HC Deb 27 March 1990 vol 170 cc287-302 8.33 pm
Mr. Robert Hayward (Kingswood)

It gives me great pleasure to be called first to speak in the Consolidated Fund debate because it gives me the opportunity to speak at 8.30 pm, whereas a large number of my colleagues will have to speak in the early hours of the morning.

I raise the subject of the operation of metro systems because it is appropriate to do so. There is a growing interest in their operation. It is fair to speculate that had we had this debate 10 years ago, its mover would almost certainly have been my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and nobody else would have been interested in the subject because they would have thought that it was of a past era. The debate would probably not have lasted long.

Now we already have approval for a Bill for a light railway system to run through Mr. Speaker's constituency. There are proposals, at various stages, before this and the other House, for light railway systems in Manchester, Sheffield, the midlands, Bristol and the south, around Southampton and in Croydon. Only this afternoon, in his statement on London Regional Transport, the Secretary of State for Transport said: LRT is appraising the extensions of the Docklands light railway to Lewisham and of the east London line northwards … It is taking forward studies of the Croydon light rail system with the borough and BR. That is a further and timely indication of the interest right across the nation in light railway or metro systems, as they are referred to.

When I first came to the House, I shared an office for a number of years with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), the Minister for Sport. I was well aware of his keen interest in metro systems. I am sure that he will be particularly pleased by the announcement made today.

In the almost seven years that I have been a Member of Parliament, there has been a dramatic growth in congestion on the roads leading into the city centre of Bristol. When I was first a Member of Parliament the rush hour lasted only about an hour and the backlog up the motorway, the M32, was only a mile and a half. The rush hour, on all the arterial roads, including the motorway, now lasts about two hours and stretches for several miles. Therefore, there is great need for action to be taken in the area.

I am pleased that both the county and the Department of Transport are funding the largest bypass system currently under construction anywhere in the country. I hope that it will be completed, as scheduled, in 1994 and that the area will benefit.

There is no doubt that the proposal for a light railway system is to be welcomed and is generally welcomed by the vast majority of the population, not because it will suddenly resolve all our congestion problems—it will not. Anyone who believes that any form of transport policy will suddently resolve our congestion problems is being extremely naive, if not downright stupid. What a metro system in Bristol and other areas may well do is to ease the growth of the congestion. People's propensity to travel is becoming ever greater and, therefore, we must tackle the problems in a radical way.

The metro is a radical proposal. The proposals put forward are environmentally friendly and will not add to the congestion on main roads or to the fumes in areas of dense urban population. Therefore, the metro system is to be welcomed provided it can be successfully negotiated between the local community, local councils and the proposed operator. I notice that my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) and for Meriden (Mr. Mills) are present, and I am sure that they will talk about the midlands proposals.

In Bristol, parliamentary approval has already been received for one stage and two further stages have been lodged before the House. First, it is proposed that there should be a road link through the city centre towards Temple Meads. Secondly, it is proposed that there should be a two-armed link out to both Yate and Bradley Stoke.

Negotiations have been taking place during the past two years and it has proved possible to achieve agreement with organisations such as Avon county council. In the west country we all welcome the completion of those negotiations. However, in the next stages of the legislative process there are objections from three categories—the blockers, the negotiators and the concerned.

Objections in the form of petitions have been placed by Kingswood council and other groups which believe that they can negotiate with Advanced Transport for Avon and other interested parties to achieve a working agreement in the same way that Avon county council has. Also, a large number of organisations and individuals are concerned because they do not understand the position, believe that the ATA has been unable to meet their objections and do not know where they will be left at the end of the day.

When I first started discussions with the ATA on the subject, it was talking about running the system through my own constituency, at Staple Hill, which at present has a cycleway running through it. It was proposed that the cycleway should be diverted through the centre of Staple Hill and back down on to the track where there is a tunnel. I said that that was utterly unacceptable because we could not require people to mount what is virtually a hillside, 200 ft high, carrying their bikes, go along a congested high street and come back down the other side. We have managed to resolve that problem and agreed with the ATA that, instead of having a double track through a tunnel, we now have a single track and a protected walkway and cycleway.

Quite naturally, both cycling and pedestrian organisations are still concerned that their rights of way will be obstructed. However, I believe that the problem can be resolved and there should be further negotiations. At present, the ATA's proposals are that the cycle and pedestrian ways will be protected through the length of the cycle path and will be a minimum of 2.5 m wide. However, there are still safety way and fencing problems which must be dealt with. They could be resolved by further discussions.

