Public Transport (Overcrowding)

HC Deb 04 March 2004 vol 418 cc319-54WH

[Relevant documents: Seventh Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2002–03, HC 201-I, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 6072.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned— [Joan Ryan.]

2.30 pm

Mrs.Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)

Getting out of bed in the morning and facing the day is a task that is quite often governed by a number of necessities. Most of us do it for a lifetime because we have to earn cash, keep a roof over our heads, feed and clothe our family and get ourselves an acceptable standard of living. One thing that undoubtedly affects our feelings about our work, where we go, what we do and how long we have for our own pursuits after we have finished work is the quality of travel forced upon us by the need simply to get to our place of work.

Unfortunately, nowadays for many people in cities— and often for those in small towns—that simple journey to the shop, office, school or hospital is not simply an uncomfortable experience but an unpleasant one. Indeed, many people in this Palace will recognise that experience because they endure it every day. Those who want a much more sensible attitude to be taken towards living in towns and cities, and who want to be able to talk about the quality of people's lives, have a special responsibility to examine how those elements are made up and which of them is most important.

The Transport Committee decided that one essential part of the transport system is its response to customer needs, and overcrowding comes top of the list of irritations that the general public face every day. We looked in great detail and over a number of sessions at what happens to people when they travel by train or by bus in enormously pressured conditions, and at how that affects them at work. It was clear that many employers are aware that when people travel to work in cattle-truck conditions—however that is defined—they do not arrive full of good will, charm and the desire to love their fellow man and woman; they arrive stressed, irritated and extremely tired before they even start their working day. Frankly, that is not in anyone's interests.

The Select Committee therefore looked closely at what was happening and at the impact on our daily lives. First, there is the straightforward impact on business—not just on the staff but on the straightforward management of business problem If people cannot say what time they will arrive for appointments because they have no idea whether they will be able to push themselves on to a crowded train, that must affect the way they work. If they are unable to say whether the bus that comes along will stick to a reasonable timetable and have room for them among the crowd who are already jammed in, that will affect what they do when they arrive at work.

Moreover, almost inevitably, overcrowding affects tourism and has a monetary cost in terms of the facilities offered to visitors to our capital city and other tourist spots. No one needs to be told that the average tourist will be influenced by the obvious aspects of travel in deciding where to go. They will want to be able to get about comfortably and safely and at a reasonable cost. They will not want to find an old, broken down and very stressed system that is unable to produce the level of comfort that they regard as essential for their holiday. Such considerations will affect their decision whether or not to come back. There is a real, economic cost in refusing to look at what is happening to the transport system.

What do we do about the situation? The Government appear to think that we should accept that there are problems with capacity, management and rolling stock, and that by using soft words it is possible to turneth away the wrath of the traveller. I am afraid that that is not how it works.

I give the Government full credit for being the first Government for many years to have proper plans for transport and a clear view of the amount of money needed to bring the transport system up to a level that is acceptable to us all. However, we must look beyond the overall measures and the careful structure that the Government have put in place, and see how those measures are affecting the transport system, whether it is working and whether we should do anything to improve it. That is the position from which the Committee started, but that is not to say that we were not delighted with what the Government had done up to that point, or that we did not support the commitment to investing very large sums not only outside London, but inside the capital. However, we wanted to see whether the money was being spent in the right way and whether even more aspects of the system needed to be improved.

We considered buses, for example. Whether one approves or disapproves of the congestion charge, it is clear that it has markedly improved the management of London. There are many aspects of the charge that my Committee would like to discuss in detail at another time, but the reality is that unless there is proper enforcement of the rules that enable buses to move easily along crowded streets, we shall not gain the full benefit of the sums that taxpayers are paying. We want to encourage people to get out of their cars and on to buses and trains, but they will do so only if they find that a pleasant and acceptable experience.

We should consider carefully whether we are enabling buses to use the aspects of street planning that local authorities and the Government have put in place. That means that we must be sure that bus lanes are kept clear and that those who contravene the rules are suitably punished. We must also be sufficiently flexible to realise that the creation of a bus lane along very crowded roads will, in itself, sometimes have a knock-on effect on other aspects of street life.

I was saddened recently when my excellent milkman—I want him to continue to deliver liquid milk to my London flat—told me that he has to cross bus lanes or park on pavements, which is even worse, and that the fines that he faces for delivering milk in London amount to more money than he earns in a week. That is not a constructive way of ensuring that we retain milk delivery in our inner cities. This issue needs to be considered.

That is not the real problem, however. The point is that we could easily end up reversing the effects of the increases in investment in public transport that we have seen in recent years if the systems do not have the necessary capacity to handle the increases in passenger numbers. Whether we are talking about buses or the rail system, capacity is one of the fundamental difficulties.

The Committee was very concerned at the way in which capacity was estimated. We tried hard to understand precisely what forms of calculation were used, and it seemed to us that, far from having a formula that considered real conditions, a formula had been worked out that allocated so many inches— suppose that one should talk about metres and centimetres in this instance— and so many agreed measurements of space to so many people, irrespective of whether that allowed people to travel comfortably, or even of whether seats were available in those conditions.

That simply will not do, and one has only to look at the trains in the south-east, which come into stations packed to the doors with passengers, to know that. One has only to look at the famous bendy buses that trundle round the streets of London to know that capacity should not simply be a question of the number of people who can be jammed into a vehicle; capacity should take account of the number of people who can be carried safely and comfortably. So far, we are not convinced that the Government have a proper formula that they have thought about in sufficient depth, or that they have produced a realistic response to the difficulties.

My Committee will look into the question of rolling stock in the rail industry in considerable detail; in fact, it has produced a report on the rail industry that will be published soon. It is clear that rolling stock is an issue of grave concern. For example, we were astonished to discover that, so far as we know, the people who ordered the rolling stock for one important scheme had not considered the fact that they could not run it because they had insufficient electricity. I am sure that one of my colleagues will explore this issue in greater depth. Those who bought and who delivered the rolling stock had not worked out that it could not be used, and the company involved were astonished suddenly to discover, while devising its plan for bringing the rolling stock on-stream, that insufficient power was available to make it usable.

