite requests that had been made and recommendations in previous fire reports, the financial climate was such that there was no point in putting forward such a proposal.

That is precisely the dilemma of BR in relation to Government investment today. It is another reason why Fennell greatly underestimated the contribution that the reduction in resources had made to safety standards and the quality of service on the Underground system.

Parliament is supposed to debate the London transport system since the Government nationalised it and took it away from the GLC. It is our task to debate the interests of Londoners. When will the Secretary of State provide time for us to debate the Fennell report and its conclusions? It is crucial that we debate the major considerations on safety and security that arise from that report.

The congestion that is clearly visible in the whole system is relevant to the situation on the Underground. It is an over-priced system where the passenger has no choice. It is under-invested and less safe. I welcome the Government's proposals to bring in more police, but I must remind them that the Ministries involved and London Underground put a moratorium on the recruitment of police. That is why the level is low now. The Department has simply brought it up to the established level.

That has happened since the accident and the increasing number of violent crimes. Unfortunately, it is always after the event that the Government take action. The same has applied to the reduction in the number of inspectors in the shipping and aviation industries. Their numbers were reduced, and as soon as a tragedy occurred the Government lifted the recruitment embargo and the establishment levels were achieved.

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch)

rose—

Mr. Prescott

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He is always writing to the Leader of the Opposition complaining about me. Perhaps Conservative Members are taught to take that sort of action in public school—writing letters instead of having it out verbally across the Floor of the House.

In terms of the level of Government grant, the Underground system expressed pleasure at being able to repay to the Government £100 million, as a reduction in the taxpayers' contribution, not in the two years over which the Government asked for the money back but within one year. The irony is that the first year's expenditure recommended by Fennell on all the safety proposals recommended before the Kings Cross accident is equivalent to the £100 million taken from London Underground and now being returned to it by the Government.

Will the Secretary of State make it clear tonight that the other £200 million will be made available so that the system can comply with necessary safety commitments? London Underground made it clear in its statement last Monday that the Government had said that they would provide the necessary funds for that purpose. That money must be provided because safety should have the highest priority in any public transport system. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make that clear, because there is increasing concern about escalator breakdowns—one in four is no longer working—about the fact that there has been a considerable increase in the number of fires, even since the King's Cross tragedy, and that people feel that ticket barriers will make it more difficult for them to get out of the system.

London Underground is taking many of these measures because it wants to save on staff. By reducing staff numbers by 1,200, costs can be reduced—and this at a time when the visibility of staff, including ticket collectors and police, contributes to greater security. It is no surprise that we have the Guardian Angels.

The Government set great store by, and have great faith in, the roads system. They identify that as an expression of freedom. The Secretary of State, in a speech to the Tory party conference—his remarks were published in the Conservative Newsline—said: So good roads bring increased personal mobility and increased personal freedom—two Conservative ideals One would think that the Secretary of State would want to give greater priority to roads. He said in the same speech that Government spending was 50 per cent. higher in real terms than under the last Labour administration. That is not true. I asked the Secretary of State and his answer can be found in the parliamentary written answers —[Interruption.] It was a question put to the Secretary of State to find out what proportion, in real terms, had been spent on roads. The reality is that 10 per cent. more was spent on roads under the Labour Government than under the Conservative Government. If the Secretary of State wants the figures confirmed, he should look at the reply that he gave me.

Our road system is about a third of the size of that in France or Germany, and we have a programme to increase the road network by 200 miles of motorway by the end of the century. Germany and France, by contrast, plan an extra 2,000 million miles of road. If the Government's argument is that they cannot afford—

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)

The figure is 2,000 miles.

Mr. Prescott

I accept the correction.

Let us consider the argument that we cannot afford to improve our road network. We must bear in mind that we have a lower car ownership than elsewhere in Europe, that the M25—designed for 80,000 vehicles—now carries 130,000, and that the M6 and the M1 have become virtual car parks. The National Audit Office is critical of the way that the Department of Transport deals with planning our road systems.

No Government have ever used all the money raised through road transport taxes such as petrol, car vehicle or lorry tax. In 1979, £7 billion was raised from transport taxes. Under this Government the money raised increased to £14 billion, but the extra £7 billion was not spent on roads. Only £1 billion was spent on any form of transportation. To meet the Treasury's demand to cut income tax, the Government introduced what became a transport tax, while the poor public paid even more for the privilege of travelling.

The Labour Government spent, on average, 35 per cent. of the money raised. Under this Government, the amount spent has fallen to 24 per cent. If they were spending the same proportion of the tax as the Labour Government did, this Government would have an extra £2 billion in the kitty to spend on the roads and on transportation systems. In Europe, an average of 50 per cent. of the money raised in such taxes is spent.

There has been a massive deterioration in the transport systems of road, rail and buses. Private capital is not the solution, as the Secretary of State knows. It would be interesting to hear where he stands on the matter of tolls.

In my transport industry—shipping the—Government have partly solved the problem. They have reduced the British shipping fleet from 1,200 ships to 400.

We remember the terrible tragedy of the Herald of Free Enterprise. During the past year, as the Secretary of State will know from the questions that have been asked of him, the number of ferry fires in this country has risen by four times the annual average of the past four years. Why are ferry fires increasing—particularly on P and O ferries? For six months I pushed the right hon. Gentleman to prosecute a company for a clear breach of the law. It was not until the last day of that six months that the Secretary of State took any action, and that was because a Sally Line vessel caught fire in the channel. We shall have to wait to see what the courts decide.

I used to hear in debates in this House that safety on ferries had not deteriorated. I then asked questions about it, because the rhetoric is so different from the reality. I do not see the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) in the Chamber now, but he had much to say when he denied threats to the safety of ferries.

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

Many people heard the hon. Gentleman when he appeared on television addressing a rally on Saturday. He said that records showed that P and O ships were unsafe and asked holiday-makers if they were prepared to risk their lives by travelling on them. What specific evidence does he have of lack of safety on the St. Clair, the St. Ola and the St. Sunniva, which travel from the Scottish mainland to my constituency? If he has no evidence, will he retract his comments rather than jeopardise the livelihoods of many of my constituents?

Mr. Prescott

Fires on British ferries have increased recently, and a number of them have occurred on P and O ships. I have tried to obtain detailed figures from the Government. I was telling the people at that dispute that anyone travelling out of the port of Dover on those ships should bear in mind that fires have increased fourfold during the past year. That was a justifiable comment.

The aviation industry, Lockerbie and the M1 disasters and the problems over the manufacture of Boeing have increased concern about safety —

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)

Does the hon. Gentleman blame the Government for those disasters, too?

Mr. Prescott

I am not blaming the Government. I am concerned about passenger safety—and Conservative Members should be as well. The blame does not lie solely with Government, but airport security involves the Government.

The Secretary of State has come to the House after each incident and assured us that he is satisfied with the enhanced security and safety at Heathrow and other airports.

After again assuring us that airport security was satisfactory, the Secretary of State told us that the British Airports Authority's report has recommended a further 100 changes. Airport security has not given the Secretary of State his finest hour. I make these allegations not solely against the Secretary of State but against his Department. The Select Committee's reports on airport security made recommendations which, to its credit, all needed to be implemented.

The Secretary of State has said that his Department has implemented most of the Select Committee's recommendations. Why then did he not answer when I asked him the same question in a letter a week or so ago? I shall tell him why: because not all the recommendations have been implemented. The important ones about the control of the police and on airport security fund were all dismantled by the Government in 1983, which made our airports less secure. The Government have much to answer for because of the reduction of security and safety at airports. [Interruption.] I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) because he merely goes off and writes letters to the Opposition Leader. He is a "snitch" or a sneak. I think that is the term used in public schools; I did not go to one myself.

The Government amendment mentions the problems of planning and integration. It rejects central planning, but nobody is advocating that—(Interruption.] It is quite all right, we have a decentralised way of dealing with planning. If the people of Kent thought that the people dealing with Channel tunnel matters and deciding on the route were concerned about the environment and the interests of the people of Kent, they might be happier. However, the Government have given over the responsibility of making the decision to British Rail. The private Bill is concerned about least cost, not public subsidy. The Government are happy for the Bill to contain a clause that no public money should be used to support the Channel tunnel investment. Public money will be necessary to develop the rail links in Kent and to improve the infrastructure investment for the Channel tunnel corridor to Scotland.

I wrote to the Secretary of State about the matter, asking his view of my suggestion that instead of leaving it to the House of Commons and a private Bill Committee to fight out the Bill line by line, he should accept—as he did with the central transport rail study—a 12-month study on the environmental and regional consequences. The Labour party advocated that when the White Paper on the Channel tunnel was issued. There should be an immediate inquiry so that the people of Kent and London can make representations about their concerns.

I thought that the Conservative party and the Government were concerned about the individual but it is clear that they are riding roughshod over the individual's rights in relation to the Channel tunnel and overriding the interests of the people in Kent and London. The Labour party offers a proposal that will give the Government a chance to listen to those representations but which will not delay or extend the planning blight, because the Bill will go through the House in two parliamentary Sessions. It provides a chance for justice, a chance for a voice to be heard, and a chance for public money to be used in such a way that we get the best route in the Kent area and in the London area.

Mr. Jacques Arnold

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that a delay of the sort he is suggesting would leave a blight throughout Kent?

Mr. Prescott

I do not know why I continue, because the hon. Member is not listening. It is my judgment that the private Bill presented to this House will certainly create an awful lot of injustice and environmental damage in Kent if it is left as it is. I believe that that Bill could be delayed a while here.

A central study similar to the central rail study could be carried out, because the Secretary of State is to receive an environmental report and a regional report. He has now received the northern local authorities' report on the Channel tunnel. If he were to treat it in that way, and within 12 months make a recommendation to his House, the blight problems would still be there because there will be no decision in this House—in my view—for 18 months, and the Channel tunnel will certainly not be opened until 1993 or 1994. Those are the realities of the case.

If the Government had accepted our amendment when the White Paper on the Channel tunnel came before this House we would not have this problem today. We foresaw these difficulties at that time, but every hon. Member now going along with his constituents in Kent voted against that proposal, and those Members are now ganging up with early-day motions and assuring their constituents that they are going to press the Government for change. Where were they when the vote was taken in this House? They were not looking after the interests of the people of Kent. But we will look after the interests of the people of Kent, and perhaps they will have a better representative here in the next Parliament.

The Channel tunnel is a classic example of how the public interest has to be taken into account. Public and private money will be utilised in the development of the transportation system, but it is important that people be taken into account.

