HC Deb 17 February 1992 vol 204 cc153-60

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]

11.52 pm
Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting)

I welcome the opportunity to debate the transport difficulties that many Londoners experience. London has high unemployment, housing shortages and hospital and education needs, but the transport needs of the capital are high on the list of any London Member.

We can all make statements and give facts and figures on any issue, but after 12 years of Conservative Government one cannot see any major ongoing improvement in the transport services of London. Indeed, not only Members of Parliament but many outside organisations regard a strategic planning authority to co-ordinate all aspects of transport in London as a major issue. We are still waiting for such an authority, but its establishment will be one of the top priorities of the incoming Labour Government. It is common sense to introduce such a policy because, throughout the 32 London boroughs, one often finds that one borough has absolutely no idea of the road development plans or traffic policy of the adjoining borough.

Whenever one opens one's post, one can be certain that some letters will express concern about London's transport systems. One has only to sit in on Transport questions to hear the complaints. As I read the correspondence that I receive, I often wonder why we are in such a mess in London. Why is public transport so unattractive for so many people?

We have just had a debate involving members of the Council of Europe. I am also a member of the Council of Europe and I very often use public transport in European cities and towns. We have many meetings in Paris: when one compares the Paris metro with the London underground, one finds in Paris an efficient, clean and much cheaper service than that in London, and people use the system in Paris. The entire network has modern trains; stations are being modernised and there is a real commitment by Governments—irrespective of their political complexion—to public transport. If only the same thing had happened in this country, the criticism that hon. Members and I make would not be applicable.

I shall deal now with the underground services affecting my constituency. To his credit, about 18 months ago the Minister for Public Transport came to my constituency and travelled on the Northern line, so he knows the problems and complaints. However, it is still an utter disgrace that we expect thousands of people to travel on that line. The Northern line is not the only problem, but it goes through my constituency. There is a continuing problem of escalators that do not work. At Tooting Bec station, one escalator is out of action and I am told that it will remain so for a considerable time. That causes various problems for people who want to use that station.

Against that background, fares are increased year by year. Even so, the Minister is not able to say, "Yes, I agree that fares are high, but look at the quality of the service that the commuters get for paying high fares." The tragedy is that they do not get a good service.

It is the same story with buses.

Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley)

I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that bus services in south Yorkshire were deregulated, and there is mention of bus deregulation in London. The public were told at the time that they would have a better service and cheaper fares. We have had a worse service, complaints from all over Doncaster—indeed, from all over South Yorkshire—fewer passengers and higher fares, and the public can no longer afford to use the effective transport service that we used to have. I warn my hon. Friend to beware of Government promises about deregulation. The Minister might want to comment on that.

Mr. Cox

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I was going to mention deregulation briefly because it is obviously being mentioned more and more in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) specialises in this subject and I know that, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will want to contribute to the debate.

What is the Government's vision for buses and road policy in general? A few years ago, the London assessment studies were carried out and vast sums of money were going to be spent on supposed road improvements. The area that I represent was to get the western environmental route improvement scheme. But once the general public became aware of what the scheme would do to the community, they rebelled, with the result that the proposed system was conveniently dropped. When schemes of that sort were under discussion, vast sums were to be allocated. Many of us would like to know where the money has gone that was set aside for road development schemes in many areas of London. Has it been used to fund other improvements in the transport system?

The Minister may say that red routes are part of the Government's policy. I can only say that they constitute a scheme that has not caught the imagination of the community in Islington. By and large, it has seen no improvements as a result of the introduction of the red route. Indeed, traders have faced additional obstacles during a difficult trading period.

In January, the Freight Transport Association published a document entitled "Transport Dilemma". Among other things, it called for better-quality public transport that would be supported financially by government, with pump-priming investment subsidies. Are we to hear from the Minister that there is a real commitment? Whatever has been invested by the Government over recent years, it has not developed the transport system. Investment has ensured only that the service continues to run while attempts have been made to improve existing services. The services that so many of us believe are needed urgently have not been developed.

What has Government funding amounted to when set against the moneys that have been sought by London Transport over a three-year period? What Government assistance was London Transport seeking and what did the Government give it to enable improvements to be made? It will do no good for the Minister to say that there are difficulties, that the country faces problems and that there must be restraint. London Members and London commuters say that there have been no good years. There have been no years during which those who run the buses or the underground service in London have been able to say, "How well the Government have responded to us." Year by year, that which was sought has not been approved.

It cannot be said that Britain is a poor country. The North sea has brought us enormous wealth. Whatever we may think of privatisation, enormous sums have come into the country as a result of it. The two sources have produced astronomical figures. How much of that money has been used to introduce improvements, especially in education? I shall bring my remarks to an end because I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

In a few weeks' time, we shall be facing a general election. Whatever the smears and abuses—sadly, the start of the campaign has introduced them already—there will be real issues, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) said, the general public in London and the rest of the United Kingdom will want to know where the parties stand. In my view, no issue will be of greater interest than where the parties stand on public transport.