My Committee found that situation a little astonishing—I hesitate to say laughable—partly because if most of us in our daily lives were commissioning something very expensive, particularly something as substantial as rolling stock, we would think carefully about what we wanted to use it for and where it would work. That did not seem to happen in this case. We found that astonishing, and we found the Strategic Rail Authority's attitude to the problems associated with rolling stock rather complex.

It is true that the botched privatisation allowed rolling stock companies to escape supervision, and that they are not controlled in the same way as other parts of the rail industry. All travellers pay a high price for that. However, it is also true that unless rolling stock companies comply with a strategy that meets the need for proper carriages and passenger comfort, we shall never get out of this absurd situation.

We think it important that the SRA, on behalf of the Government, consider carefully the capacity of the network. In this case, we are thinking of the rail network, but one could extend the argument to road use. Unless the Government have a clear plan and an understanding of what franchise-holders will do in relation to their customers' needs, we shall continue to have unacceptable conditions for a long time.

Individual companies must not use the argument of health and safety work to run a sub-acceptable service. It is no excuse to say that the rolling stock must be safe; that should be a given for anyone in the transport industry. Companies should start from that point and ensure that that is how they think in their future planning.

There is a great deal more in our report, but I have only a couple of things to say in answer to the Government's response. I think that we all found it disappointing, at the very least. Our constituents expect from us an involvement in their lives that reflects a real care for their future. Their conditions of travel to work are so fundamental that they affect them every single day of their lives. The Government say that chronic overcrowding is not an acceptable face of modern travelling". We could not agree more strongly. Of course, chronic overcrowding is not acceptable and we must not accept it. That means dealing with the travel industry's capacity to cope with travellers' needs; rolling stock companies having to think seriously about the supply that they offer to companies, and which they know can be usefully used; and. above all, ensuring that the House says to all transport companies, "You are now receiving very large amounts of money from the taxpayer."

I read only today of enormous profits being returned by bus companies, which some of us feel are still not producing a sufficient level of care. Bus companies should have a right to receive a proper return on the money that they invest, but they cannot do so by continuing with a system of carrying passengers daily that is not of an acceptable standard. That applies to the companies that say on the one hand that they must manage demand and have control over their stations, and that that should not be the responsibility of individual rail workers, but which on the other hand seem to accept that the situation will continue for some time.

The Government have made a strong start in the field of transport. We expect them to continue not only to provide that level of care, but to take our views seriously. The report constitutes important work on an issue that affects many thousands of people every day, and they are crying out for our assistance.

2.46 pm

Mr.John Horam (Orpington) (Con)

We owe a great debt to the Transport Committee and its Chairman, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs.Dunwoody), for the report. I commend the hon. Lady not only on what the report says, but on the conciseness with which it says it. As an ex-Chairman of a Select Committee, I am in favour of producing short pithy reports that ram home a message, and this report does that well. The experience of travelling to work is fundamental to the lives of many of our constituents, and we have a duty of care to be involved in that experience.

The hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) and the Minister all have experience of the chronic overcrowding—the "cattle-truck experience", as the hon. Lady put it—on London's commuter trains. That experience is totally unsatisfactory. I received an e-mail today from a constituent saying: I have been a commuter for over 20 years and am dismayed to witness the continued decline in punctually, cleanliness and safety of our trains. That constituent did not specifically mention overcrowding, but I have been told about it recently. Sadly, I have just come from the funeral of the former Member of Parliament for Orpington, Ivor Stanbrook, who died last week—some hon. Members may recall him. Many constituents as well as MPs were at the funeral, and one constituent told me that only this week he was on a train that was so overcrowded that it had to slow down, so it was not only overcrowded but late. He was not aware whether it had to slow down for safety reasons, but that shows the interconnection, to which the hon. Lady referred, between safety, overcrowding, punctuality and regularity.

Many constituents suffer daily from that matrix of issues, and I am afraid to say that things will get worse. Many trains being brought in for the commuter services in south-east England have smaller capacities than those that they are replacing, because they now have a crumple zone at each end of the coach and toilets for the disabled. Those are good modifications that are necessary for disabled people and to enhance safety, but the result is smaller capacity on the new coaches. In the immediate future, the situation will not continue as it is but will worsen.

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich was right to home in on the subject of capacity; we must try to improve it, certainly on the rail service. The first capacity issue is the width of the track. There has been little addition to track space entering London from the south-east, and there are one or two bottlenecks. A classic one in my part of the world is the Borough Market junction. Anyone who is interested in transport will have been aware of that problem for years, and it is still unresolved. It will be interesting to see whether the Minister comments on where we have got to with it. As I understand it, the Deputy Prime Minister, whom I regard as a high priest of dither and disaster in that respect, is still examining it from a planning point of view. I recognise that there is a conflict, because an historic market directly abuts the railway interchange. None the less, clear-cut decisions have to be made. Otherwise, we will be stuck with that bottleneck, which prevents us from increasing the track capacity for that whole segment of south-east London, which is important to me and to other hon. Members.

The second aspect is that if the track cannot be augmented, maybe the length of the train can be increased to 12 coaches. I find it rather odd that, as I understand it, Her Majesty's inspectorate insists that if there are more than 10 coaches, there must be a conductor as well as a driver. I wonder why that figure is 10 rather than 12, because it means that train operators are reluctant to use 12-coach trains, which is the maximum length, rather than 10-coach trains. That is a pity.

There is also the issue of what happens with 12-coach trains at stations, and whether the passengers can get on and off in a satisfactory way. The problem is the length of the platforms. I was glad to hear at a recent Network Rail presentation that there is a plan to spend quite a lot of money on increasing the length of the platforms at about 35 stations in the London area

Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con)

Does my hon. Friend not agree that one of the problems is the cost of extending those stations and the excessive regulation that must be observed when platforms are lengthened. I encourage the Minister to examine that issue and reduce the regulation so that stations can be more easily and cost-effectively extended to take 12 carriages.