A further accusation that I make against the Government is that the Department of Transport is indeed an inadequate Department, though I am bound to say that I thought it was inadequate also under Labour Governments. It is a Department that does not have a very proud history. I have always been ashamed that it has not given the highest priority to safety—and, as one who has been involved in the shipping industry, I say so in respect of the decisions taken there.

It is a Department that is really the outpost of the Treasury. It refuses to fight for the travelling public and is for ever agreeing with the Treasury to impose more arid more taxes by the reduction of subsidies on the travelling public. It is anti-planning and anti-integration and is obsessed with roads, though its record in that respect is not very good. It pursues policies that reduce the number of safety inspectors in aviation and shipping and on the railways, with dire consequences for safety in those industries.

It is also a Department that delays its inquiries. I refer, for example, to the Manchester air disaster three years ago and the loss of the Derbyshire eight years ago, and the delay in the production of these reports, to the Department's reluctance to instigate prosecutions in respect of the Herald of Free Enterprise or in respect of ferry fires, and to the handling of the Lockerbie tragedy and the fears for airport security, on which it appeared to be inept and incompetent. It suffers from a unique blend of ideological obsession and—yes, I must say it—ministerial incompetence.

Overall, the policy is also at fault. It has insufficient commitment to public transport. It has starved our transport system of finance, thus making it one of the poorest in Europe, and it is shifting the burden from the taxpayer to the passenger, who will have to pay considerably more for lower and lower quality.

That is the reality of 10 years of this Government's transport policy. That is the reality that we shall take to the people of this country, the reality of which they know from their own experience. The alternative that we shall provide, whether to the voters in Kent or to the voters in Scotland or to the voters in Humberside, will be to vote for a sensible transport policy that meets the needs of our nation as I ask the House to do tonight.

5.14 pm

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon)

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: expresses its deep concern at the transport tragedies of the last two years of the 'Herald of Free Enterprise', King's Cross, Clapham, Lockerbie, the M1 air disaster and the daily toll of deaths and injuries on our roads, and extends its sympathy to all those affected; applauds the Government's determination that safety and security must remain paramount, and welcomes the urgent steps it has taken to that end; congratulates the Government for bringing about an economic revival which has resulted in record levels of investment in roads and railways, and for recognising that the only way to provide customers with an efficient and safe public transport system is to set demanding objectives for quality of service and performance; welcomes the Government's record of approving every investment scheme put to it by British Rail and London Regional Transport, and its radical proposals to extend the public transport system in London; congratulates the Government for having recognised the limitations of central planning; and calls on the Opposition to acknowledge the legacy of neglect and under-investment which this Government inherited.

I must say that I thought that the good temper of the earlier statement would pretty soon disappear, and it has, though the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is in quite a jolly mood, I have to confess, and I hope that he will remain jolly throughout my speech. I will try to deal with the subjects that he has raised—at slightly less length, in view of the shortage of time available for this debate. [Interruption.] I think that the House of Commons would have been very cross if we had had a major statement on safety immediately after the debate. I can just hear what hon. Members would have had to say about that.

I want to start with a point on which I think that there is no controversy. I shall not take long on it, but it is nevertheless important. I refer to the three terrible tragedies in the past few months—in particular, the two disastrous air crashes. As the House knows, everyone is appalled by these disasters, so I need not go into that again in any detail. I should just like to remind the House where we stand at present. The investigations into the causes of the Lockerbie and Kegworth tragedies are being handled by the air accidents investigation branch of my Department. It produced a formal interim statement on the Lockerbie disaster once it had been established conclusively that the crash was caused by an explosive device in the front cargo hold. It has not yet issued such a statement on the Kegworth crash, but it will do so once the range of possible explanations has been narrowed to the point at which a statement is justified.

As to Clapham, as the House knows, the formal inquiry will be conducted by Mr. Anthony Hidden QC, with three expert assessors. It will be for Mr. Hidden and his assessors to decide which matters are relevant to their work and which are not. Until the causes of the Clapham and Kegworth tragedies are established, there is a limit to the amount that can usefully be said about them. I have said before, and I say again—I think that I have the support of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East in this—that it is futile to speculate about the causes of such disasters ahead of the evidence. It is not only futile—it is extremely unfair to the parties involved.

That does not mean that we have to delay action until the final reports are received. Indeed, British Rail is checking, for example, that there are no wiring defects in the signalling system elsewhere. British Rail conducted an internal investigation into the Clapham crash, but that is not intended to prejudge the conclusions that Mr. Hidden will reach. The same is true of the various checks that have been carried out on Boeing aircraft in the wake of Kegworth. We can also tighten up our own domestic security arrangements.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is wrong about Sir Norman Payne's report. It does not say that 100 actions need to be taken—if refers to 100 actions that have been taken, are in course of being taken, or will be taken. There are a whole host of them, and BAA is well advanced in implementing them.

We also have to promote international action. The modern terrorist threat, as we all know, has an international dimension—and so must our response. That is why the British and American Governments sought a special ministerial meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. I want to see tighter controls on what is taken on to aircraft, tighter controls on people who have access to aircraft, and changes to aircraft design so that they offer fewer places to hide a bomb and are easier to search. Only concerted international action can achieve this, and I hope that in Montreal next week we can move towards such action.

As to the Fennell recommendations addressed to London Regional Transport, my hon. Friend will have more to say about this when he winds up the debate. I believe that the statement made yesterday was a serious and responsible answer to the points raised in the Fennell report. The overwhelming majority of the recommendations in that report have been accepted and are being implemented. One or two, however, cause genuine difficulty. For instance, London Underground has not yet been able to find a non-inflammable escalator lubricant. I give that merely as an example of a recommendation that is difficult to follow up.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the Fennell report, irrespective of the recommendations that have been made, and welcome as they are, may I ask him whether he does not agree that some questions relating to the conduct of the inquiry and the degree to which matters should or should not be taken into account have not yet been cleared up? That can be done only across the Floor of the House, especially bearing in mind that the Secretary of State quite properly used the long-standing Act of Parliament to set up an additional inquiry under Mr. Fennell.

Mr. Channon

I made a very full statement on the Fennell inquiry. I know that the Opposition have been asking for a debate on that matter, and I think that in recent times my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has always given a fairly sympathetic answer. That is a matter that must be pursued through the usual channels. Of course, there will also be the debate on the London Regional Transport levy, which will have to come in the fairly near future. This is the time of year when that is always debated, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East knows well from his experience.

Of course, after three serious transport accidents we have to look very carefully at every conceivable cause, but the search for underlying causes very often seems to result in broad generalisations which are either unhelpful or untrue.

The motion tabled by the Opposition seeks to suggest that penny-pinching economies are the real threat to safety. The suggestion is that private sector operators may take a conscious decision to economise on safety so as to boost profits, and that public sector operators may do the same to meet the financial targets set by Government. I simply do not believe that that is true. Cutting corners on safety is both socially and commercially wholly irresponsible. There should never have been any doubt in the minds of public sector operators—I do not think there was about where their key duty lies. Nevertheless I have taken the precaution of reminding them that safety comes first so that there is not the slightest room for any possible misunderstanding on that point.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

Is it not true that the Fennell report recorded that there was an atmosphere of pressure to cut back on safety expenditure? That arises from Government pressure on spending and the general concept of the enterprise culture.

Mr. Channon

It does not come from Government pressure on safety expenditure. The hon. Gentleman is right that there were severe criticisms of the management, and the chairmen of London Regional Transport and London Underground resigned as a result of the Fennell report.

The argument that no savings must be made in any quarter because savings would compromise safety is dear to Opposition Members, but it is wrong. It is a specious argument and should be exposed as such. I remind the House of what Fennell said in his report: In my judgment there is no evidence that the overall level of subsidy available to London Regional Transport was inadequate to finance necessary safety-related spendings and retain safety standards. On staffing, he said: I found no evidence that the reduction in the number of operating or maintenance staff contributed directly to the disaster at Kings Cross. I see no reason why efficiency and safety cannot go hand in hand. On the contrary, the drive for greater efficiency is likely to involve management: in looking much harder at all aspects of its operations, including safety. Laxness and inefficiency would be far more worrying.

Another claim hinted at in the motion, though not so much in the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, is that congestion also poses a real threat to safety. That is not the case. For example, despite the massive increase in air travel, there has been a considerable improvement in safety. [Interruption.] The point that I am making is that congestion and safety are two separate matters. We shall see what Mr. Hidden says in his report. The aviation point makes my case for me.

Mr. Adley

As the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), was afraid to give way in case I asked him a question, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees with me on two points? First, does he agree that the rapid increase in mobility is itself a comment on the Government's economic policy? Secondly, does he agree that it would have been helpful if the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East had made even one constructive proposal as to how any future Labour Government—if there were ever to be such a thing—could run the economy in such a way as to raise the money required to do all the things that the Opposition keep talking about?

Mr. Channon

I agree with my hon. Friend on both points.

I have one final point about safety. Recent events have ensured that the safety of public transport will engage the attention of the House today. That is understandable, but I remind hon. Members that the safety of public transport—by road, rail, sea and air—is in general very good. Appalling though the recent death tolls have been, we should remind ourselves, as we were considering earlier, that more than 5,000 people were killed and a further 300,000 injured on the roads in 1987. Cutting road casualties by one third by the year 2000 must therefore remain a top priority. The White Paper published today and all the other measures that we are taking to improve road safety have far greater potential to save lives than any conceivable improvement that we could make to the safety of public transport systems.

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)

Does my right hon. Friend accept his own thesis that motorways are safer to drive on than ordinary roads? In that context, how can the Government justify not extending the M1 to the north-east instead of fiddling about with junctions which are making the position worse?

Mr. Channon

I thought that my hon. Friend might make that point. He makes it vigorously on all conceivable occasions. Perhaps he will await the publication of the revised road programme to see whether his representations have had the desired effect. If they have not, no doubt he will be at me again.

The motion censures the Government on two main counts. It criticises us for allowing safety standards to slip, which is not true, and it also holds us responsible for congestion. I am very fair and I am prepared to do a deal with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. I am prepared to accept 50 per cent. of the blame if he will take the other 50 per cent. We will accept responsibility for having created the healthy economy and the competitive transport market that have led to a massive upsurge in the demand for transport if the Opposition will accept responsibility for the years of under-investment before 1979 when the nation was in hock to the International Monetary Fund.