Safety obviously concerns people because they are not sure of the regulations. I understand that all aspects of a metro's operation are covered by the rail inspectorate. I should like the Minister to confirm that when he replies because it is of substantial concern to local residents at any point along the railway.

The objective of a metro is to ease urban congestion. There has been concern that wherever there is a station there will be huge parking problems. Following discussions among myself and others, including my colleagues who represent other parts of the proposed rail system, it has emerged that there will be two extra stations and there will be a station every 800 yd. That should obviate the need for the vast majority of people to drive to stations and, therefore, the need for large areas of parking.

In many instances there should not be any requirement to provide parking. I understand from the ATA that it is determined that any decision on parking or on the subject of similar objections should be made as a result of negotiation with the local council. When talking about negotiations with councils, it should be understood that there is a need effectively to communicate. The proposers of a metro system must be conscious of the level of ignorance that is to be found among ordinary people and councillors about the general operation of such a system. I advocate strongly that the ATA talks more clearly and openly to local councillors in particular, who are the representatives of the individuals who are most concerned.

I have said already that in part of my constituency the metro will go through a tunnel. Local people are unsure of what that will mean in terms of noise or vibration. I understand that the Department of Transport has confirmed that a study is taking place on noise levels on railways, including light railways. I ask that the Department includes in the study, if possible, the impact of vibration. In my constituency the metro would pass through a tunnel for several hundred yards and many of the houses above the tunnel were built since the old railway system stopped operating, or the occupants of the houses have moved in since the ending of that operation. Therefore, they are unsure. Indeed, they are extremely concerned. They have presented a petition against the proposal because they do not know what impact vibration will have, if any. I am told by the operators that vibrations will not have any impact, but there is nowhere in Britain where a light railway system runs through a tunnel. I cannot confirm or deny what the proposed operators have told me and nor can the proposers. I should like some independent advice from the Department.

The other group which is negotiating on the metro and which finds it difficult to understand the system is one whose members have bought houses in the area since the light railway system has been proposed. I am critical of Bristol city council for not drawing clearly enough to the attention of proposed developers and home owners the ideas of the ATA.

I referred earlier to blockers, and I refer specifically to Bristol city council. Negotiations have been successfully concluded with Avon county council. I think that most hon. Members on both sides of the House will know that that is a hung council. Negotiations took place with all the parties and a draft working agreement is available. There is also a draft working agreement with the other councils, which has been arrived at on much the same basis. The district councils of Kingswood and North Avon believe that matters can be resolved, but they have presented what they describe as protective petitions.

The objection of Bristol city council has been so clear and so firm that it has effectively stopped the middle link of the light railway system. Without the link between Wapping road and Temple Meads, we effectively do not have a system. The light railway would come to an end and then start again about a mile further on. Temple Meads is the ideal location for the system to be centred upon. It would enable travellers to leave the main railway system and get straight on to the light railway system.

I understand that the elected Labour city councillors voted to support the proposal some months ago. There was then a meeting of unelected members of the Bristol Labour party, who are not representatives of any particular group, at which the decision of the elected councillors was overturned by a majority of one. I think that everyone strongly regrets that decision. I hope that by further negotiations between Bristol city Labour councillors and the ATA we can rapidly arrive at the same position as that which has been established with Avon county council. That would be a working agreement that could be operated and an understanding that the centre section of the proposed metro could go ahead. The ATA believes that its proposals would provide an integrated system with Temple Meads and with the bus operators. That has been a matter of concern to Labour councillors and Bristol Labour Members. I appeal to Labour councillors and to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), who is not, unfortunately, in her place this evening, to remove their objections and to say that they are willing to support what I believe is a worthwhile proposal.

The Order Paper refers to "Government support" for the metro system. Having removed the objections of Bristol city council, which I believe can and should be done rapidly—we should not delay until after the local elections —we need to be able to apply for section 56 grants. We have already lost our position in the queue to Manchester, Sheffield and, probably, the midlands. I should like an assurance that the Department will consider the ATA's proposals seriously—I understand that they will come forward in the next few weeks—and a second assurance that the Department has enough finance available for the ATA's proposals and for others.