Mr. Horam

My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point, which I asked the Secretary of State about at a recent Question Time. He said that the scales had fallen from the Department's eyes as regards the difficulty of lengthening station platforms. He led me to believe that the Department had long been told by the experts that it was a difficult and expensive thing to do, and that all sorts of other factors had to be changed. That is rubbish—the platform can be extended in a simple and cost-effective way. I gather that Ministers have finally tumbled to that fact, and a programme is under way. If that is the case, I am pleased to hear it.

Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)

The most desirable option is to have platforms that are adequate for the length of the train, but does my hon. Friend not agree that, in this age of intercoms and locking doors, it ought to be possible, in many cases where there is overcrowding, to run trains longer than the existing platforms, to ease the problem?

Mr. Horam

I agree entirely; that is the common-sense view. However, I understand that there are severe technical problems. Many trains use a satellite system, for health and safety reasons, but it is not yet operative. That prevents them from adopting what used to be the usual approach, whereby the carriages are locked and unlocked and people are told that they can or cannot get on and off at particular stations. The operators are now obliged to use a satellite system, but it does not work yet. That is a problem that the Minister may understand better than I do.

Having examined the matter carefully, I find that there is often a difference of opinion between the train operating companies and Network Rail as to whether station platforms, particular those in some of the termini, such as Waterloo and Charging Cross, are long enough to accommodate a full 12-car train. That is another issue that must be examined in a practical way to find out whether the situation is satisfactory. There are clear differences of opinion on those issues. My constituents' hearts often sink when they see what should be an eight-coach train coming in, but it has been shortened because of mechanical failures on the line, and only four or six coaches turn up. They are then crowded into a much shorter train than they had expected.

The hon. Member for Eltham may recall that he and I attended a presentation by Network Rail, at which the chief executive, Mr. Armitt, was present. The presentation was remarkably complacent and I was not impressed by the approach adopted by the people giving us information. They blithely said that the new trains would be more prone to mechanical failure than the old trains. The figures quoted were that 40,000 to 60,000 hours used to elapse between failures, but with the new trains that figure would probably be 25,000 hours, and could even be 6,000 hours.

A piece appeared in The Times about it, headed, £4bn shambles of unreliable new trains" A report from the National Audit Office, which considered the issue, had said that "20 per cent of the new trains have experienced mechanical failure, more than 15 per cent have had problems with on-board computer systems, more than 8 per cent have had air conditioning failures and 4 per cent have had power supply problems. That is not a happy story.

Those problems could be worsening, which is very unsatisfactory for my constituents and many others. For reasons that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich graphically pointed out, train travel is the beginning and the end of most people's day in the southeast of England. I hope that the Minister will not tell us all that rubbish about new trains being the new nirvana, when clearly they are not. My constituents do not want new trains per se; they want a decent service that is not overcrowded, and is punctual, clean and safe.

2.57 pm

Mrs.Louise Ellman (Liverpool.Riverside) (Lab/Coop)

All too many passengers are aware of overcrowding in public transport, yet the issue has received surprisingly little attention. I am pleased that the Select Committee decided to consider the matter, and I note that, following our inquiry and the Government's response, there has at least been some recognition of the problem and some small, if not sufficient, attempts to deal with it. Public transport should be comfortable and convenient. That is important if we are going to encourage its use and maximise its impact in helping to develop our local, regional and national economies. That means that for business passengers and tourists, it is essential that public transport is convenient and comfortable.

When we took our evidence, it came as a great surprise to the Select Committee that so little work had been done nationally on this issue. When we spoke to the Health and Safety Executive, we were surprised to find that—if I recall correctly— it had undertaken no work at all on the stress impact of overcrowding. There is a safety issue, but there is another issue of stress, to which very little attention has been given. When I recently asked my hon. Friend the Minister in a written question for his assessment of the impact of overcrowding, particularly on trains, he said that he could not give me an answer because he had not made any assessment of it, and the matter was the responsibility of the operators. I believe that overcrowding is an issue of sufficient importance for the Minister to take an interest, and accept some responsibility.

Since the Committee published its report, there has been some movement. The Strategic Rail Authority has announced that it is to instigate a study of the impact of overcrowding. The SRA's rolling stock strategy, published in December, accepted that the plans for growth in rolling stock had not recognised anticipated growth as well as the existing position. I assume that that means that in future, plans will take note of the need to anticipate passenger growth as well as to deal with the current situation. The National Audit Office report, published last month, confirmed that rolling stock had not kept up with passenger growth. One of the difficulties that we identified was that although rolling stock had been ordered, the rise in passenger numbers had not been anticipated. That is a grave failing.

Earlier this week, on 2 March, we were informed that the Rail Safety and Standards Board had decided to conduct research into overcrowding on trains and at stations, and that the Health and Safety Laboratory had been awarded the contract. Although that action is belated, I am pleased that note has been taken of this important issue.

Studies are important, but we have reached the time when we need action, not just studies that take us some time into the future. I am pleased to see the work that has come from the regions. National bodies have been very slow to act; they have not recognised the problem, and have been slow to react once they have been forced to recognise it.

I welcome the work that has been undertaken by the rail passengers committee for north-western England, which has carried out a survey into overcrowding on trains. That survey was undertaken in the autumn, and its four findings have not yet been published, but it raises several key points. First, it points to shortages in rolling stock—a key element in overcrowding. It clearly shows rail orders have not anticipated passenger growth on specific lines. It poses the important and specific question of whether trains scheduled for 2008 for the trans-Pennine express will be able to meet new demands arising from passenger growth—and the answer to that is unclear. The route links York, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool, and it is due to start in 2006.It is not clear at this point whether the rolling stock involved in that franchise will be able to meet passenger growth, or whether it can cope only with the current passenger numbers. That is a specific and practical question that we need to deal with, rather than waiting until problems arise.

The north-western passengers committee also points to problems on Virgin Cross Country trains—the Voyagers—which are too short for current passenger numbers. It specifically mentions the Manchester-Birmingham-Reading route, where there is already chronic overcrowding. The Voyager trains link major cities and areas, so it is important that that matter be considered.