Contrary to what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said, there has been no under-investment in transport under this Government. We have been making good the backlog of neglect that we inherited in such vital areas as motorway maintenance as well as investing to meet the increased demand that our policies have generated. For instance, investment in roads has never been higher. We have behind us a major roads building programme, though not so great as my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) would like. Government expenditure has been targeted on the bypasses and relief roads which bring the quickest and most effective relief to traffic and to local communities. We plan to spend over £3 billion on new trunk roads over the next five years and £1.3 billion on maintenance. Let me assure the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, in case he doubts it, that maintenance expenditure is running in real terms at two and a half times the level that we inherited from the Labour Government.

Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport, East)

The Secretary of State will be aware that there has been much complant about the Department's traffic forecasts prior to the building of new roads. This has caused much inconvenience, as well as huge expense, to the taxpayer, through attemps to rectify problems. What is the Secretary of State doing to improve the efficiency of his Department?

Mr. Channon

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point. It is interesting that the M25 has been a target for criticism. I cannot remember the exact details, but the M25 was opened two or three years ago. It takes 10 years to build a road. The forecasting for that road was done in the middle of the Labour Government's period of office. I accept the criticism, and I understand why the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East was critical of the Department of Transport under its ridiculous ministerial control at that time.

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)

Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell the House whether the civil servants who gave the Labour Government that advice, which turned out to be wrong, are still sitting in the officials' box, or have they been promoted?

Mr. Channon

I believe in ministerial responsibility. I do not hold civil servants responsible for forecasts—I hold Ministers responsible for accepting the forecasts. I suspect that Labour Treasury Ministers may have had something to do with the blame for those forecasts. [Interruption.] I am coming to the Underground, but I want to finish with roads.

There are currently more than 300 schemes in our forward construction programme, with an estimated works cost in the region of £5 billion. We all know that there are serious congestion problems and bottlenecks that have to be dealt with. If hon. Members want to know why we have problems, I will give them the two necessary pieces of information, at which I have already hinted, and leave them to draw their own conclusions. Fact A is that it takes 10 to 15 years to build a major new road; fact B is that capital expenditure on roads was cut by a massive 40 per cent. between 1976 and 1977–78. I am very glad that I was asked about forecasting as it enabled me to make it clear that the cause of the present inadequacy is the time that it takes to build roads and the massive cuts in resources which took place under the Labour Government. The record speaks louder than the hon. Gentleman's words. I do not think that I can impress the hon. Member at all with the fact that we are spending record sums of money on roads, because he will say roads are a special case even if he agrees with it—which he does not—and that the Government are investing in the roads but only at the cost of ignoring public transport. Indeed, he has said something about public transport, but that argument will not wash either.

Let us consider the railways. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me about this. After decades of decline, in which we read of nothing but line closures and station closures, BR's business is now booming. More than 80 stations have been opened or reopened since 1983. BR has invested more than £2 billion in the past five years and plans to invest more than £3.5 billion in the next five years.

I am glad to be able to announce today that I have just given approval for two further investments. Network SouthEast has been given the green light to purchase 77 new Network turbo vehicles to operate on services from Marylebone. I have also approved the electrification of the Cambridge to King's Lynn line and the associated purchase of seven four-car electrical multiple units. That is good news for rail travellers in the Chilterns and East Anglia and continuing good news for other travellers on Network SouthEast and elsewhere where there is a continuing and growing rail investment programme.

Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury)

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. It is indeed extremely good news that my right hon. Friend has announced a substantial investment for the Chiltern line. That will be good news for Metroland, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, and I suspect that there will be much rejoicing among the commuter public about that. To ensure that commuters actually dance in the streets, will my right hon. Friend please make it clear that he will shortly be announcing his decision on the final stage of the M40 link—because once the M40 is built and the Chiltern line complete, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire really will be able to take advantage of their geographical location.

Mr. Channon

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope not to keep him waiting too long on the latter point either, but I am not in a position to make an announcement today.

Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West)

I am grateful for the announcement about electrification in Cambridgeshire. That will certainly be welcomed by people in my constituency, who have been campaigning for six years. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that without the support of local business and developers and the £650,000 guaranteed by the local borough council the scheme probably would not have gone ahead? Can he also tell us when it will start and how much it will cost?

Mr. Channon

I can probably give the figures for that. If I cannot, my hon. Friend will give them when he winds up. It will not take long. I agree with the earlier part of my hon. Friend's question. I am very glad that we have managed to approve the scheme and I hope that it will be of benefit to King's Lynn and to other stations on the line. Indeed, some of my hon. Friends have been very excited by that as well.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden)

Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that this is indeed welcome news, and does indeed have potential benefits for other stations on the line, including commuters from my constituency? Could I ask him, though, whether he would be prepared to listen to representations at a later stage about whether just one class of rolling stock is suitable for this project?

Mr. Channon

I will certainly do that. My hon. Friend the Minister of State is considering the point. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be in touch with him.

I think that the answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) is that the scheme will cost about £20 million and should be open in 1991.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said that we were not investing enough in British Rail, but investment now is the highest in real terms for 20 years. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it is—I have the figures. I have the famous answer that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East keeps talking about, and it is true£560 million at 1988–89 prices is being invested in British Rail now. What the Opposition will not understand is the difference between the public service obligation which does not go on investment—and investment, which is what is needed to improve British railways. In the next few years, far from remaining at £560 million in real terms, investment will go up to an average of £755 million—the highest for years. That is at 1988–89 prices, in real terms. When the Labour party was in power between 1974 and 1979 the highest it ever reached was £474 million, so let us hear less nonsense about underinvestment in British Rail.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

The Minister has been telling us how the Government are committed to the railways. When will he make the announcement that instead of being minded to close the Settle to Carlisle railway the Government will tell British Rail to make a success of it. to develop the success that the line has already become under the threat of closure and give it the new lease of life that it deserves?

Mr. Channon

I know the hon. Member's views about the Settle to Carlisle line and I am considering all the representations that have been made. They need careful study and I will make an announcement as soon as I can, but I think that it will be a little while yet.

The point that I still cannot get into the heads of Opposition Members—I simply cannot understand why not—is that facts are facts. [Interruption.] Yes, they are. The fact is that investment in British Rail in real terms at 1988–89 prices will be £755 million on average for the next four years. That is about £200 million more than what it is now, which is already nearly £100 million higher than the highest figure under the last Labour Government.

Of course, BR is not the only undertaking investing in railways. The private sector is financing the biggest rail investment of them all—the £6 billion required to build the Channel tunnel. The London Underground also has ambitious investment plans. The re-equipment of the Central line alone will cost more than £700 million. Work is under way on the Bank extension of the Docklands light railway, and work is planned on the Beckton extension if Parliament approves the Bill now before it.

We have recently published the report of the central London rail study and have commissioned the east London rail study. I have no doubt that these studies will result in further investment in new railway lines for London. Moreover, London is not the only city to get new lines—Manchester will have its Metrolink, and a number of interesting ideas are in the pipeline for other cities.

There has been no shortage of finance for airports either. Two new terminals for Heathrow and Gatwick have been opened and the new terminal at Stansted is under construction. There is no overall shortage of airport capacity in the London area at this stage. Since 1981 we have supported more than £300 million worth of investment in the local authority airports through special capital allocations. Last December's regional airport allocations will allow work to start on the major new terminal at the East Midlands airport and, all told, the number of passenger movements handled by regional airports should double or treble between now and 2005.

The real problem of congestion in the airports last summer was a Europe-wide shortage of air traffic control capacity, aggravated by an industrial dispute. Even the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, with all his persuasive powers, cannot stop foreign air traffic controllers going on strike. Perhaps he will celebrate when they do and have his nice picket line, but I can and will tackle the problem of air traffic control capacity both domestically and internationally. Last October I agreed a two-thirds increase in the Civil Aviation Authority's capital expenditure. There are very difficult operational problems in introducing a new air traffic control system while keeping the existing system fully operational 24 hours a day, but I can assure the House that finance is not a constraint. On the international side last year we used our presidency of Eurocontrol to promote a number of initiatives, of which the most important is the central flow management unit to stream line the routing of aircraft across Europe.

Under the GLC, investment in the London Underground was at a lamentable level. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is not here to justify the level of investment when he and his friends were in power. Lots of money was spent on subsidising fares but none on improving the underground system. That system, above all, takes time to improve because it cannot be closed while improvements are carried out and we all know that it is very old. Fare increases on the London Underground have been well below increases in average wages since 1980 and are no higher in real terms than they were then.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has got it completely wrong and cannot sustain with any credibility his criticism of the transport infrastructure. We also hear criticisms from the Opposition, though not so much today. Usually we are told that we have committed the heinous sin of asking those who benefit from new investments to bear the cost, but I must point out that in the bad old days when we operated on the doctrine that the state alone must provide the state actually did not provide. Under this Government the state is beginning to provide and to improve all the systems. I live in hope, and tonight I shall go down on my knees and pray that one day I shall be able to make the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East understand the facts and figures on investment, although it is no doubt a forlorn hope that in Lent he will come to repentance.

The Opposition's second line of attack is to say that all the investment is unco-ordinated. That objection is even sillier than the previous one. The Government were wise to do away with central transport planning, but in reality it died a natural death before we took office. Our achievement was to do away with the burden of superfluous regulations, which no longer served any purpose, and to put something more effective—market forces—in their place.

When we have just announced two more radical policies—one on transport in London and another on road safety—it is richly ironic for the Opposition to attack us for lacking a transport policy. Where is Labour's transport policy? The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East spent 35 minutes criticising us, but he has not one constructive idea to put forward. In recent months we have answered three debates on transport at the Opposition's behest, and we were expecting to hear something of their policies, but three times we have been deeply disappointed. Perhaps the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will tell us when he winds up. When shall we be told the Opposition's intention? Is the subject so low on their list of priorities that we cannot be told what they would do? Perhaps they need to go to Moscow to find out. Are their internal party wranglings so bitter? Perhaps Mr. Todd will not come on side. [Interruption.] Or is it merely that there is a complete dearth of original thought among Opposition Members?

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East spends far too much time on the picket line; I have a charming photograph of him in a Sunday newspaper backed by the motto, "Loyalty and Honour"—qualities for which he is so renowned by his own leader. I am considering using that photograph as the Department of Transport's Christmas card this year.

This Government have made spending on transport a top priority. I understand that the slimmer right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has declared his intention to keep a very close eye on the expenditure commitment of Opposition spokesmen. Surely the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, in his blunt and succinct manner, should have told us the amount of money to which he is allowed to commit Labour on transport spending. He continually talks about the Treasury. What about his own future Treasury if Labour ever returned to Government?