I said at the beginning of my remarks that metros are a growth area. A few years ago there were virtually no parts of the country that wanted to submit proposals for a light railway system. Therefore, the Department was not being asked to finance such projects. Different regions are now falling over themselves in competing for relatively limited moneys. I appeal to the Department, in framing its budget for forthcoming years, to give serious consideration to making available considerably more section 56 moneys so that proposals that many support can be implemented rapidly. There is a worthwhile proposal from Avon, and with a series of negotiations we can deal with most of the objections. Without the removal of the block by Bristol city council—the Labour group—the proposal will go ahead, but there will not be a worthwhile network to serve the whole area. I hope that the Department can and will provide satisfactory finance to help the system to be implemented. I hope also that it can give a clear sign, because of the problems that we face in Bristol, that there will be tests on vibration and general noise levels. That will be a means of easing the concerns of many residents in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies.

8.48 pm
Mr. David Gilroy Bevan (Birmingham, Yardley)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) on the way in which he has presented his case on behalf of Avon. I wish to express concern about the matters that worry him. These include whether he will get into the queue on behalf of Avon and whether the necessary money will be available.

I do not wish to repeat the detail that I included in my speech in favour of the second Midland Metro Bill. The first such measure is now an Act. I want, however, to make the House aware of some of the difficulties of introducing and financing breathtaking conceptions of a new form of transport that will become available to move the public in much larger numbers than can be done now on our roads and with less congestion.

We are faced in this place with an entirely obsolescent private Bill procedure. It is, regrettably, the only one available. It is objected to by many hon. Members on both sides of the House as inappropriate to the passage of any Bill. Regrettably, they regard that as giving them the right to interrupt and impede the progress of Bills and so prevent them from reaching the statute book. I hope that the House will give further thought to adopting a procedure that is more appropriate to this day and age.

Before a private Bill can be published, the exact route along which the lines will be built must be promulgated. That means that a lengthy and widespread public consultation procedure must be followed. One cannot please all the people all the time, and it is difficult to go through the proper consultation procedure in time to comply with the requirements of the Bill.

We must also consider funding for such schemes. I note that, in addition to the applications mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, four schemes have already been enacted and the Bills for two more are already before Parliament. A further seven are before us for consideration, and 25 studies are in progress in other cities. It is a very big sphere.

Funding must come from the Government, from the EEC, from the private sector—perhaps by operational concession—and from local sources. It is no easy matter to amass and amalgamate the funds and to work out where the money should come from and in what proportion. The Government will have to consider a formula for that. They will have carefully to reappraise the socio-economic benefits so that they can compare them with those built into the rate of return that they seek for road schemes. Road schemes carry less traffic, their capacity is less, and they cost many times more.

The Birmingham heartlands spine road is to cost about six times as much as a rapid rail transport scheme. Birmingham rapid rail transport line cost £3 million per kilometre. The current proposals are estimated as costing between £5 million and £10 million per kilometre and, in the case of the docklands light electric railway, some £20 million per kilometre.

The advantages in terms of prices and costs are clear. The proposals will provide jobs for many people and help to cure our problems by giving us an environmentally friendly system for moving people that is most attractive to look at and that performs whisper-quietly, unlike the old tramway system. The metro can negotiate city roads with tight corners and carry in its vehicles many more people, and will help us to get rid of traffic congestion. It will also help to improve our manufacturing capacity in no uncertain manner and will add a whole new dimension.

I beg the Minister to think deeply about the equation for costing the socio-economic benefits and the rates of return that the Government seek for investment in road transport. If he did so helpfully more money could be made available from the public sector.

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)

Will the hon. Gentleman add a supplementary question to the Minister and ask him why, in view of his sincere interest and questioning, the Department has recently changed the rules so that those proposing such systems have to prove the benefit to non-users? That will cause enormous delays in the completion of the Birmingham system, in which both he and I are interested, and make it much more difficult.

Mr. Bevan

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The assessment of non-user benefits lies at the heart of the problem. Doubtless, now that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that subject, he will not find it necessary to refer to it in the speech that he will make shortly. We are all ad idem in wanting to develop modern rail systems. I have been fortunate enough to see such systems throughout the world—in America and Europe. The 1960s witnessed the development of such systems in the United States; the 1970s saw their development in Germany; the 1980s brought them to France. Each system was bettter than the last, and the most perfect system so far is now to be seen in Grenoble. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the 1990s will bring the rapid implementation of such systems—the very finest—financed from all sources in the public and private sectors, throughout Great Britain.