I also asked the Minister a parliamentary question about the difference between the number of seats available on the new Pendolino trains operating between Liverpool and London, and the number that had been available before those trains were in operation. I got an answer detailing the number of seats available now, but the comparison that I asked for was omitted from the answer Perhaps that was just an error, and it will be corrected this afternoon.

The north-western rail passengers committee has done invaluable work in drawing attention to a number of other specific problems relating to overcrowding. It has looked into problems with transport to Blackpool, which is important not only for Blackpool but for the whole of the north-west. It has drawn attention to specific overcrowding problems on the Liverpool to Manchester line, and specifically to the 7.49 Liverpool to Norwich train, which goes through Manchester, where there is regularly chronic overcrowding. At times, people are left behind on the platforms.

The committee has also drawn attention to problems on other routes, such as between Liverpool and Manchester Piccadilly. Again, there is chronic overcrowding at key times. It also mentions problems on the 8.16 Warrington to Manchester route people are regularly left behind at the station because they cannot get on the train. If we are to develop the north-west regional economy properly, and develop the links between Liverpool and Manchester, the two major cities there, the current problem of chronic overcrowding must be dealt with quickly.

Most of us are committed to developing a proper rail service. We see how important that it is for individuals, business and tourists and we want some action. The north-western passenger committee has drawn attention to specific problems following on from the Transport Committee's report. We are looking for action. There has been very little action at national level, and even the information has come from the regions. I look forward to the time when a directly elected north-west regional assembly will be able to use power and influence to ensure that action is taken to improve the train service in the north-west.

The Select Committee considered the national situation. I hope that by drawing attention to the problem of overcrowding on public transport generally, and specifically on trains, which is a national and a regional problem, we will ensure that action is taken. I hope that action is taken nationally, and that the regional voices will continue to be heard, because we have allowed this situation to continue for far too long; we have acted as if the stress of overcrowding is acceptable, and we have ignored the economic impact of overcrowded, uncomfortable trains.

3.6 pm

Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con)

I am not a member of the Select Committee on Transport, but having heard this debate I wish I were. Perhaps I could be of more use to my constituents if I were a member. The report is excellent, and better for its brevity, I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr.Horam).

I am a dilettante in the sense of being an amateur in this subject, but it is important to the quality of life of my constituents, which is why I am here.I congratulate the Select Committee, particularly the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs.Dumwoody), on bringing these matters forward as they have done.I guess that the hon. Lady has forgotten more about public transport, and the railways than I could ever know, even if I spent a lifetime studying them, and I bow to her knowledge in all such matters. I am pleased to contribute to the debate, and I was pleased to hear the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, because what he said was excellent. He is well informed and represents his constituents' interests well in this place, as hon.Members should on this subject—and on all others.

Mine is a dormitory constituency for London, in dormitory commuter land. It is like a ghost town at 8 am: it empties as thousands of my constituents come up to work in London. Most of them work in the City—although a number work in the Palace of Westminster—and they depend totally on the effectiveness of public transport, particularly rail.

In paragraph 7, the Select Committee rightly draws attention to the impact on business life of public transport that is not working as well as it might. That causes enormous stress to my constituents; some of them have lost their jobs in the end, in extreme circumstances, because of public transport failures, and people from my area sometimes wonder whether employers will offer them jobs when they find out where they come from, and which line they are going to use. Fortunately, the LTS—London, Tilbury and Southend—line has improved tremendously in recent years since privatisation, but it still has a long way to go I congratulate c2c on what it has done so far, and there is more good work to come.

There is not just a problem at the beginning of the day, there is also a problem at the end of the day. My constituents sometimes arrive home very late and heavily stressed because of the unreliability of the rolling stock, and the overcrowding. I have been seriously told that the old LTS line led to a number of divorces and major domestic problems in my constituency. Members here may smile at that, but this is a really serious problem, not just in working life but in domestic life as well.

I congratulate the Southend-on-Sea railway travellers association on the work that it does to represent my constituents who travel on the LTS line. My constituents must of course join the train at Benfleet station, the busiest station on the line in terms of the number of passengers getting on and off the train. The problem is that by the time my constituents get on the train, they discover that rather than a 12-carriage train, a four or eight-carriage train arrives. The train has come though several stations and is already full, so either they are left behind on the station, looking at each other exasperatedly—I am often left there with them—or we have to stand on the train all the way to Fenchurch Street, make our way to the underground station near the Tower of London, and then we have to stand on the underground as well. It is frightful, and if the Government can do anything at all to resolve this issue, that would be a great service to my constituents. I again congratulate the Transport Committee on bringing this subject to the attention of the House.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington said, capacity, which is covered in chapter 3 in the report, is at the heart of the matter. He explained about the 12-coach issue, so I will not repeat all that he said, but I agree with him entirely. Paragraph 16 says: Public transport will only be attractive if it meets people's real needs. That means that there must be adequate capacity at peak periods. The way in which capacity and overcrowding are measured is important and germane, and I am delighted that the report draws attention to that, but we must also have more carriages and more reliability. New trains should be more reliable than the trains that they replace, and that is not always the case. I know that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich has got her teeth into the power supply issue as well, and she will not let that go, because she has the needs of the travelling public and commuters at heart.

It would be good if somewhere in the country there were a track dedicated to testing new trains, so that they could be run in before being delivered. I am not an expert, so perhaps that matter is in hand; perhaps such a track already exists, and I am just out of date, but I seem to recall that testing trains before delivery was a problem.

One way to get capacity up would be to create new stations on the LTS line. About 3,000 constituents from Canvey Island alone travel on that line. They have to travel off the island to get to their train, either on public transport or in a car that they have to park, and then they often find the train is already full when they try and get on it. At night they have to get back to the island. All that causes enormous road transport difficulties on the island in the morning and evening.