Since the hon. Gentleman has proved unable to answer that question, the House must assume that he speaks with neither the authority nor the commitment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East because he cannot tell us anything that Labour proposes to do. Everyone who takes a serious interest in transport deserves an answer to that question. The House will agree that the hon. Gentleman's failure to provide any suggestions whatsoever has shown up all the Opposition posturing on safety and congestion as the sham and fraud that it is. Their silence speaks volumes and I ask the House to reject their ridiculous motion.

5.43 pm

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

The last words that will be heard in the House of Commons tonight, in emptied halls, are, "Who goes home?". It is a historic hangover from the time when Members of Parliament needed to be escorted by link men. Those words will not be heard by the majority of those who rush to the taxi point or out to their cars, but quite possibly they will be heard by a number of people who work in this building. I am very disappointed at the Secretary of State's performance this afternoon in which he displayed superficial but quite savage contempt for those people who are most concerned about public transport.

Most women in this country care about what happens to the bus system and to the railway system because almost without exception they use it. They know about the total unreality of the Secretary of State's figures for the provision of staff on the Underground and on the railway as it is reflected in the danger that they face when they leave here every night. The women who work in the Refreshment Department are a clear example. They are not particularly concerned about the billions of pounds that we are told are now being spent. They will be concerned that violent crimes on all the railway systems have increased noticeably. They travel in emptier carriages with fewer staff and with much less access to any help and they are in increasing danger of attack or assault. They know that the Government needed to be goaded by the most bizarre set of comic-book characters from America into beginning to face the fact that there are not sufficient transport staff on the system to defend those who use it. They will find it remarkable that a Government who put above all their commitment to the road system are now beginning to perceive, albeit vaguely, the need for providing through the railway and through more integrated planning of bus and other services a transport system that will enable people to travel safely and in comfort.

I have met many railwaymen who have been subjected to assault. They know exactly what happens. I have met 60-year-olds nearing retirement who have been beaten up for a £1 ticket. They would be singularly unimpresed by the level of this debate. I have met people in their early 30s who in attempting to save a woman from assault were beaten up so badly that they were off work for 18 months and have still not regained their previous posts.

Safety for people on the Underground and the railways is not a matter for superficial and supposedly clever propaganda in the House of Commons. It is a day-to-day and night-to-night worry for women who find it a nightmare to try to get from their place of work to their homes in safety.

Mr. Cryer

Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government are further encouraging the difficult circumstances that she has described? Last night they gave their backing to a Bill which imposes penalties on fare dodgers. Those penalties will have to be collected by railwaymen and railwaywomen and the British Rail board has declared an undertaking to get rid of staff and replace them with automatic ticket machines. Therefore, women who go home late at night will find not a friendly railway person to guide them but a ticket machine which probably will have been vandalised.

Mrs. Dunwoody

The Secretary of State and those who support him who refuse to connect the provision of money with the provision of staff must face the fact that the reiteration of the argument that there has been no financial restraint will fall badly upon the ears of those who use the public transport system. One gets the distinct impression that very few Conservative Members use public transport. Therefore, they do not see what happens.

Some years ago, the guards in the Liverpool area told me that they were being continually assaulted and required assistance. For a short time they were escorted by British Transport police. However, as soon as they moved from one section to another, the British Transport police left the train and the same guards were assaulted again. That is the day-to-day reality of public transport. It is directly connected with money.

When I spoke to a former senior representative of London Transport about the provision of safety on London Underground, he said, "Where is the money to come from?" The Government will not provide it, so it has to come from the passengers. The money will not be forthcoming in the present circumstances. If one constantly harps on about the need to cut staff because they are expensive, the result is empty stations and women hurrying through darkened corridors wondering whether they will get mugged. If one constantly cuts back on proper staffing and takes any contract from any cheapjack firm, one will get people whose commitment to the system is minimal and who will do the minimum required of them. If one consistently says that the only thing to be considered is an ability to balance the books, the result will be what we have in London today—a dirty, dangerous and unattractive public transport system. The women of this country pay the price for that attitude every time they use the public transport system. The staff pay for it in increasing numbers of assaults and, in the final analysis, the public pays for it.

The Secretary of State asked why it was that he had not heard from the Labour party about its policy. The simple answer is that every member of the travelling public could write a public transport policy for him tomorrow. It would ask for decent investment and for a level of comfort that does not mean that on the trains between Crewe and Carlisle there is sometimes 200 per cent. overcrowding with people standing in the corridors and the guards being unable to walk from one end of the train to the other. They will tell the Secretary of State that investment is needed, not just in more concrete roads, but in the provision of proper rolling stock, properly guarded stations and decent, clean and properly serviced public facilities. The public will say to the Secretary of State, "Whatever your statistics, try travelling on some of the public transport that most of the people of this country have to use every day of their lives." Even the Secretary of State might then begin to take a less rosy view.

5.52 pm

Mr. Terence L. Higgins (Worthing)

Even in a debate as short as this, I must begin by recording the profound concern in my constituency about the proposals put forward by the Government's consultants for the redevelopment of the A27 in my constituency. Far from meeting the Government's policy of taking traffic away from towns, the proposals would effectively cut the town of Worthing in half and that is why one sees Worthing covered in notices saying: A bypass not a through pass. The matter is still being considered by Ministers and I hope that they will consider it in the light not only of that report, but of the report commissioned by the local council and the enormous petition they have received and that they will ensure that Worthing has a bypass that avoids the town completely.

I want to take up a point made in the Opposition motion and the Government amendment about the deep concern that every hon. Member feels about the recent rail and air tragedies. I repeat the comment that I made in an earlier intervention about the unnecessary anguish caused to vast numbers of people who are not affected by the disasters, but who are concerned because they think that relatives or friends may have been. We must improve the arrangements for telephone communication in those circumstances. I hope that it will be possible to establish a single telephone number to be used when a major disaster takes place which everyone knows is for information, just as we use 999. I hope that that can be done, but even if it cannot the emergency numbers must have a queuing system in which a recording tells people that they are in a queue and that if they hang on they will eventually receive an answer. There is, of course, tremendous strain on resources at such times, but at present people have to keep ringing and they receive the engaged tone over and over again. That covers far more people than those involved in any particular accident because people do not know whether their friends and relatives are involved. On humanitarian grounds, we should put in the extra resources that are needed.

The Opposition motion—which is more a book than a motion—is an own goal because, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, in reality there has been a massive increase in the resources devoted to all aspects of transport. I want to congratulate him perhaps I should not, as a former Treasury Minister—on the way in which he has fought his Department's battle with the Treasury, which has been reflected in the substantial increase in infrastructure expenditure and real resources. That is a success.

As the debate is brief, I want to produce a shopping list rather than anything else. My first point concerns sea transport. I began my commercial life in the shipping industry, where I was for about seven years. In the docks at that time the inter-union rivalry was so tremendous that the troops finally had to be sent in to deal with the immediate problems. In that context, we have seen the port of London shrivel while others grow, for a simple reason—the national dock labour scheme. I find it extraordinary that, after 10 years of Conservative Government, we have not dealt with that problem. I know that the matter is partly one for the Department of Employment rather than for my right hon. Friend, but the time has come when we must consider whether it is a satisfactory arrangement. I say that it is not a satisfactory arrangement for the future development of our ports in relation to our European competitors.

I shall say a brief word about rail. The central London rail study has made imaginative proposals for improving the rail network and that is an exciting prospect. My right hon. Friend envisages a timetable with a Bill in November 1989. That excites the imagination and will lead to an improvement if we take the opportunity.

I want to make some specific suggestions on road transport. It is noticeable that the Opposition have made little mention of buses and the extraordinary change as a result of which the ratepayers' subsidy has been reduced, to the great benefit of my constituents, while there has been an increase in consumer choice and competition. However, I am concerned about the situation in London. We are suffering from a hangover from some of the Greater London council's so-called road improvement programmes. One needs only to look at the extraordinary situation on the other side of Westminster bridge. The boroughs are not doing an adequate job in this respect, so I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider seriously taking road transport in London back under the control of his Department, where it used to be. One example I want to give is that of coaches parking on Westminster bridge, especially continental coaches from which passengers are discharged into the middle of the road. Yesterday morning and this morning there was a string of coaches with the drivers on the wrong side discharging passengers into the middle of the road. There will be a serious accident, but Westminster council seems to be doing nothing about it.

If one considers bus lanes in, for example, the constituency of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), one realises that the traffic flow, including buses, is seriously slowed down by bus lanes. If one waits until 10 am to drive in, it is equally apparent that even then bus lanes are restricting traffic to one lane, partly because cars are parked in the bus lanes and partly because people no longer drive in bus lanes after 10 am because the lanes are painted red or have lines. The bus lanes should be reviewed.

Motor cyclists are another serious matter. The White Paper, which is greatly to be welcomed in many respects, refers to the appalling loss of life for motor cyclists. They account for about 14 per cent. of road deaths and 20 per cent. of serious accidents, although motor cycles form only 2 per cent. of traffic. Weaving in and out of moving traffic is a serious offence in New York and the police enforce it. We should consider making it an offence as well. I also do not understand why, when there are such stringent regulations for other commercial drivers, we allow courier motor-cycle companies to employ learner drivers who have passed no test whatever. I ask my right hon. Friend whether he would be prepared to accept and support a private Member's Bill designed to deal with that problem.

I want to talk now about the M25 and all that that entails. I use it four or five times a week going to and from my constituency. Whenever there is an accident or bad weather and there is a massive traffic jam, drivers are locked into it. At appropriate points on the M25 there should be gates that the police can open with traffic signals, so that if there is a tailback for five or six miles before the next exit drivers would have the option of turning round, going back off the motorway and taking some other route. The same applies to warning notices because it is all too easy to come on to the M25 and find a 10-mile traffic jam straight ahead. If there had been a notice about 100 yards further back, one would not have gone on to the M25 and would have avoided the traffic jam, with corresponding reductions in the congestion faced by everyone else.

I approve of my right hon. Friend's announcement about cameras. Obviously there are technical problems that we must all consider carefully, but I hope that cameras will be used to deal with speeding on motorways because we all know perfectly well that there is virtually no speed limit enforcement at the moment. I hope that cameras will also deal with the problem of tail-gating, which is undoubtedly terrifying for many people, especially when it involves heavy lorries. As I understand it, there are proposals for governors on coaches which are also a serious motorway hazard. When will coach governors be introduced and enforced?

I wish to make only two other points as I am anxious to leave time for other hon. Members to speak in this short debate. My right hon. Friend should consider carefully, with the Home Office, the problem of car theft. Cars are often stolen for so-called joyrides, which is dangerous because there is no insurance. Car theft, based on the idea of taking the car without the owner's permission, is a totally absurd offence with totally absurd penalties. One could steal a car worth between £10,000 and £20,000 and attract a penalty of the kind that might reasonably be expected if one had picked a pocket for, say, a £5 note.