We have seen what the Government have done in the past 12 years. We have had neither improvements nor the Government commitment that there should have been. I am sure that the public will welcome the opportunity when the election comes to pass judgment on the Government's record and decide what they believe an incoming Labour Government can do. That will be the real test, and many of us will welcome the opportunity for the people to judge the Government's record and to decide on the basis of that record.

12.5 am

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for having raised this matter tonight, and to the Minister for attending the debate at short notice.

One party—the Prime Minister, no less—has made his position clear, certainly on the matter of buses. On deregulation elsewhere, the right hon. Gentleman's citizens charter says: Deregulation has produced an expansion of both long-distance coach and local bus services and … passengers now enjoy a far wider variety of operation and services than before … We now intend to extend the benefits of a deregulated bus industry to London". Of course, it will be privatised, too.

I was very surprised at the news, and wrote to the Prime Minister because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) pointed out, in other metropolitan areas of Britain, the reverse is happening. In my hon. Friend's part of the world—South Yorkshire—passenger mileage fell by 21 per cent. between 1986 and 1988. In Merseyside, it was 30 per cent.

I wrote to the Prime Minister and pointed that out. On 22 August, he replied—ironically, as it turns out tonight— The evidence from outside London shows clearly that deregulation has resulted in a more innovative approach to the provision of bus services, with an increase in the number of buses and in total bus mileage operated. If you wish to pursue this point further, I am sure Roger Freeman will be able to cite chapter and verse". The right hon. Gentleman may be able to say that bus mileage has increased, but bus numbers fell by 3,000 in the metropolitan areas, as returns to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities showed.

It is ironic that, in answer to a parliamentary question on 22 July—during the very month in which the charter was published—the Secretary of State for Transport praised London Transport thus: London Transport … has done so much already to improve the quality of services provided by buses in London. I would not altogether go along with that—especially as LT has had its subsidies from taxpayers and charge payers cut. Having praised London Transport, however, the Government intend to deregulate and privatise all at once, and take us back to the days of the private buses and transport chaos that existed in London before LT was created in 1933—with all-party agreement, I might add—and became a world model transport agency.

We have a degree of integration in transport. The travelcard, which is well advertised, is an example. In the answer that I quoted, the Secretary of State said: The Government will be working actively with operators in the coming months to encourage them to come up with their own proposals for such schemes after deregulation. That refers to the travelcard. The Secretary of State's reply continued: It was therefore decided that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to legislate to secure the future of the present Travelcard scheme or to ensure that a suitable successor scheme is devised. So there is to be no legislation for that.

What about the rightly prized old-age pensioner's travelcard, brought in by the Greater London council, which was a boon to all London's pensioners? The Government rightly say that that will continue, but it is important to note that the answer to which I referred says: The London boroughs will have the same discretion as local authorities elsewhere to vary the terms of their concessionary arrangements. However, they will … be required to operate a Londonwide discretionary travel scheme."—[Official Report, 22 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 333–36.] However, there is a choice to charge, and the boroughs do not charge at the moment.

Why was that included if not to allow some authorities, the political persuasions of which I can guess, the freedom to charge? We had a great battle in the early 1970s all over London because some Tory authorities were unwilling to contribute. We managed to get over that, but the parliamentary answer to which I referred clearly threatens to put the clock back.

As I said, London's transport became the envy of the world in the 1930s. It was an integrated system that was willed by the House and by the people of London. It was owned by the people of London. Long ago, we had our own tram services in East Ham and West Ham. They were later converted to trolley buses. We own the buses in London. Although they may not be perfect, they are subject to improvement. We can ask Ministers about them. They are the property of the people of London whom we represent.

The buses should not be sold off, particularly not to pirates from Hong Kong. That might sound a little far-fetched, but any busman will confirm that some of the operators who are hovering in the wings come from as far away as Hong Kong. We are all aware that the Government sell our assets to people from abroad.

We are not considering a citizens charter or a passengers charter for the people of London. If it ever comes to pass, it will become a citizens' nightmare.

12.10 am
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on securing this debate on the important Subject of improved transport in greater London. The hon. Gentleman's solution to the problems that he described was the creation of a strategic planning authority—the Greater London authority. Doubtless we shall argue the merits of that at the hustings.

The Government believe that that is the wrong way to approach transport provision and planning in London. The Department of Transport fulfils the major part of that remit and, within the Department, the London transportation unit has a specific responsibility for the co-ordination of planning information for the provision of public transport services in London and for road planning.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning and I regularly meet the LPAC—the London Planning Advisory Committee—and the Department of Transport sponsors several assessment studies which consider road and rail options in different parts of London, and the hon. Member for Tooting referred to several of those. If we consider the Government's record over the past 12 years on better quality public transport, the phrase used by the hon. Member for Tooting, the House will agree that there has been significant improvements. The record is good in relation to development.

The Government have accepted the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in respect of London Underground for a level of funding for the existing underground of about £700 million per annum. That level will be reached in 1993. We accepted that recommendation, which means that a massive programme of improvements will be made to the Central line amounting to more than £700 million. In addition, individual stations will be refurbished. For example, the Angel will be refurbished at a cost of £70 million. Other stations will also be improved.