Perhaps a terminus line could run down on to Canvey from Pitsea, the station before Benfleet, so that four or six trains an hour during peak times, and perhaps one or two trains an hour off-peak, could be run from a new terminus station on the island. There is plenty of space around the Waterside Farm area for parking to be provided. Increasing the capacity of the LTS line would enable the Government to meet the target that they set the Strategic Rail Authority of a 50 per cent increase in passenger numbers over the next 10 years. I keep pressing this idea, because not only would it help commuters on Canvey Island, who are my constituents, but it would help to put Canvey Island on the map—and I am always trying to do that, as hon. Members will know.

One way of getting more passengers on the line, and so of meeting the Government's target of increasing real passenger numbers over the next 10 years, would be to reduce ticket prices. I was shocked to hear that the price of a ticket from Southend to London went up in January by £17 a month—an astounding increase. That is the way to reduce, not increase, passenger numbers on the line. If we really are to save our environment and stop global warning—that issue is germane to my constituents on Canvey, some of whom live as much as 6 ft below sea level—we must tackle environmental issues and get more people off the roads and on to rail. That is a real issue.

I welcome the Committee's conclusions on the railways in paragraph 32 of the report, which says: The measure should be of real overcrowding on real routes. That is better than making measures and monitoring "average" overcrowding in a way that clouds the issue and prevents service providers from focusing their attention on the real issues that concern my constituents. I have already mententioned the electric power supply. On the subject of "How trains are purchased" —that is the subtitle above paragraph 42—I wonder whether members of the Transport Committee saw "Bremner, Bird and Fortune" on television on Sunday night. If not, I recommend that they watch the programme. It went into that very issue. It was a bit of a spoof, the issue was hyped up, and all kinds of hyperbole were use, but it drew attention to subjects that I have heard the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich raise on Radio 4, such as how much money goes into the provision of new rolling stock, who gets the money, and how much of it filters down to provide real new rolling stock for my constituents and hers, who deserve that money to be spent on them.

One thing that I recall from that comedy sketch is the fact that a return on investment would he secured within three or four years, and that that return would continue for 30 years, or possibly even 50, if people got lucky. Financing the provision of new rolling stock is a good business to be in—much better than Tesco, or manufacturing industry, where profit levels are much lower. I am sure that the Committee will look into that carefully, and will get the Government to do so, too.

I am a bit confused about where we are going with the Strategic Rail Authority. What is really needed is some clarity—for me, for the industry, and for my constituents—about who will run the railways in future, who will regulate them, and who will make decisions about new infrastructure, rolling stock and other important issues. I hope that the Minister will address that subject. I welcome what the Committee said about the London underground, which is also a problem for my constituents. I hope and trust that something can be done to improve it and reduce overcrowding at key times.

I welcome the report; it is very good. The Government's response to it has been a little complacent, and is, certainly disappointing. I do not want to be too harsh on the Government, because successive Governments have under-invested in public transport, particularly the rail service, for many years. I accept that part of the responsibility for that lies with the Conservatives; I do not seek to score party political points. However, I think that the Government could and should have been more accepting of the Committee's valid criticisms and of the recommendations in the report. It is fair to say that the report raises more questions than it answers. In that sense, it is not the end of a journey, but the start of very long one. With cross-party support, I hope that we can look at tackling the real issues and finding a solution, for the benefit of my long-suffering constituents.

3.21 pm

Mr.Brian H.Donohoe (Cunninghame, South) (Lab)

I, too, am grateful for the report's publication and for the fact that we are able to debate it this afternoon with the Minister. I have personal experience of travelling regularly for many years on trains and the underground, and I have faced overcrowding almost daily. This debate is long overdue and the Minister should address this issue in far more detail than the Government's response has done.

There is no doubt that the industry is a victim of its own success. It has developed to such an extent that the number of people using trains and the underground has grown enormously, particularly during the past five years. However, the Government have to accept the consequent effect on commuters, who face a daily battle and are left to stand on trains and on the underground for hours on end as a result of the number of people now travelling.

I want to concentrate on the Government's response to how we measure overcrowding on trains. I was flabbergasted to find that there was no real formula—other than a very strange one—for measuring overcrowding on trains and on the underground. The Government's response to conclusions nine and 10 was completely inadequate. I would like the Minister to address the issue in a different way, and to say whether the Government have considered quantifying overcrowding in the manner adopted elsewhere.

If I drove a car containing 10 people, I would be prosecuted, and rightly so. If I drew a bus containing 100 people, I would be prosecuted, as would the driver of any such bus. Yet I can get on a train that is carrying 2,000 passengers when it should carry only 1,000.I do not know why that should be allowed in this day and age.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs.Dunwoody) said in her opening remarks, there are times when it is not just inconvenient to travel on trains, but a nightmare. I say that as somebody who is six feet tall and who can look after himself. I look around a train and I see inconvenience and a complete nightmare, and people having to put up with that. I wonder when and whether it will be possible for the Government to do more about that than they have done in their response to our paper.

I also want to concentrate on the problems that have arisen as a result of the Government's success in increasing the number of people using trains. There is no doubt that the stations are inadequate for a modern network. In my own area, there are stations at which trains cannot unload if they are 12 carriages long. That is wrong, and there must be investment to remedy that situation.

I do not know what we can do to address the next issue that I shall raise, but it is essential that we do so if we are to develop an integrated transport system. As a result of our success in encouraging people to use public transport, train stations do not haw adequate car parks. In my constituency, people come from as far away as Kilmarnock, which is 10 miles away, to use the train to Glasgow, but they are not able to park close to the station. There is insufficient investment in the station and its infrastructure to allow the necessary extension to take place.

The Government argue that we should be looking at ways of getting people out of their cars, but it seems almost irrational that the public do not have the opportunity to park close to stations. I have argued extensively about that problem and I have challenged the rail authorities to overcome it. I have been campaigning for some 30 months in my constituency without achieving much movement from Network Rail management or from the Strategic Rail Authority; moreover, the operating companies wash their hands of the matter. They could do much to improve that situation, thereby encouraging more people to use the railways, but they are not. I find that unbelievable.