Finally, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will stick to his proposals in the White Paper for not extending clamping. I do not believe that clamping has been helpful in central London, but whether or not that is so I am clear that it would not be helpful in a broader context.

I am against Privy Councillors making long speeches and hope that mine has not been too long. I ask my right hon. Friend to support my suggestions.

6.1 pm

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East)

When serious accidents such as those mentioned in the motion and the amendment occur it is a matter of form in this House to express sympathy to the victims and to extend congratulations to the members of the rescue services. However, I doubt whether any of us know how traumatic it is for the victims of such accidents who survive and for the relatives of those who do not. Nor, I suspect, do we really know what young policemen and policewomen or young soldiers have to face in the aftermath of such major disasters. I entertain great doubt whether I could do what they have to do in the course of their duty. I suspect that when we express sympathy or extend our congratulations we do so as much out of a sense of relief as from any other motive.

If I may be forgiven the expression, the Opposition motion has an "omnibus" quality about it. It is guilty of a certain imprecision in language. However, it raises sharply an issue that the Government amendment complacently ignores. In such a debate, some things cannot be challenged. Congestion in London is now a national issue. No doubt all of us could give illustrations of that from our experiences. It took, for example, seven minutes for the nearest fire engine to reach King's Cross Underground station—a distance of 1,400 yards, at a speed of approximately 7 mph. When students sat on two bridges near the House of Commons before Christmas the traffic in central London took between three and four hours to return to normal.

If any hon. Members who go to Heathrow ever travel west on the M4 between 6am and 7am, they will enjoy a relatively easy passage, but they will see the stagnant east-bound lanes, of private or seemingly private cars containing drivers but no passengers, nose to tail for many miles. That is hardly surprising because 2.1 million vehicles cross the old Greater London council boundary every day and 1.5 million vehicles come within 1.8 miles of Aldwych. It is easy to say that all the drivers on the M4 should be on public transport, but what consequences would that have? There would be more overloaded trains and more overloading on the Underground.

Those of us who use Heathrow regularly are ashamed of the first impression that many foreign travellers to Britain must get. The facilities on the Underground from Heathrow to central London are grossly inadequate, with no proper provision for luggage. The trains are frequently unclean and unpleasant and in the rush hour it is often difficult to get a seat when travelling from central London.

Anecdotal evidence is always to be found in such debates, and on Saturday, in a state of modified rapture, I came back from Twickenham to Waterloo and then attempted to travel from Waterloo to Heathrow by tube. To do so, I sought to go down one of the three escalators leading from the forecourt to the tube system, but only one was operating. The other two had clearly been out of operation for some considerable time, with little explanation and the inevitable congestion. One finds that kind of breakdown far too often in the system. It inevitably results in inconvenience and congestion. It has been estimated that the cost of road congestion in London now amounts to about £1.5 billion per annum and about £10 billion for the United Kingdom as a whole.

It seems clear that the forecasts of growth, upon which investment has been made, have rarely been accurate. One cannot believe that the present level of congestion would arise as a result of a planned or forecast expansion. It is also the case that the lead-in time to the substantial improvements that are required is unnecessarily long. The problem is that commuters do not sit quietly at home waiting for the improvements to be effected. I suspect that most commuters would have little interest in the statistical to-ing and fro-ing that has characterised the debate. They have an interest only in being comfortable, safe and efficiently conveyed to their place of work.

We are now paying for years and years of neglect. We still rely on a system which, so far as the railways are concerned, has more than a hint of Victorian values about it. The scale of the problem that we face, especially in the south-east, requires massive investment, plus a recognition of the necessary interdependence between different modes of travel. I fail to see how that can be achieved without central direction and public-led investment.

There must also be a recognition that improvements must meet changing environmental aspirations. The public expect and demand it and are right to do so. It necessarily follows that environmentally sympathetic improvements of the transport system will be more expensive. We cannot expect to preserve the environment on the cheap. However offensive that may be to other elements of the Government's philosophy, they must accept that the maintenance of the environment will require central direction and in important and significant cases possibly central decision-making also.

Public transport need not all be publicly owned, but the overall pattern of public transport must be established with the public interest in mind. The Government have a duty to establish that pattern. I regret that so far in the debate there has been precious little evidence that they have done so or that they are willing to do so. For that reason, my hon. Friends and I will support the Opposition motion.

6.8 pm

Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test)

I rise simply to ask the question which I wanted to ask earlier this afternoon and which can be incorporated in this wide debate on transport. I am becoming a little concerned that the police are being given ever-increasing powers. Motorists are normally law-abiding citizens and have no intention of getting 12 penalty points.

The police are harassed because of the amount of legislation that has been passed during the last few years. I feel that some of the points made by my right hon. Friend could mean that once again my constituents, who use the Winchester bypass, the M3 and the M25—which appears to be in complete disrepair—will be feeling harassed. There have been 5,000 deaths caused, for example, by drink-driving, disrepair of motorways or by a basic fault in the car's structure. My right hon. Friend must, however, from time to time pat motorists on the back for the reduction in road casualties, which I am sure would go down well.

Mr. Channon

My hon. Friend has made an important point. I strongly sympathise with him. The point of the White Paper is to provide the most severe penalties for those who drive badly. However, those who commit trivial offences—as any hon. Member could—will be treated more leniently than in the past. They will receive more warnings.

The reduction in road accidents over the past few years reflects great credit on drivers. I shall continue to make that clear. I am sorry if I have not made that point clear enough this afternoon.

Mr. Hill

There has been a lack of good propaganda for the police. A television film was made about the M4. In a recent court case in Winchester, policemen, along with private investigators, were found guilty of using the police national computer to find out information mainly about motorists. That is something which cannot be allowed to continue. The police national computer must be readily available, especially to police patrolling motorways, but there must be a safeguard to ensure that those who earn money from such information cannot gain access to it.

My right hon. Friend has lived with the problem of the M3 for many years, but let us hope that it will not go on much longer. Will it go through St. Catherine's Hill, around St. Catherine's Hill on the existing Winchester bypass or where? Such a city as Southampton, growing in leaps and bounds, needs that information.

On a completely different subject, there was a debate in the plenary session of the Council of Europe last week on aviation security. I believe that there must be an overall European overview on aviation security, but that it should be carried even further. When my right hon. Friend receives the completed resolution and a copy of the report of the debate—in which I spoke—he will notice that it goes far beyond Europe. After the Lockerbie incident, we could point to security in Frankfurt and in London, but, of course, planes come in from the far east, Canada and the United States of America. An international body must set down the guidelines for aviation security. There must be a points system for airports. All airports are not safe. I believe that we all agree that my right hon. Friend was right to refuse to issue a licence to an employer at London airport who had not taken the necessary precautions to find out the background of his employees. That happens, however, in practically every airport throughout the world. Generally, the back doors of airports are not guarded. There is no end to aviation security. I suppose that we members of the Council of Europe must be brave as we travel throughout the world.

The sooner that my right hon. Friend can create a good image of the police, of the motorists and certainly of his Department, the better. It is not just a matter of money.

We should think seriously about the provision of toll motorways. My right hon. Friend has probably already thought about them. There is no reason why there should not be toll motorways alongside existing motorways. Those of us who use the M3 would be delighted if, by paying a toll, we could drive to London that bit quicker. My right hon. Friend would be well advised to drive from Calais to Strasbourg on the French toll motorway so that he can appreciate the efficiency of that system.

6.15 pm

Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury)

I listened with considerable astonishment to the Secretary of State's contribution to the debate and I read with equal incredulity the terms of the amendment to the Opposition motion. Both were essays in complacency which sits completely at odds with the daily experience of my constituents. The majority of my constituents use London Transport in some form or another virtually every day of their lives. Their day by day experience is of increasing congestion, of dirty stations, of overcrowded trains and buses, and fares that are rising at considerably greater rates than the rate of inflation. They are concerned about the safety of the transport system which they use. My constituents' worry and anger about the system that they must use are completely unreflected, and unanswered, by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Adley

I was wondering why the hon. Member's incredulity was shared by only one other Labour Back Bencher sitting behind him on this Opposition Supply day.

Mr. Smith

I knew that I was wise to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because it enables me to point out that time is extremely short in this debate. Many of my hon. Friends were present during the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). Many of my hon. Friends representing London constituencies—those who were here and those who were unable to be present—have mentioned similar concerns to my own.

Many recent London Transport decisions have made matters worse. One example is the continual drive by London Transport to introduce an even greater proportion of one-person operated buses on the London bus routes, which will cause greater congestion and will provide a worse service for the travelling public. Another example is the way in which London Transport has introduced ticket barriers in London Underground stations. Passengers are worried about the safety of those barriers. It is difficult, too, for people carrying heavy bags or wheeling prams to pass through them. Those are issues which London Transport clearly has not considered. On top of those changes, which make travelling worse for my constituents, there have been dramatic fare increases in the past months. Those, of course, are to be supplemented by increases in the rate levy which my constituents must pay on top of those increased fares.

We have small elements of relief in this overall gloomy picture. I am pleased to say that at long last the Government have agreed to provide the funds for the badly needed improvement work at the Angel tube station. That is welcome. However, it is sad that it took years of campaigning, lobbying and requesting for that decision to be made.

Some hopeful signs are also emerging from the central London rail study. I hope that the proposed new line through the Angel and Essex road and out to Hackney will come to fruition. It will be of great benefit to my constituents. However, I hope that Ministers will begin to rethink some of the comments that they have been making about that study which imply that the overall cost of new investment in new tube and rail lines will have to be met largely by passengers. The proper source for such investment in the basic infrastructure of our capital city is the Government rather than dramatically increased fares.

Our transport system, especially that in London, has three basic requirements. The first is improved capital investment. The Government make much of their relatively recent awakening to the benefits of capital investment in public transport. I suppose that we must be glad of some of the progress that they have made. But they have not gone anywhere near far enough. We have only to look at the nature of London's Underground system to see that clearly.

The Government say that they are putting millions into the upgrading of the Central line. That is welcome, but what about the poor old Northern line? In many ways that is an even worse system than the Central line. Anyone who travels daily on the Northern line is becoming increasingly frustrated by the difficulties that that line poses. The new rolling stock, the new stations and the new work that is needed to improve London's Underground system is very much overdue, and the Government are not going far enough or fast enough in the investment that needs to be made.

Secondly, in addition to more capital investment we need more investment in the revenue running of the system. Year by year since the Government took over responsibility from the GLC for the support of London Regional Transport they have reduced the system's revenue subsidy. That inevitably means higher fares, fewer staff and a worse and less attractive system. That is not the direction in which we should be going.