At the southern end of the Northern line, about which the hon. Member for Tooting is particularly concerned, the modernisation of stations at Tooting Broadway, Tooting Bec, Clapham South and Clapham North will proceed. However, the complete refurbishment of the Northern line cannot commence until the massively expensive Central line programme is complete. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is sensible to move from major programme to major programme on the underground.

The Government have consistently supported the construction of new underground lines, and I hope very much that the construction of the Jubilee line will commence shortly if Parliament approves the private Bill which is currently in another place. Thereafter, progress can be made on crossrail and the Chelsea-Hackney line. I do not accept the criticism that, in our forward planning, we have neglected the needs of London Underground. The chairman has described his aspiration for what he describes as a decently modern metro. He and London Regional Transport are going to get just that.

Commuters come in from significant distances compared with other great European cities—indeed, 76 per cent. of all commuters coming into greater London come by rail or underground, compared with only 14 per cent. by car. As for British Rail, there is a major programme within Network SouthEast—more than £350 million last year, and I hope that a similar amount will be spent on investment purposes in this financial year. That includes re-equipping the Chiltern line and commencing the major work of re-equipping the inner Kent suburban commuter lines.

This morning, I visited Liverpool Street station and saw for myself the tremendous improvements and the resignalling project which has brought great benefits to the number of trains which can enter that rather constricted space.

The hon. Members for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to buses, as did the hon. Member for Tooting. However, I could deal briefly with South Yorkshire. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Don Valley about falling patronage. When I was in Sheffield quite recently, I inquired about the reasons for the fall over the past 12 months—about 10 per cent., which is very disappointing, but it was in a period well past deregulation and when fares had not risen substantially. One of the main reasons for that is the marked preference of the people of South Yorkshire to own their own motor cars.

Mr. Redmond

I do not mislead the Minister. The public of South Yorkshire, in particular Doncaster, are highly dissatisfied following the deregulation of buses. There are multiple fares within Doncaster chasing a diminishing number of passengers. Because the companies want the most profitable routes, other areas invariably have to suffer. For weeks, a group of old-age pensioners in my patch of Edlington were without a bus service because the private bus company would not operate it and, due to the financial restrictions placed on South Yorkshire Passenger Transport, it obviously did not want it. Thankfully, South Yorkshire Passengers are coming to rectify the situation, but unless positive action is taken, there will be further deterioration—more cars and more polution.

Mr. Freeman

It is a perfectly fair point that the price of competition is, in some cases, not necessarily disruption of services but change in services. Competition can mean the concentration of private sector companies on routes that they believe to be the most profitable. That is why it is important that local authorities, and in London the London Bus Executive, should subsidise routes that are socially necessary and are not provided by the operators. In Greater London, when we introduce our Bill in the next Parliament, we shall make provision for significant subsidies by the taxpayer, not the community charge payer, for socially necessary routes.

I was saying that, in South Yorkshire one of the main reasons for the recent fall in patronage has been the desire of local people to own their own motor cars, which is one reason why the Government have strongly supported supertram, which is another way of trying to capture people away from the motor car and back on to public transport.

The hon. Member for Newham, South referred to travelcards. I assure the hon. Gentleman that travelcard and similar schemes are extremely valuable, not only in London but in other great metropolitan areas such as Newcastle, the west midlands, and Greater Manchester, where I recently talked to the passenger transport authority about how to preserve, upon a sale of its municipally owned bus company, an all-bus operator card. There is no evidence that a travelcard will not thrive in London following deregulation. We shall strive to ensure that it does so. There is no evidence that the hon. Gentleman can cite from anywhere outside London of the death of such all-bus operator or multi-mode travelcards.

We have no intention of jeopardising the concessionary fares scheme. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Newham, South will know, we propose to legislate for the automatic roll-over of a scheme that applied in the previous year into a year when there is no agreement between all the London boroughs on a particular scheme. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to ensure that such a scheme is pan-London, applying to all the boroughs. That is because many bus routes operate through several boroughs. It is important not to fragment the operation of the concessionary fares scheme within London.

Mr. Spearing

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Freeman

I have only one minute left, so I wish to conclude.

The hon. Member for Newham, South also mentioned subsidies. I have already repeated the Government's assurance that subsidies for socially necessary routes will continue in a deregulated environment in greater London. The reason for deregulation is simple. It is to enable other bus companies to introduce additional services in greater London—initially, we believe, in the outer suburbs. We think that that will be of advantage to Londoners, because they will have more bus services to choose from. Although there might be some initial disruption of services, I do not accept that in the long run it will mean fewer buses operating.

Our policy on roads is clear. We have introduced up to 300 miles of new red routes in London to speed the flow of buses. The House will know that I recently announced Government assistance for bus priority measures not only in greater London but throughout the country. I hope that we shall have further announcements to make in the coming months. For greater London, we shall also study the applicability of road pricing.

The hon. Member for Tooting suggests an authority for Greater London, but no money. His colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench can offer not a penny more for public transport in London. We have a good development record, and we believe in a co-ordinated transport policy and priority for public transport.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Twelve midnight.