Another problem that I have identified is loss of revenue. Over the past five years, there has been a great increase in the number of people using trains in my area, which has partly been encouraged by offering concessions such as those given to senior citizens. That is admirable and to be applauded, but it has led to trains becoming so busy that the guards cannot get through them, and, therefore, to more and more people travelling without paying their fare. The operating companies must do something about that, but it is clear that they are not. The Minister need not consider that issue today, but it seems a tremendous waste for trains to be running with people not paying their fares. It also adds to the problem of overcrowding.

A few weeks ago, I travelled in the south-west on a train of a type that I thought was no longer running. I thought that the trains in Scotland were bad, but I found it almost surreal to be travelling in a slam-door train in 2004, given that they were designed some 50 or 60 years ago. When one considers the amount of money that has been spent on the railways recently, such a situation is unreal. I do not know what the Government can do about that, but the Department for Transport should act to ensure that such rolling stock is no longer on the rails. Dates should be given by which it will be removed; at the moment, that seems not to be happening.

We should also consider other parts of the integrated transport system. I know of a number of examples of the rail network's being shut down—on a Sunday, for instance—and passengers being transferred to buses. Buses are adequate alternatives in certain circumstances, but they do not offer the same level of speed and comfort as trains. Although buses are far more passenger-friendly than they were 20 years ago, they are not an adequate substitute for trains. When such situations arise, they cause inconvenience to passengers. That issue should be examined.

The Government are spending more money on the railways than any previous Government have spent. We are talking about some £2.1 billion per annum, which, if my calculations are right—normally, they are not that bad—works out at approximately £6 per family per week. If we budget for 2005 and estimate the likely expenditure, that figure rises to some £12.50 per week. Given that expenditure and the circumstances, I thought that the Government would insist on eradicating overcrowding, so that the travelling public in the London area and across the central belts of England and Scotland would not have to face that problem daily. The Government should be addressing this issue in a far more serious way than their response to the document suggests.

3.31 pm

Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)

There is no denying that there are a wide range of problems with our transport system, which are easy to identify. Many of the solutions that have been proposed are far more expensive and commit more resources than the Government would like. The Government's simplest, most well meaning statement of intent can be leapt on and used against them in future if they fail to deliver. However, they have a tendency to make very safe statements about transport, and with due respect to the Minister, the response to the report is just that— a safe set of statements.

I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that when the report refers to the rail services, virtually every paragraph starts, "The SRA", which highlights one of the problems of dealing with the transport system: there are so many players in the network, with so many different responsibilities, that at times even the Government forget their role in the system. The response on the rail network should have come from the Government standpoint rather than their stating what the Strategic Rail Authority intends to do. That shows the Government's dilemma in coming to terms with problems throughout the transport system.

Overcrowding affects many different daily routines—going to work, going on holiday, going out for a day with the family, and so on. Problems in the rail and bus network can have a debilitating effect on a people's ability to go about their daily lives, and when there are delays on the railways, it can be catastrophic. For example, I was once stuck on a train just outside London Bridge station—only half the train was alongside the platform. The driver was very good: he kept us well informed, and radioed back to tell us that he was in a dilemma. He could not move the train or open only the rear carriage doors so that we could walk down the train and get off, because that technology is not available.

I was stuck on that train for 45 minutes. All around me, a range of life experiences were unfolding before my eyes. A young woman with an Apex card was going out for the day and had another train to catch. She was ringing the rail network to ask what she should do. She said, "I'm stuck here because of your train services and I can't get the other train I need to catch." The young woman next to me was almost in tears. She was ringing her boss, who was clearly not accepting that yet again she would be late for work because of the train service. Not only that, but it was not possible for her to get off the train and call a cab to reach work quickly, because the train was halfway out of the station. People were on their mobile phones rearranging meetings. I was travelling here to attend a meeting, which I missed. Overcrowding and an unreliable service have a damaging effect on people's lives.

We must measure such problems from the perspective of the passenger. We have failed to do that. Let us consider the formulae that have been applied by train operating companies and the Strategic Rail Authority. They take a basket of services into consideration, not an actual route and a certain service from the sharp end—from an individual passenger's experience. They do not say that a service on a particular line is absolutely appalling, and the day-to-day experience of the passengers is not acceptable, and up with that we will not put. Examining a basket of services clouds our vision of the services that are underperforming significantly, as a result of which they are not being dealt with. The Government need to tell the SRA to measure overcrowding, delays or whatever from the passengers' experience of the service.

Such matters are inseparable from other issues that we all want dealt with. How do we deal with congestion on the roads? Can we encourage people to travel on overcrowded buses or trains? if we really want to deal with congestion, we must deal with capacity and overcrowding on all our public transport networks. The congestion charge in London has just celebrated its first birthday. I have not seen any figures for a modal shift from the road to public transport in London, but that must have happened to some extent. What are our plans for the increased number of people who travel on public transport following the introduction of the congestion charge? We all know that other cities are looking at what has happened in London to determine whether they will introduce a similar scheme. What are their plans for increased capacity on the public transport network if such a scheme were introduced?

If we do not increase capacity, we are simply imposing a tax on the motorists. We are charging them for using the roads. Some may say that that is fine and agree that that is what should be done, but if we are not planning for, and investing in, increased capacity on public transport, we are imposing a tax on the road, because there is no transportation system for people to switch to other than a severely overcrowded network.

We tend to concentrate on trains when we discuss overcrowding. If we are to deal with a modal shift and encourage people to use public transport, the bus network is crucial. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr.Horam) will probably bear me out when I say that several significant improvements are taking place in London along the Thames gateway and to Crossrail and the Docklands light railway that we would both support. The key issue is how we shift our constituents to link in with those new valuable infrastructure improvements, so that they, too, can benefit from the new improvements in the network. Buses are the key. We already have overcrowded bus networks or insufficient networks with new modal links. We must plan ahead and deal with such issues so that the wider community, not only those close to the new stations, can benefit.

The Minister will correct me if I am understating the case, but I believe that each year 73 per cent. of all train journeys take place on what was Network SouthEast. In the south-east of the network—north Kent and southeast London—there is a heavy reliance on trains because we do not have direct access to the London underground. That leads to an enormous amount of overcrowding on that part of the network.