Thirdly, we need a number of measures to discourage private vehicles from coming into central London. We shall have to look at that in the House in the course of the next few years. At the moment, London is simply clogging up and we cannot allow that to continue unabated.

In addition to all the problems that I have mentioned, my constituents are now facing British Rail's proposals for King's Cross, for which legislation is shortly to come before the House. I shall not say much about that now because doubtless we shall have the opportunity to debate it at much greater length in due course. But suffice it for me to say that at the moment King's Cross is one of the most congested and overcrowded parts of the entire London traffic system, both above and below ground. If British Rail's proposals go through, King's Cross simply will not be able to cope. British Rail has not seriously considered that and the problems that that entails. It has not looked at a proper strategic over-view of London and the nation's transport system.

Some of my constituents died in the King's Cross fire. Some of the emergency services that responded to that disaster came from my constituency. Many, indeed most, of my constituents use London's transport services day by day, week by week. They know at first hand the problems that face them on that transport system. It is about time that the Government woke up to what is happening, abandoned their complacency and started investing in the measures that are needed to stop our capital city from clogging up. I must sound a warning for the Government. It may already be almost too late for them to start acting properly.

6.25 pm

Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley)

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) spent so much of his speech being negative. For example, he attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) for not being here although he is involved in a Committee.

However, it is right that we should address the problems of congestion and safety. Congestion is becoming a major issue among the public. The Government have no need to take lessons from the Opposition on the roads programme. In the coming financial year there will be 50 per cent. more road construction than before 1979 when it was decimated by the need to go to the IMF.

No Department of Transport forecast of traffic growth anticipated the exceptional rate of increase now taking place, reflecting the economic achievements of recent years. At one point in the past year the increase was four times the high growth forecast used by the Department in planning the road programme. The figures confirm what regular motorway users already know. The roads are carrying traffic far in excess of their design capacity and some motorway sections carry well over 50 per cent. more vehicles per day than the number for which they were planned.

Those who have urged the Government to take careful note of the economic return to be gained from road construction and the economic and competitive disadvantages of failing to provide an adequate road network are now coming to be seen to be fully justified in their views. We are all slowly grasping the point that capital expenditure which produces an immediate and continuing return in terms of reduced congestion and greater industrial efficiency must be considered differently from other spending which does not provide such returns. It is that greater industrial efficiency which generates economic growth without which hospials, schools and other social benefits that we all want cannot come about.

The planning process is cumbersome. Far too many roads and other transport infrastructure schemes which were badly needed have been delayed much longer than necessary. Any practical means of ensuring that the right roads and schemes are built in the right places more quickly than would otherwise be the case are to be welcomed. We look forward to the document that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to publish before long setting out proposals for greater private sector involvement in public sector transport schemes. There are some successful examples. It is encouraging to see a number of cities and regions coming forward with light rail proposals financed as investment projects. In the London Docklands and a number of estuarial crossings there is great scope for bringing forward much-needed infrastructure.

However, we should be cautious about the idea that many major new strategic roads can be financed on a similar basis. There are problems to be considered before we rush headlong towards a regime incorporating roads financed on the basis of tolls. For example, it has been suggested that some bypasses could be built by private firms which would be allowed to charge tolls. Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that. In order to achieve the maximum environmental benefit, bypasses must attract most of the traffic which previously clogged up the streets of the towns or villages concerned. Anyone who has driven along a relatively deserted Italian autostrada—this may be a response to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill)—while heavy trucks flood along the parallel all-purpose road to save the toll of a few thousand lire will appreciate that the market mechanism does not necessarily produce the most environmentally advantageous outcome. A large proportion of the roads currently being built are bypasses and environmental factors figure high in the justification for their construction.

On strategic routes, some theoretical projects are badly needed to ease congestion, while others are good candidates for toll roads. Unfortunately, the two features do not generally coincide. Take, for example, the proposed east coast motorway that some county councils and other bodies would like to see built to link the M II with the Humber bridge, and relieve traffic on the existing MI and Al roads. It could be a candidate for tolls because the number of entry and exit points could be relatively few. That is because of the general absence of major conurbations along the route. That very fact would be almost bound to lead a potential investor to realise that there would be no hope of achieving an economic return, except possibly in the very long term. Furthermore, it would make economic nonsense to build such a route at very great expense, and then to deter traffic from using it by imposing tolls that did not apply to other routes, including the Al and Ml, for which we can rule them out.

Private finance can play its part in relation to some important and often costly local schemes, such as the new Dartford bridge over the Thames and the second Severn crossing, and new roads to open up derelict areas for development. But we should not get the idea that it can be a magic alternative to major construction by the Government, for which the economic case remains strong.

Let me say briefly a word about railway overcrowding. In some places overcrowding has become a major problem, and not just in the south-east. On Network SouthEast, standards have been set by the Government for levels of overcrowding, and the Government have approved action to achieve them, including a record level of investment. On Network SouthEast, the target load factor would require that on some trains no more than 10 per cent. of passengers should be required to stand, and on others no more than a quarter.

It is time that similar targets were set for provincial services, as several of these provide a service for commuters that is similar to that of Network SouthEast. Indeed, in some cases, the trains go underground in the city centre. It is time to set British Rail targets to reduce congestion on some of its provincial services, not only because people are concerned about safety, but because if passengers have nowhere to sit on trains they are likely to have recourse to overcrowded roads, or not travel at all.

Mr. Adley

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene in his very thoughtful and interesting speech.

Would my hon. Friend agree with me that, while the Government are entitled to claim credit for the capital investment in the railways, it really does seem strange that at the same time the Government are cutting the public service obligation grant, so that we are getting new lines and trains in some places, and overcrowded and dirty trains on the lines that are the heaviest used?

Mr. Waller

It is significant that the Government have not turned down any application by British Rail for a project that is economically desirable. Indeed, my hon. Friend raises some detailed points, to which it would take me a long time to respond.

There are also several localities in the provinces for which passenger transport executives also have responsibility, and where overcrowding is becoming a serious problem. In my own area, on the Airedale and Wharfedale lines in west Yorkshire, rail overcrowding has become chronic during peak periods.

If I may return briefly to roads, I wish to deal with the safety aspect about which an announcement was made earlier today. Most people rely on the roads for their transport needs. Sadly, the casualty figures reflect that fact. Road traffic accidents attract relatively little publicity compared with the major disasters, but it is right that we should do everything in our power to reduce the toll of carnage. The Government's response to the North report should be studied with care, and we look forward to the implementation of those proposals that are effective. I say "effective", because that is the only basis on which they should be judged. It is often the undramatic improvements, such as relatively cheap local traffic management and engineering schemes, which have the most significant effects. This criterion should be applied to any changes that are made to deal with, for instance, the menace of drink-driving.

The most effective measures have been taken by brewers, and others, in consultation with my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, to persuade motorists to take non-alcoholic drinks. Much debate centres on random breath testing, but that ignores the fact that the police already have the power to carry out spot checks and to take specimens of breath if there is any reason to believe that a motorist might have been drinking. There is a case, of course, for tidying up the law so that it is more readily understood. However, random checks would require more police manpower to do a less effective job, and we should resist calls to take action that might not work so well.

Opposition policies, so far as we can detect them, have remained basically unchanged over the past 20 years. Central transport planning, which was not just a failure but which was so hopeless a concept that it was never really put into effect, is still something they promote. Most transport problems that have been discussed in this debate arise from success. It is increasingly recognised that our transport policies can play a substantial part in contributing to and developing that success.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is coming forward all the time with new ideas, and he will certainly have my support.

6.35 pm

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)

Whatever may be one's views on the subject that the House is debating this afternoon, and whatever side one takes in the exchanges we have heard so far, I hope that one thing that will unite the House is the acceptance that there is, rightly or wrongly, widespread dissatisfaction with transport services among the travelling public. I hope that I start on a non-controversial note by saying just that.

I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's speech. In the early part of his speech, he dealt with the air disasters at Lockerbie and Kegworth. We shall await the report of the air accident investigation branch into the Kegworth accident. After the Lockerbie tragedy, the House ought to be able to establish unanimity about airline safety.

Criticism has come from Conservative Members during this debate that all that they hear from Opposition Members is a non-stop barrage of criticism about Government policy. That is the penalty of being in government; indeed, it is what any Opposition is for. Certainly there are differences of opinion and emphasis on transport policy between the two major parties, but on airline safety I hope that we can achieve unanimity.

All of us would agree that airline passengers have a right to expect effective protection from terrorism anywhere in the world. I hope we would all agree that airport security must be upgraded to include tighter controls on carry-on baggage checks, and on transfer bags, with proper passenger screening, baggage reconciliation procedures, properly trained security staff and further research and development into plastic explosive detection.

I should have thought that agreed international standards for all of these matters, with airport spot checks by staff who are appointed by the international Civil Aviation Authority, would meet with general approval in the House. We welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has initiated discussions with other Governments with a view to achieving some of these things.

However, the sensible recommendations of the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport in 1986, including a proposal to restore the security levy, ought to be looked at again. After all, a levy on passengers travelling on all international flights worldwide would raise a large aviation security fund. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has some ideological objections to doing that in Britain, but I wonder whether he believes that the recommendations on the matter by the International Federation of Airline Passengers are worth pursuing.

Over the past six years, there have been at least seven fatal civilian aircraft bomb incidents, involving the deaths of more than 850 passengers and crew. It is pointless for the Minister to say repeatedly that British airport security is the best in the world, which it palpably is not. The Government must recognise that international terrorism recognises no boundaries and that all air travellers are at risk, regardless of which airline they choose to fly with, and whatever their airport of departure and arrival.

Decisions are also long overdue about the future of British airports. Here, the sense of unanimity that I attempted to bring to the beginning of my speech might fail. I do not believe that the Government can go on pretending that market forces will cure congestion, or ease fears about aviation safety.

It is time for the Department to come clean with people living in southern England, and to tell them that the massive increase in air traffic will inevitably mean a fifth terminal at Heathrow and greater capacity at Gatwick and Stansted, with all the air traffic control and environmental implications that that entails. The Department itself must take advantage of spare capacity in other regions, diverting continental and international flights to regional airports. The Secretary of State's belated decision on greater involvement in Euro-control is welcome, but it is a pity that it takes a summer of chaos at British airports to overcome traditional British chauvinism.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)

Before my hon. Friend moves on from the subject of air disasters, I wish to make one point concerning the plane crash on the M1. I accept the Secretary of State's observation that much consideration and discussion must follow the publication of the inquiry's report, but certain things ought to be done immediately as lessons begin to be learned. There is, for example, the question of the plane attempting to land at East Midlands airport and whether it would have been more appropriate to attempt a landing elsewhere. There is also the question whether a plane should be expected to land immediately and at the nearest available airport when one engine fails. The nearest available airport does not need to be an international airport, given the length of runway required.