8.56 pm
Mr. Iain Mills (Meriden)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) on having been chosen in the ballot and on his important speech. I think his constituents, and, I hope, his council, will listen to what he has said. He referred to a number of impediments in the system that is to help Bristol. I welcome the Midland metro, which will help my constituents, but I have a few points to put to my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood and for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) and to the rest of the House.

We all face two difficult, balanced problems. We must weigh possible improvements and the participation of local people in the shaping of those improvements. Why on earth do we have such an arcane procedure at present? The private Bill procedure does nothing at all for democracy. It does not help people to put their point of view and it is archaic; it is as though we were living in the last century. Arguments advanced in Bristol, in the west midlands or anywhere else should be heard in some form of public inquiry which would allow people to participate properly.

I wish I had a pound for every time someone has said to me, "I should like to see a better transport system, a Midland metro,"—in my hon. Friend's case, a Bristol metro—"but please provide me with some means of ensuring that the route suits me." It is not a case of, "Stop the route" or Don't put it there"; it may be a question of a move by a few yards, or a change in the traffic arrangements, or better car parking facilities, or better landscaping. Indeed, people could be asked where they want stops to be located. Under the present procedure, many people are prevented even from stating their views.

This is my hon. Friend's time, and I may be transgressing slightly, but I must refer to four groups that have protested to me, although not against having a metro in our area. This is a most important matter. It is a question of connecting Birmingham with the national exhibition centre. We are not against a better system running right across the egg-shaped part of the centre of England that I represent. In fact, we should like to see one in operation, but with the odd changes that the four groups who petitioned this House proposed.

As I spoke on Second Reading of the Bill, I shall not go on at length tonight. Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may have heard me speak then against the private Bill procedure. Three out of those four groups were prevented by that procedure from petitioning this House. The senior Deputy Speaker, whose judgment I trust absolutely, has confirmed that people whose land is not actually crossed by the route may not petition this House. Yet this route is as close as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape).

Mr. Snape

But not as noisy.

Mr. Mills

The hon. Gentleman is well known for his skill in debate. I shall not comment on the noise he makes, except to say that sometimes it is pleasant and sometimes not. We shall have to wait to hear what it will be like tonight.

I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood will not mind the main point that I want to make. This House must find a better way of proceeding with what is the most important development in public transport. We need light rail systems. We need quiet trams. My hon. Friend the Member for Yardley has explained how well these are doing at Grenoble. When constituents believe that they will provide a better transport system for both Bristol and the west midlands, why should procedures prevent those people from having their say? Little problems concerning routes are big problems for people living within metres of a line. By all means let us have grants from our own Government and from the European Community to improve systems. Unless public transport is improved, the west midlands and, indeed, Bristol, which I know quite well, will face real problems. The roads will be crowded.

Let us provide the funds, by whatever means—councils, the Government or the EEC. We must do all that we can to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood does not have to face difficulties from the local council. Let us make sure that those people who would welcome this benefit to their areas are provided with a real voice, that they are not denied the opportunity to make their suggestions. I am glad to say that, in the case of the west midlands, Centro—the West Midlands transport executive —has agreed that there should be further consultation. That should have happened long ago. By a combination of public pressure and public agreement, a better transport system could have been created to take us into the next century. But changes in the procedures of this House in respect of private Bills are essential.

9.3 pm

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)

The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) for providing the opportunity to debate this important subject, especially at a reasonable hour of the night. I do not suggest that had the hon. Gentleman been less successful in the ballot we might not have welcomed his contribution in quite the same way.

I shall deal in reverse order with the contributions that have been made so far. The points that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) made are ones that I have heard him make before. That is not intended as a criticism: he has every right to speak as often as he deems necessary on behalf of his constitutents. He will be aware of my views. I, too, believe that the objectors to the Midland metro should have been allowed to make their case before the appropriate Committee. Like the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan), I find the private Bill procedure less than satisfactory—to say the least—when it comes to proper consideration of objectors' views.

Opponents should be allowed to put their points of view and, like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the further consultation that has been promised to those groups. I happen to believe that they are wrong, but I understand their fears. Like the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Yardley, I, too, have seen the metro schemes, particularly in Grenoble, other parts of France and in Germany. Many of the fears that have been expressed about noise and pollution are groundless. There is little point in running such schemes through areas of low population because they need to run through fairly heavily built-up areas if they are to justify the cost of installation.