In addition, we are seeing the development of the Thames gateway area along the north of the river from the docklands out to the estuary in Essex and along the south of the river from Greenwich, through the peninsula by the dome, past Dartford and Ebbsfleet and out to the estuary. That is an enormous regeneration area—I think the biggest in Europe—and many thousands of jobs will be created and homes built along that corridor. That itself will create demand for additional capacity on our rail network.

The extension of the Jubilee line to north Greenwich was a welcome development for the south-east Thames area, and it brought the line to the London borough of Greenwich for the first time. However, four years after it opened, it is still easier for my constituents and me to get to central London than to get from the south of Greenwich to North Greenwich Jubilee line station. It might as well be in Newham or Islington for all it counts to the people who live in my part of the London borough of Greenwich.

That example points to the fact that when we introduce major infrastructure developments, we do not consider the wider aspects of connecting the local communities so that they can benefit from them. If there had been a wider set of options in our local transport provision, it would have assisted in reducing the demand for capacity on the heavy Network SouthEast lines and in opening up opportunities for people to benefit from the regeneration in the Thames gateway and the jobs that are being created with it.

Crossrail is essential if we are to tackle congestion on the network in central London, but it also essential that it is provided in the east Thames area if we are to meet the additional demand that will be generated as a result of the area's redevelopment. I want to take this opportunity to highlight the fact that, even now, a major south-east London hub at Woolwich is being ignored by Crossrail, which does not intend to site a station there. From Custom House on the Isle of Dogs, Crossrail intends to bypass Woolwich and go straight to Abbey Wood. That route misses the opportunity to provide a major transport hub in that part of London, play a vital role in the regeneration of the Royal Arsenal area and link up with an already extensive bus network that goes into the town centre.

That highlights how, when we plan, we are failing to consider the wider issues of how we can access major transport infrastructure developments. To bypass a major hub of existing bus and rail networks at Woolwich is a planning failure, and we should address the issue. If we want to tackle the problem of overcrowding and plan for future additional capacity, we need to take those points on board.

There is also our growing inability to run 12-car trains on the network around north Kent and south-east London. I have raised that question on several occasions as the Member of Parliament for Eltham. I have a set of answers that I received from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in November 2001.It is all about the need for 12-car trains. We have been addressing that issue: platforms have been lengthened. and there have been Thameslink plans for many years. In one of the responses, the Minister said that I was the only person who has ever raised this matter. I find that astonishing. He also informed me that: Railtrack is undertaking a review of Power Supply capability for the Southern Region and is in discussions with the Strategic Rail Authority to address the issue in relation to Mark 1 replacement"— [Official Report, 14 November 2001; Vol.374, c.732W] When the Transport Committee questioned the SRA, the rolling stock companies and everybody else about the rail network, it was astonished to discover that a set of trains had been purchased that could not run on the network because the electricity supply was not sufficient. I have answers dating from almost two and a half years ago in which it is pointed out that people are aware of problems such as the need to increase the electricity supply and to lengthen some platforms. It appears that there is no joined-up thinking.

Is the SRA to blame, or are the Government, or are the ROSCOs? Who is responsible for not even taking note of a few simple parliamentary answers and thereby identifying that there is a problem with the electricity supply and that it might be necessary to work out whether it is possible to run the new trains? People must have felt as sick as someone who buys a flash new car and then gets home and finds the garage is too small to park it in. This highlights the problem with our rail network. There are too many players, and no clearly defined responsibilities. The situation becomes more murky when we ask who is culpable.

Paragraph 49 of the Select Committee report refers to the upgrade of the electricity supply on the network. The Government's response refers to the £1 billion that is being spent on the upgrade and the fact that that will allow £2 billion of new rolling stock to be introduced. Those figures sound impressive, but they would be even more so if they were accompanied by a strategic plan that took into account all the new regeneration that is taking place in the Thames gateway area and the existing problems with the capacity that is already on that network. People in my area were amused to learn that passengers in excess of capacity are called "PIXCs". They were not surprised because they knew that the timetable was away with the fairies: they were sure that pixies would appear on the line at some time in the future.

We need a strategic plan that goes alongside the huge sums that the Government are spending to ensure that we are doing enough. A few weeks ago, I attended a consultation about the channel tunnel rail link services and the new combined franchise. I asked about the electricity supply and 12-car trains, which are essential if we are to deal with capacity in that area. I was told that even though we are upgrading the electricity supply, that will still not allow us to run 12-car trains across all that part of the rail network. I was astonished to hear that. The electricity supply that we are spending money on already has built-in obsolescence.

I have a request for the Minister. I do not expect him to be able to respond to it fully today. I want him to ask the SRA and Network Rail, "What on earth are you doing?" An enormous amount of development is taking place in the south-east, which is one of the hubs of the country's economy, and we have spoken at length about the impact of delays and not being able to rely on the public transport network. More than 90 per cent. of the people who go to work in the City of London go by public transport. That is an impressive figure, but it also highlights how essential it is to have an efficient public transport network. If, in a major investment to improve the quality of the network, there is already a problem with the amount of increased capacity that we can introduce being limited and we are prevented from running 12-car trains on the network, we are making a big mistake. I exhort the Minister to take up that issue with some urgency.

The Government are investing enormous sums in the rail network. We are spending three times as much as we were spending on British Rail, in real terms, when it was brought to an end. We applaud the Government for that, but we also need to ensure that we get a big hang for our bucks and that we are targeting the resources in the right way. I am concerned that what we are doing is firefighting— that we are rushing into the network and trying to solve the problems without having enough of an overview of the system. We must ensure that, where problems may occur in future and where demand is increasing, we are targeting the resources in the right way.

I am also concerned that we do not consider all modes of transport when planning our networks. Examples are the Jubilee line and the planned failure of Crossrail to provide a station at the major transport hub of Woolwich. We must ensure that planning takes such issues into consideration if we are to deal with capacity and overcrowding.