Mr. Snape

Such questions should be answered by the inquiry, though they have properly exercised the interests of many hon. and right hon. Members.

I turn to the right hon. Gentleman's comments concerning the Clapham junction rail disaster and the Hidden inquiry. Without wishing to prejudice its findings, and using only information already in the public domain, may I say that it appears that there is a problem in respect of rail investment levels, reflected in some of the circumstances of the Clapham junction tragedy. Half of the trains travelling through what is the busiest rail junction in the world, proceeding along the old London and South Western line, are served by a signal box that is 50 years old. There is nothing inherently unsafe about that, but in an ideal world Clapham junction "A" signal box, serving the line on which the disaster occurred, would have long since been swept away and replacedߞasit is now being replaced—by a signalling control centre covering far greater track mileage than that served by the existing signal box.

In the south of England in particular, there is a problem of staff shortages. I ask the House to accept that I make that point not on behalf of the National Union of Railwaymen—although, like my father, I am a member of that union—but because there are problems of recruiting and retaining skilled signal and telegraph staff in southern England, resulting from the low wages that have traditionally been paid and the rail industry's dependence, in the south and elsewhere, on overtime payments and on weekend and Sunday rate premiums.

There is, in these days of macho management—partly inspired by the attitude of the present Government—an additional factor for consideration. There are financial penalties on signal and telegraph staff working at Clapham junction and elsewhere, who, if they take time off because of sickness exceeding more than a few days, are liable not to be rostered for any overtime. As a result, staff are tempted to work, and do so, on occasions when they probably should not. Given their responsibilities, that cannot be conducive to a healthy working atmosphere or to passenger safety.

As to response to the Fennell inquiry, we shall study the Government's recommendations, of which there are a considerable number. We do not believe that a debate on the London Regional Transport levy is an adequate substitute for one on Fennell. covering the whole question of the effects of congestion on safety in the London Underground system. The right hon. Gentleman could not resist the temptation to pick out the particular sentence that he did from the Fennell report: There was no pressure on management to compromise safety. Those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who read the report were surprised that that sentence was included, particularly as evidence concerning staffing was never heard by the inquiry, as it was ruled out by Mr. Fennell. We await a debate—in Government time, it is to be hoped —on Fennell's recommendations. It is a subject to which we shall certainly return.

As if making a ritual incantation, the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends acknowledge that problems of congestion and safety exist, but say that they are the products of economic growth. They talk about investment levels for road and rail, using statistics that are selective even for this House. The Secretary of State's Private Parliamentary Secretary, as is his duty, laughs. However, when one examines the figures submitted by the Department of Transport to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and finds it staled that investment levels are now at their highest in the history of rail, that is palpably untrue.

Mr. Channon indicated dissent.

Mr. Snape

The Secretary of State suggests that he did not say such a thing. Perhaps the most impartial referee to whom we can turn in resolving this vexed question is John Wells. I should not think that he is the same John Wells who was formerly a Conservative Member of Parliament. I refer to Mr. John Wells of the faculty of economics at Cambridge university. In a letter published in the Financial Times on 16 December, he wrote, on the subject of railway investment: The Secretary of State for Transport's claim that investment in the railways is at an 'all-time high' is simply not correct,—except in current price terms, which is not of any interest. The graph shows that, following the period 1981–84, in which for four consecutive years, the lowest-ever levels of investment since the Second World War were recorded, there has indeed been a strong recovery in railway investment in recent years.

Hon. Members

Hear hear.

Mr. Snape

Before the rattles appear and the banners are waved on the Conservative Benches, may I inform the House that Mr. Wells went on to write: Nevertheless, railway investment in 1987, (the latest year for which data are available) was considerably below that for the period 1975–79, as well as for 1965–66. As to the problems posed by success, the Government's own figures for the rate of economic growth in the years since 1979 show that they have by only a single percentage point managed to exceed the rate of economic growth sustained by the last Labour Government in the 1970s. Conservative Back Benchers should not be too impressed by Government propaganda, clever though it may be. The greatest economic growth in this country in recent years —and I had better whisper this softly—occurred under the Administration led by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Conservative Members dare not mention that. Not even the Secretary of State's PPS, who is now doing his duty, is allowed to laugh at that,but it is the reality.

The Secretary of State announced welcome proposals for railway investment, and mentioned two schemes that have been given his approval. One of them is the Cambridge to King's Lynn scheme, which is welcome but surprising. [Interruption.] I wish that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), would stop waving his pocket watch around. I am sure it is not a present for long service, although, if it is, perhaps somebody is telling him something.

Bearing in mind that the service from Ely to King's Lynn is only every two hours, it is surprising that that criterion can be accepted for an investment proposal, while Manchester-Blackpool's can be rejected.

The investment proposal that the Government have not mentioned and have not yet approved is one that has been knocking around since last August—to alleviate the overcrowding north of the Thames on the AC electrified lines. It has been submitted and resubmitted and was last resubmitted, I understand, at the beginning of January. It is a £40 million proposal for electricial multiple units on the AC electrified lines.

In any event, for the Government to say that the investment proposals are invariably approved is to ignore the fact that they have been sanitised—to use the in word —until they meet the 7 per cent. return on investment criterion. And the Government put up not a penny; they merely allow British Rail to spend its own cash once they have approved the proposal. This is different, of course, from the way in which they treat proposals generated internally for the road network. Far from welcoming railway investment proposals, the right hon. Gentleman's Department normally tells British Rail to take them away and tickle them up until they meet those established and, in our view, preposterous investment criteria. They welcome investment proposals in the same way as Dracula welcomed daylight. "It is inevitable, but do not rush it", ought to be the Department's motto.

There is widespread dissatisfaction with standards right across the transport network. It has taken a somewhat truncated debate today to draw the Government's attention to those problems.

The Select Committee on Transport is meeting at the present time, otherwise my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) would have been present in the Chamber and would have hoped to participate in the debate.

Today, as at other times, the Secretary of State shows complacency about what his Department is doing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) reminded us, the reality for millions of people, particularly millions of women, is imprisonment in their homes or fear every time they use the public transport system. That fear ought to take the debate away from the public school, point-scoring standard to which it all too often descends when the right hon. Gentleman speaks. The right hon. Gentleman has palpably failed to improve the nation's transport lifeline, and I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to demonstrate that failure by voting for the Opposition motion.

6.52 pm

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo)

In the few minutes that remain, I will begin where the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) began and confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has indeed taken the lead in calling on the body which exists specifically to bring aviation countries together, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which is to hold a special ministerial meeting in Montreal next week. At that meeting there will be a discussion on recent sabotage attempts, including Lockerbie. My right hon. Friend will be in attendance and will put forward proposals for improving aviation security world wide. I am sure that that will be welcomed by hon. Members.

I had a feeling that during this debate we would be discussing investment under this Government, so I thought that it would be useful to examine the investment approved by my right hon. Friend in the very brief period that I have been in the Department.

On the railways, we have had 200 EMU vehicles for north of the Thames and Thameslink, 158 Sprinter express vehicles for the provincial services, another 77 vehicles for the Marylebone line as well as the King's Lynn electrification—all in just six months.

Across the board, a £720 million modernisation of the Central line on London Underground has been approved, the Angel station reconstruction costing £40 million has been approved, we have given our consent to the £266 million programme of safety measures being implemented by London Underground and in the past week or so we have approved the purchase of a further 10 vehicles for the Docklands light railway.

For London Buses, we have approved investment of more than £12 million.

One very important point which has not, I believe, been mentioned in the debate is that the disabled have been well catered for during this period. The funding that we have approved for Dial-a-Ride in London is £7…27 million for 1989–9ߞan increase of £1 million on the previous year and 70 per cent. higher than when the GLC had charge of these matters. I was extremely proud to be able to announce recently that all taxis licensed in London after 1 February 1989 will have to be wheelchair accessible.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said, quite apart from all those projects there are very promising light rail projects throughout the country.

I must say to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) that this is not some sort of statistical to and fro, as he described it. We are talking about railways, rolling stock, improved comfort and better services, and these can be provided only by the investment that the Government have been making.

The level of London Regional Transport's investment planned for the coming year is a 94 per cent. increase on the investment in 1983 when it was still under the control of the GLC. Taking the Underground alone, the level of investment planned for the coming year represents a doubling in real terms of the 1984–85 figure. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) should certainly bear that in mind.

I must say to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that we certainly recognise that crime is of great concern and all the rolling stock that has been approved and to which I have just alluded will help to provide better, more secure conditions for people to travel in. The hon. Member will also be aware of the increases in police numbers on London Underground that we have announced.

I am disappointed that we have not heard more from the Opposition about the central London rail study or our booklet "Transport in London", which were published on the same day. I understand their reticence in talking about these things—they are silent because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in his foreword, nails the lie that the Government have no clear policy for transport in London. The study sets out a £1.5 billion programme to upgrade existing lines. That could mean new services, increased station capacity and more trains. It also identifies a case for new railway lines for London—a further £2 billion of investment for the capital. Worst of all for the Opposition, the study was a joint effort by the Department, British Rail and London Underground. There is very little in all that for the Opposition to make political capital.

With regard to safety and recent tragic events, the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) raised about the means of informing next of kin is under discussion by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has made some trenchant comments on a number of recent tragic disasters and his manner in doing so has sometimes caused raised eyebrows on this side of the House and even on his own side. If he is entirely sincere in pursuing the subject, I find it extraordinary that in drafting the motion for today's debate he mentioned each of the tragedies which are etched on all our minds but omitted any reference to road deaths. Terrible as those tragedies have been, in terms of numbers killed and lives shattered road accidents are a still more horrendous matter. While at King's Cross 31 died, at Clapham 35, at Lockerbie 270 and at Kegworth 47, the number killed on our roads in the year ended September 1988 was 5,010 —a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley made very well. I must tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing that governors will be fitted to new coaches from 1 April 1989 and to other coaches in the two years thereafter.