Mr. Bevan

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Grenoble only about 53 per cent. voted in favour of the scheme initially, but subsequently, after the system had been running for two years, 93 per cent. were in favour? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for the objectors to be heard, we must deal with the point that inhibits them, that of locus standi—having to have a property interest along the line of the route? That must be expanded into a proper system of consultation.

Mr. Snape

I was not aware of the figures that the hon. Gentleman has just given, but I accept them. The rules are far too restrictive. Those whose privacy and general environment are likely to be affected by such schemes should have the right to object rather than only people whose properties are directly affected. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have recently been to Grenoble to see the system there. I was most impressed by it, as I am sure that everyone who sees it would be. Like him, I found it possible not to hear the metro system, even though it was only a few yards away from the restaurant in which I was enjoying a rather good dinner. The rattle of the cutlery, or perhaps it was the clink of the glasses—it was some time ago—far exceeded the noise of the trams. The noise was not in the least obtrusive. Many of the fears that have been expressed are understandable, but groundless.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the cost of the scheme. I cannot challenge his figures, but he will probably agree when I say that at £3 million per kilometre they are a darn sight cheaper than most road schemes that the Department of Transport all too often favours. I am pleased that he agrees about the recent change in the investment criteria. If the Minister is not prepared to give permission for the funding of the schemes, I wish that he would come out and say it, so that we know where we stand.

Continually to change the rules, particularly when it adversely affects the projected profitability of the midland metro in Birmingham, is not helpful. It is nonsense to change the rules, as the Government have, so that benefits must be shown to non-users. That would not happen with any other mode of transport. I cannot see the sense in that rule change, other than as one of the delaying tactics in which the Department habitually engages. It makes the use of management time at Centro, formerly the West Midlands passenger transport authority, even less efficient. Instead of getting on with the job of managing, managers will have to find a fresh set of criteria to justify Midland metro to conform to the change of rules recently announced by the Department. That is a retrograde step and one that the Opposition deplore.

The hon. Member for Kingswood talked about the Avon scheme. I have also had recent experience of the Bristol rush hour, although not as much experience as he has had, and I am convinced that the traffic congestion round Bristol that he mentioned is serious and that something will have to be done in the 1990s to tackle it.

The Labour party's attitude towards such metro schemes is well documented in "Moving Britain into the 1990s: Labour's new programme for transport", which I commend to the hon. Member for Kingswood and to the Minister. I had some peripheral involvement in this document. It says: Labour will also encourage public and private collaboration in rapid transit systems which provide attractive, modern, clean and fast movement through cities. Now common in Western Europe, 11 schemes are already being considered in British cities. Since that document was drafted last year the number of British cities considering such schemes has increased by about half a dozen. The Minister will not be surprised to learn that the document goes on to say: Their development has been hindered by the narrowness of the government's financial approach. Labour will speed up the process for the construction of metro, light railway or tram systems in cities throughout Britain.

I have dealt with some of the details of the Government's changes to the criteria for giving the financial go-ahead for such schemes. It appears that the Avon scheme—about which the hon. Member for Kingswood has already spoken—meets the criteria.

I must say a few words about private sector involvement. I have made it plain that the Opposition have no deep ideological objections to it—[Interruption.] The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), is supposedly silent on these occasions, but he giggles girlishly for some reason.

Opposition Members believe that the great fault of private sector involvement in such schemes is that all too often promises do not match reality. We have seen that happen in London, with the much-trumpeted involvement by the property company, Olympia and York. in the extension of the Jubilee line. The millions of pounds originally promised have shrunk considerably.

All too often the private sector is not prepared to put up the cash, even though it benefits from the regeneration of urban areas that results from such schemes.

Mr. Hayward

I do not want to destroy what seems to be a bipartisan approach to light rail systems, but I noted that the hon. Gentleman quoted from the Labour policy document, saying that the Labour party would speed up the process. Will it oil the wheels with more money? Or is that also up for consideration along with the other 169 commitments in the Labour policy document?

Mr. Snape

If the hon. Gentleman had contained himself for a few seconds more, I was about to explain how the Labour party will speed up the process—[Laughter.]—and if the Government Whip can contain himself. Perhaps at some time in the future he will be moved to a speaking post. We eagerly look forward to his contribution.