The figure of 5,010 was a good one because, if fatalities had risen since 1986 in line with the 10 per cent. increase in road traffic in that period, we could have expected the number to be 910 higher. The reduction has come about largely due to the hard work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic in setting the objective of reducing casualties by one third by the year 2000, by the stiffer tests for motor cyclists, by the mandatory speed limits at motorway road works and through the battle against drinking and driving. Some of these measures bring no popularity to the Government, but each week 18 people are not killed who without the improvements since 1986 would have been killed. Those people cannot he identified or featured by the press, but the improvement is no less real for that. The more visible and vocal the Opposition support for road safety measures and campaigns, the more we shall believe in their sincerity in addressing all transport safety questions.

I am sure that the House will have seen the response by London Regional Transport and London Underground to the recommendations in the Fennell report. The report was published yesterday, and copies have been placed in the Library. I commend that response to all hon. Members. Nearly all Fennell's recommendations have been accepted. I consider it a serious and responsible response to the King's Cross tragedy, which accepts that matters need to be put right. Many of us have observed the physical measures being taken, such as the stripping out of wood on escalators, but an equally significant amount is being done which cannot be seen. I have in mind the new safety management systems that have been put in place, as well as improved training procedures.

The Government are determined to ensure that the new safety culture continues. To that end, we shall go on receiving regular progress reports and monitoring the progress made by London Regional Transport.

The Opposition are good at complaining about the ills of our transport system—I give them due credit for that —but when it comes to remedies, all they have to offer are the same old ineffective medicines as before. For congestion they prescribe large doses of central planning, sometimes mixed with free travel—as suggested by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) last night. Their cure for safety problems is to turn a blind eye to inefficiency and to dole out ever larger subsidies. The arguments advanced in support of this approach are specious and the motives behind it transparent.

The most that the Opposition can claim is that as our transport problems are the result of economic growth under a Labour Government there would have been no growth and thus no problems, but that logic will not commend itself to the House. The remedies proposed by the Opposition are quack remedies. They were inappropriate and ineffective 10 years. ago, and age has improved neither their attraction nor their charm.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 305.

Division No. 79]	[7.01 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Foster, Derek
Allen, Graham	Foulkes, George
Alton, David	Fraser, John
Anderson, Donald	Fyfe, Maria
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Galbraith, Sam
Armstrong, Hilary	Galloway, George
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Ashton, Joe	George, Bruce
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)	Godman, Dr Norman A.
Battle, John	Golding, Mrs Llin
Beckett, Margaret	Gould, Bryan
Beith, A. J.	Graham, Thomas
Bell, Stuart	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Grocott, Bruce
Bermingham, Gerald	Hardy, Peter
Blair, Tony	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Blunkett, David	Haynes, Frank
Boateng, Paul	Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Boyes, Roland	Heffer, Eric S.
Bradley, Keith	Henderson, Doug
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Hinchliffe, David
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)	Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)	Holland, Stuart
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)	Home Robertson, John
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Buchan, Norman	Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Buckley, George J.	Howells, Geraint
Caborn, Richard	Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Callaghan, Jim	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)	Illsley, Eric
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Ingram, Adam
Canavan, Dennis	Janner, Greville
Cartwright, John	Johnston, Sir Russell
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Clay, Bob	Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Clelland, David	Lambie, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Lamond, James
Cohen, Harry	Leadbitter, Ted
Coleman, Donald	Leighton, Ron
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Litherland, Robert
Corbett, Robin	Livsey, Richard
Corbyn, Jeremy	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Cousins, Jim	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Cox, Tom	Loyden, Eddie
Crowther, Stan	McAllion, John
Cryer, Bob	McAvoy, Thomas
Cummings, John	McCartney, Ian
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Macdonald, Calum A.
Cunningham, Dr John	McFall, John
Darling, Alistair	McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	McKelvey, William
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	McLeish, Henry
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)	McNamara, Kevin
Dewar, Donald	McTaggart, Bob
Dixon, Don	McWilliam, John
Doran, Frank	Madden, Max
Douglas, Dick	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Duffy, A. E. P.	Marek, Dr John
Dunnachie, Jimmy	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Eadie, Alexander	Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Evans, John (St Helens N)	Martlew, Eric
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)	Maxton, John
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)	Meale, Alan
Fatchett, Derek	Michael, Alun
Faulds, Andrew	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I & Bute)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)	Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Fisher, Mark	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Flannery, Martin	Morgan, Rhodri
Flynn, Paul	Morley, Elliott
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Snape, Peter
Mullin, Chris	Soley, Clive
Nellist, Dave	Spearing, Nigel
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Steel, Rt Hon David
O'Brien, William	Steinberg, Gerry
O'Neill, Martin	Stott, Roger
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Strang, Gavin
Parry, Robert	Straw, Jack
Patchett, Terry	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Pendry, Tom	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Turner, Dennis
Prescott, John	Vaz, Keith
Radice, Giles	Wall, Pat
Randall, Stuart	Wallace, James
Redmond, Martin	Walley, Joan
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Richardson, Jo	Wareing, Robert N.
Robertson, George	Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Robinson, Geoffrey	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Rooker, Jeff	Wigley, Dafydd
Rowlands, Ted	Wilson, Brian
Ruddock, Joan	Winnick, David
Sedgemore, Brian	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Worthington, Tony
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Wray, Jimmy
Short, Clare	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Skinner, Dennis
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)	Mr. Martyn Jones and
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)	Mr. Allen Adams.

NOES
Adley, Robert	Burns, Simon
Alexander, Richard	Burt, Alistair
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Butcher, John
Allason, Rupert	Butler, Chris
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Butterfill, John
Amess, David	Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Amos, Alan	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Arbuthnot, James	Carrington, Matthew
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Carttiss, Michael
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)	Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Ashby, David	Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Aspinwall, Jack	Chapman, Sydney
Atkins, Robert	Chope, Christopher
Atkinson, David	Churchill, Mr
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)	Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Baldry, Tony	Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Colvin, Michael
Batiste, Spencer	Conway, Derek
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Beggs, Roy	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Bellingham, Henry	Cope, Rt Hon John
Bendall, Vivian	Cormack, Patrick
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Couchman, James
Benyon, W.	Cran, James
Bevan, David Gilroy	Currie, Mrs Edwina
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Curry, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Body, Sir Richard	Day, Stephen
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Dickens, Geoffrey
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Dicks, Terry
Boswell, Tim	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Bottomley, Peter	Dunn, Bob
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Durant, Tony
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)	Dykes, Hugh
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Eggar, Tim
Bowis, John	Emery, Sir Peter
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Evennett, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Brazier, Julian	Favell, Tony
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Browne, John (Winchester)	Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Fishburn, John Dudley
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick	Fookes, Dame Janet
Buck, Sir Antony	Forman, Nigel
Budgen, Nicholas	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Forth, Eric	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Knowles, Michael
Fox, Sir Marcus	Knox, David
Franks, Cecil	Lang, Ian
Freeman, Roger	Lawrence, Ivan
French, Douglas	Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Fry, Peter	Lee, John (Pendle)
Gale, Roger	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Gardiner, George	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Lightbown, David
Gill, Christopher	Lilley, Peter
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian	Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Goodhart, Sir Philip	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Goodlad, Alastair	Lord, Michael
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	McCrindle, Robert
Gorst, John	Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Gow, Ian	MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)	Maclean, David
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Gregory, Conal	Major, Rt Hon John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Mans, Keith
Grist, Ian	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Grylls, Michael	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Maude, Hon Francis
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Mills, Iain
Hampson, Dr Keith	Miscampbell, Norman
Hannam, John	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')	Mitchell, Sir David
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)	Moate, Roger
Harris, David	Monro, Sir Hector
Haselhurst, Alan	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney	Moore, Rt Hon John
Hayward, Robert	Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Morrison, Sir Charles
Heddle, John	Moss, Malcolm
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Moynihan, Hon Colin
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)	Mudd, David
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)	Neale, Gerrard
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.	Nelson, Anthony
Hill, James	Neubert, Michael
Hind, Kenneth	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Holt, Richard	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Hordern, Sir Peter	Norris, Steve
Howard, Michael	Oppenheim, Phillip
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)	Page, Richard
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Paice, James
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	Patnick, Irvine
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)	Patten, Chris (Bath)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Patten, John (Oxford W)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Hunter, Andrew	Porter, David (Waveney)
Irvine, Michael	Portillo, Michael
Jack, Michael	Powell, William (Corby)
Jackson, Robert	Price, Sir David
Janman, Tim	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Jessel, Toby	Rathbone, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Redwood, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Renton, Tim
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)	Rhodes James, Robert
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Riddick, Graham
Key, Robert	Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Kilfedder, James	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)	Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Knapman, Roger	Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Roe, Mrs Marion	Thorne, Neil
Rossi, Sir Hugh	Thornton, Malcolm
Rost, Peter	Thurnham, Peter
Rowe, Andrew	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Sackville, Hon Tom	Tracey, Richard
Sainsbury, Hon Tim	Tredinnick, David
Sayeed, Jonathan	Trippier, David
Scott, Nicholas	Twinn, Dr Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Viggers, Peter
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')	Waddington, Rt Hon David
Shelton, Sir William	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
(Streatham)	Waldegrave, Hon William
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)	Walden, George
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Shersby, Michael	Waller, Gary
Sims, Roger	Walters, Sir Dennis
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Ward, John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Warren, Kenneth
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)	Watts, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas	Wells, Bowen
Speller, Tony	Wheeler, John
Squire, Robin	Whitney, Ray
Stanbrook, Ivor	Widdecombe, Ann
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Wiggin, Jerry
Steen, Anthony	Wilshire, David
Stern, Michael	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Stevens, Lewis	Winterton, Nicholas
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)	Wolfson, Mark
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)	Wood, Timothy
Stradling Thomas, Sir John	Woodcock, Mike
Sumberg, David	Yeo, Tim
Summerson, Hugo	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Tapsell, Sir Peter
Taylor, Ian (Esher)	Tellers for the Noes:
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)	Mr. Stephen Dorrell and
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)	Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, iis amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved, That this House expresses its deep concern at the transport tragedies of the last two years of the 'Herald of Free Enterprise', King's Cross, Clapham, Lockerbie, the M1 air disaster and the daily toll of deaths and injuries on our roads, and extends its sympathy to all those affected; applauds the Government's determination that safety and security must remain paramount, and welcomes the urgent steps it has taken to that end; congratulates the Government for bringing about an economic revival which has resulted in record levels of investment in roads and railways, and for recognising that the only way to provide customers with an efficient and safe public transport system is to set demanding objectives fur quality of service and performance; welcomes the Government's record of approving every investment scheme put to it by British Rail and London Regional Transport, and its radical proposals to extend the public transport system in London; congratulates the Government for having recog-nised the limitations of central planning; and calls on the Opposition to acknowledge the legacy of neglect and under-in vestment which (his Government inherited.