We propose to give local authorities such as Avon the right to approach the private money market and to take a leading role in raising capital for such schemes without the— I was going to say dead hand, but I would not be so cruel to the Minister—shadowy figure of the Minister leaning over their shoulders. If a financial case can be made for such a scheme, I hope that there will be no ideological objections from the Conservative party to allowing local authorities the right to approach the private sector direct to seek its involvement. I hope that that little policy snippet also appeals to the Government Whip, although I had better not provoke him—[Interruption.] The Whip appears to find it revealing and interesting; we should be grateful that it is outside the normal conventions of the House for him to reply.

I hope that the hon. Member for Kingswood agrees that such an approach would be quicker, and—in his immortal phrase—would oil the wheels, although I understand some of the fears that he expressed about the Avon scheme. The Labour party's rules make it clear that decisions should be taken by elected Members; thus the Bristol district Labour party has no standing on the day-to-day decision-making processes, and nor has any other district Labour party.

I visited Bristol at the end of last year to speak at a light railway conference. I made the closing speech; the Minister for Public Transport opened the conference. Both our speeches were greeted, if not with acclamation, with a good deal of interest. While I was there I was approached by the management of Advanced Transport for Avon Ltd. about the dilemma—as ATA perceived it—and the difficulties that it was having with Bristol city council.

I explained to the local media that I did not know enough about the position on the ground in Bristol to make any detailed comment. However, I subsequently wrote on 3 January to the leader of Bristol city council about the difficulties. It is a long letter, and I do not propose to read it to the House; but I offered to come to speak privately to the group, and to play any mediating role that it thought would resolve the difficulties. Alas, I have received neither reply nor acknowledgment to that letter, so I am reduced to repeating the same offer tonight. I hope that Bristol city council will not think that at some unspecified time in the future a Labour Government—like the United States cavalry—will gallop to Bristol's rescue if, for ideological reasons, the scheme falls by the wayside.

As the hon. Member for Kingswood said, many other towns and cities in the United Kingdom are at present drawing up, or have introduced, parliamentary Bills for metro systems. I have received assurances from ATA about its intention to introduce a public transport system that will be fully integrated to combine buses and taxis, and which will allow co-ordinated interchanges, through ticketing and related services. That would appear to meet the criteria laid down in the Labour party's national policy document to which I have referred.

I hope that these Advanced Transport for Avon matters can be resolved and that the city and the public sector will play a full part in promoting future schemes. In my letter to the leader of the city council I said that we must live in the real world. If we can obtain the go-ahead for the complete metro system only by means of this approach, that is better than having no metro system at all.

Mr. Hayward

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clear comments on the position in Avon. I am not an expert in the Labour party's machinations; my grandfather was only deputy editor of The Daily Herald under the Attlee Government, so why should I know anything about the Labour party as it stands today? Will he confirm that what he said regarding the meeting with the Bristol Labour party as opposed to the Bristol city Labour group was that that vote is not binding on the actions of Bristol city Labour councillors?

Mr. Snape

I said, and I repeat, that no district Labour party anywhere in the country can bind elected Labour councillors when it comes to the decision-making processes of the authority. That applies just as much to Bristol district Labour party as it does to any other. The hon. Gentleman says that he does not know very much about Labour party rules. It is not unreasonable to describe them as byzantine.

I hope that the environmental and other transport benefits of the system will be realised, provided that there is agreement and co-operation between ATA and Bristol city council. I endorse the hon. Gentleman's point that the transport authority for the area is Avon county council. Although it is a hung council, it has agreed to the proposals. I hope that any outstanding difficulties will be resolved, despite the unsatisfactory nature of the private Bill procedure—a point on which all hon. Members agree.

I apologise for detaining the House for so long. However, I thought it right to point out that the Midland metro system and the ATA scheme are worthy of support and conform with the Labour party's views on urban transport in the 1990s.

9.23 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) on securing the debate and in particular on securing it at such a civilised hour. As the Minister who was selected to respond to this debate, I say that with real feeling, not merely as a conventional courtesy. There is a saying that Ministers now abed will think themselves accursed. However, I assure my hon. Friend that I am happy to be responding to the debate at this civilised hour.

My hon. Friend referred to the development of light rail systems and made it clear that it is not just in Avon that great interest is being shown in them. Similar proposals have been made throughout the country. He was perfectly right to say that the benefits that are being sought from light rail systems include escaping from traffic congestion and providing high capacity systems for greater numbers of passengers.

The Government have followed the development of light rail systems with great interest and considerable encouragement. I am pleased to see that the Transport Select Committee will be considering the options for public transport in urban areas, including light rapid transit, and hon. Members will look forward to the Committee's views in due course.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) spoke not so much with appalling frankness as with endearing candour about his exchanges with the Bristol Labour party, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood will have found much of what he said extremely helpful, so we thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments.

Mr. Snape

In that case, I had better withdraw most of what I said.

Mr. Portillo

The record stands.

It was churlish, in an otherwise generous speech, for the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East to pour a number of criticisms on the head of the Government. After all, under the Conservatives, a light rail system has been built in the east end of London—the docklands light railway, which is now operational. That is one more light rail system than was brought into operation under the last Labour Government.

Mr. Snape

The Minister is wrong again. It is a shabby affair in docklands—non-integrated and rather tatty, and it breaks down with monotonous regularity—and is not to be compared with the system in Newcastle, which was introduced by the last Labour Government—

Mr. Portillo

Oh?

Mr. Snape

It was brought into operation in 1977–78, those halcyon days when the Minister was probably still at school and the people rejoiced.

Mr. Portillo

My recollection is that it was brought into operation in 1981, but let us not quibble about it. We have approved a light rail system which the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East did not mention. I refer to the Manchester metrolink system, an important project which cost £110 million to build on the basis of a 50 per cent. section 56 grant from the Government for the eligible expenditure.

In other words, under the Conservatives there has been not simply talk about light rail systems, but action. The docklands light railway proves the point, and it is going from strength to strength. The hon. Gentleman had some ungenerous criticisms to make of the docklands light railway, but it is now being extended to Beckton and Bank, the frequency of operation is being increased and it will shortly move to two-car operation. I am concerned, as the hon. Gentleman knows, about the reliability of the operation, a matter to which the management of the railway is giving much attention. That is happening under my guidance, in my role as the Minister with special responsibility for transport in docklands.

The Manchester project was approved and the money committed during our announcement last summer on public expenditure. That has been widely welcomed in Manchester. More than that, we have been carefully. considering the light rail system proposed for south Yorkshire, the supertram system. That proposal was not given approval by the Government last summer, as the PTE would have wished. At a time when the Government made a generous settlement for transport—both public transport and roads—we were not able to find the resources last summer for the project, and the PTE was anxious that I should let it know whether the project in principle met the criteria that we had established.

I considered that carefully and was happy to write to Councillor Meredith, chairman of the South Yorkshire PTA, on 22 February, saying: I am glad to say that the combined project currently meets our appraisal criteria. That was an important statement for building confidence, so that the south Yorkshire development could continue, and in proving the point—questioned by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan)—that the criteria that had been set by the Government for light rail systems were achievable criteria. In the case of south Yorkshire, we have now approved expenditure of £6 million so that the project can be worked up further and considered at the appropriate time.

The purpose of the criteria, which have been mentioned in the debate, is to establish that, where there are external benefits for which it is not reasonable for the users of the system to pay, they can justify the payment of grant from Government funds. The criteria are pretty widely drawn and are set out in a circular sent out from my Department on 3 November 1989: Benefits to non-users will in most cases arise mainly from the relief from congestion. Other external benefits may include environmental improvements … Where relevant, promoters should also give an assessment of economic development, job creation, or regeneration benefits where these are in line with Government objectives, particularly in inner-city areas.

Those criteria are quite broadly drawn. If we are to be in the business of giving Government subsidy for those rail projects, it must be on the basis that the subsidy can be justified in terms of benefits which one could not expect to recoup from users of the system, but which are benefits for the general population. We have drawn the criteria broadly, and in the case of Sheffield it has proved possible for the criteria to be met in principle. We shall be interested to hear how the Sheffield project continues to be developed and we shall want to consider it for funding at the appropriate time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood asked me to give an assurance that funds would be available for the projects. My hon. Friend has considerable experience of the workings not only of government, but of the Department of Transport. I am bound to say to him that it is simply impossible to make such a commitment outside the normal public expenditure survey period. When the time comes, we shall want to consider the light rail project in line with others. I remind my hon. Friend that it is not a matter of theory, as we have already been able to give approval to a substantial sum in the case of Manchester.

Mr. Snape

I shall try not to interrupt again, but while we are on the subject of approvals for the schemes, will the Minister tell us about the Midland metro scheme and how soon the first line, which will pass through our respective constituencies, Madam Deputy Speaker, will get the go ahead?

Mr. Portillo

I cannot make such a prediction. The hon. Gentleman will know that, in the case of the Midland metro system, and in the case of the Bristol system or any other he may care to mention, there is not yet a firm proposal before the Department for us to consider. We shall be very willing to consider such proposals for section 56 grant when they come forward.

In addition, the project can apply to us for section 56 grant to help with the development of the case for the project. That has happened in the case of Sheffield. south Yorkshire. We have been able to make available funding of £6 million for the development stage of the project, rather than for the project itself. A similar pattern was followed in the case of Manchester.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood wanted to know whether I would confirm that the railway inspectorate had a role in light rail systems. I am happy to confirm that to him. The railway inspectorate would need to approve the works, and the approval of the Secretary of State for Transport would also be required, before the railway came into operation. The railway inspectorate would have health and safety responsibilities for the railway and any accidents on it would have to be reported under schedule 1 to the Railways (Notice of Accidents) Order 1986, on which I gave a written answer on 23 March.

My hon. Friend was also concerned about noise levels and vibration. He will have seen the answer that I gave on 23 March, which said that we had set up a committee so that we could consider the establishment of a national noise insulation standard, or standards, for the operation of new railway lines that would be related to the standard set by regulation for new highways. I shall reflect upon what my hon. Friend has said this evening, but the important point is that we want to treat railways in exactly the same way as highways, and that announcement last week was widely welcome.

I believe that it is reasonable to ask of any operator proposing a new service that he be able to give the most thorough information to those who will be affected. There is probably a considerable caucus of experience on the operation of railways on which to base information given to interested parties.

My hon. Friends the Member for Yardley and for Meriden (Mr. Mills) were perhaps principally concerned in their speeches about private Bill procedure and its shortcomings, as they see it. I see in the Chamber my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who is something of an expert on this subject, so I almost hesitate to say any more in his presence. Both my hon. Friends will be well aware of the Joint Committee report on this subject. More to the point, they will probably have heard or read the comments by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, who has said that he wishes to give urgent consideration to the matters raised in the report. It is not for me to go further than that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Yardley was concered about the funding criteria. In the case of the Midland metro proposal, he is of course speaking about a project that is very ambitious—I do not say that by way of criticism—and very expensive. He may be showing a certain nervousness about how that will shape up against the criteria. It is far too early to say, but I believe that the criteria are now very clear and firmly established, and it has been possible for one other system, the south Yorkshire, to qualify under those criteria.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood was concerned about what the attitude of Bristol city council would be and how that would affect the development of the proposal put forward by Advanced Transport for Avon Ltd. We welcome proposals from the private sector as well as from the public sector. When proposals come from the public sector, we are very keen that there should be some private sector involvement. When they come from the private sector, we are delighted to receive them and to consider them if there is an application for grant.

Obviously, if one intends to run a system through a particular area, it is very important to have some understanding with the city council. I have heard that Bristol city council has not given consent to the deposit of the ATA Bill for the city centre route, and that clearly must be a matter for the council. However, Avon county council, which is the highways and public transport authority, has given its consent. Plainly, however, there can be no decision on grant for that route until this uncertainty has been resolved. As my hon. Friend quite rightly said, if the possibility of running through the city centre is excluded, that may have fundamental effects on the scheme as a whole, so I very much hope that these difficulties and uncertainties can be sorted out.

I have been very pleased to meet representatives of Avon county council and to discuss the project with them. It was a very productive meeting. However, I do not yet know what the position on grant will be. We are awaiting the outcome of the economic appraisal; when that has been received, I shall again want to know the views of Avon county council. I hope that the scheme will offer a worthwhile contribution to meeting congestion problems in and around Bristol.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood has caused us to concentrate on one project, that for Avon, but the questions that arise there, paricularly about the way in which these projects will be appraised by the Government and about how they may qualify for section 56 grant, apply much more widely. The Government are well aware of the considerable and widespread interest in light rail systems. I think that the Government are right to establish clear criteria for the making of grant. It would be a mistake for us to be carried away by the idea that light rail systems are the only possible solutions to the public transport demands of various cities. There may be other, more cost-effective solutions. That is one good reason why any project should be assessed carefully, against well understood criteria.

The attitude of Government to light rail schemes is benign. We look forward to receiving applications. We have been pleased with the progress that we have been able to make so far, both with the construction of the docklands light railway and with the substantial grant aid to the Manchester metrolink project.