3.52 pm

Mr.Paul Marsden (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (LD)

Overcrowding on our public transport systems is a serious problem, so the report is very welcome, and I congratulate my Chairman and the rest of the team on producing it. Just the fact that they produced it means that they are highlighting an issue that does not always seem to be much of a priority but most certainly is a priority for the travelling public.

I give credit to the hon. Members for Orpington (Mr.Horam) and for Castle Point (Bob Spink) for their contributions, and in particular for the points that they made about quality of life and the constituency issues that they are concerned about. However, at a time when the Conservatives are saying that any future transport budget would have to be reduced massively under a Conservative Administration, I have to ask those on the Tory Front Bench—obviously, I will listen with great interest to what they have to say—how on earth they will improve the situation. It was a little disconcerting that the Conservative leader was already saying on 25 February that he would like to see a spreading of and an increase in car use.

If we are to entice people into continuing to use public transport and to use more of it, we must have investment. Whatever my criticisms of the Minister and the Government, there can be no doubt that massive sums are going into our public transport system, like never before. The question is whether we are getting value for money. When, for instance, we see consultants' fees massively increasing and not delivering what we want to see on the ground, there is something seriously wrong. I am minded to return to the fact that chickens have more protection from overcrowding when they are transported on trains than we passengers do. There is something seriously wrong when that is the case. As the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) said, there is a certain amount of playing safe by the Government, a certain complacency. Although we acknowledge the progress that has been made, clearly it is not enough.

Some 18 months ago outside Shrewsbury railway station, I and some of my helpers quizzed 200 rail commuters to find out what they thought about the rail service:90 per cent. thought that it had got worse under the Government. Judging by my current postbag, things are not getting better.

I am one of those unlucky passengers who travel from Shrewsbury to Birmingham New Street. I have watched in dread as two carriages arrived—God forbid there should be 10 or 12—when we clearly needed four or six.I will not blow it out of all proportion: that does not happen all the time, but surely it cannot be beyond the wit of Ministers and the rail industry to be able to provide more carriages and therefore the necessary extra capacity.

I have witnessed occasions—it would never happen in Shropshire or Shrewsbury, because we are extremely polite and well-mannered there—when disabled, elderly and vulnerable passengers have been unable to compete in the race down the platform to get on the train and find a seat. Those vulnerable people are the ones who lose out most.

From the Committee's report, there can be no doubt that demand has increased above the level of 1997. It is gratifying to find out from the Corporation of London, for instance, that 91 per cent. of London's population use public transport. There are massive regional differences—further afield the figure is only 18 per cent—but the overall demand has been at least 14 per cent. since 1992.

The same is true of passenger journeys. In 1997, there were more than 800 million passenger journeys; the latest figures for 2002–03 show that there were 976 million. That is a 22 per cent. increase. The only problem is that passengers have had to pay for that. The money has not come only from the Government; fares have increased by 42 per cent. during that time, which is more than double the increase in passenger journeys.

I was worried to read in Metro on 9 February that The Rail Safety and Standards Board has banned the term `overcrowding'. Will the Minister enlighten us on whether that is true? It would appear that the board only wants the term "crowded" to be used. Being wedged shoulder to shoulder—sometimes literally cheek to cheek, or armpit to armpit—is not a pleasant experience, and we should be more honest about how bad things can be.

From the figures provided in the Strategic Rail Authority's regular "On Track" reports, it would appear that 1 million rail journeys every day are overcrowded. That is simply unsatisfactory. Roughly 41 per cent. of people are unsatisfied with the number of seats and standing spaces. It takes about four hours to get from the House to Shrewsbury, and travelling from Birmingham to Wolverhampton, the train picks up those lovely Wolverhampton Wanderers supporters after they have had a beverage or two after the football. It is always a delight to share their company back to Shrewsbury when there is nowhere to sit down.

Mrs.Dunwoody

You should go via Crewe.

Mr.Marsden

Perhaps I shall take up my Chairman's suggestion.

There is no official monitoring of overcrowding across the rail network, and that must be addressed. As I mentioned earlier, chickens receive more protection than people. That is because, under the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997, animals, including cattle, pigs, sheep and chickens, cannot exceed a maximum stocking density, but there are no meaningful regulations for people. As the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr.Donohoe) said, people can be packed on to a train and there is virtually no protection or comeback for those individuals.

There is not much good news in the passenger survey either. Overall, one in four people are dissatisfied with overcrowding. People are deeply unhappy with the current situation. I shall name and shame certain rail companies: the figure is more than one in three for Silverlink, one in three for Thamestink, almost one in three for Connex South East, and almost 30 per cent. for South Central, South West Trains, WAGN and others.

There has been some slow progress. I cannot disagree with the amount of investment, but I hope that the Minister will address the issue of capacity, and not simply the newness and shininess of new carriages. The figures published in table 25 of "A, Bulletin of Public Transport Statistics: Great Britain:2003 edition" show that the number of carriages on the national rail network has fallen from 10,600 to just over 10,000. That reminds me a little of the argument about hospital beds. Although we all welcome brand new hospitals, if bed capacity is reduced, patients will not be particularly pleased if they have to travel further to or stay less time in hospital. We must expand capacity, and I urge the Government to review how it can be increased

On safety, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs.Eliman) mentioned stress. It is a good point. A recent presentation by John Cartledge, the RPC's safety policy adviser, concluded that the issue is not so much the danger of overcrowding. I agree with him: accidents are rare, although in the last three years, about 29 passengers have been injured alighting from trains where the platforms do not meet the carriages. That is not necessarily as serious an issue as the fact that, day after day, people have to suffer discomfort and confinement, and are not even able to sit down. For certain services, although not all, hot spots of trouble must be tackled, and the Government could do something about them.

Improvements in bus design are to be welcomed, particularly for less mobile and disabled passengers. However, the Government's target is still only about 50 per cent. of buses to be accessible to those minority groups by 2010. That is another six years away, just for half of all buses to be able to help those people. The overall capacity of buses does seem to have increased, perhaps by some 2,200, but it is worrying that the numbers of single-deck 17 to 35-seaters and double-decker buses have been reduced. I am sure that some anorak in Whitehall came up with this statistic, but the number of vehicle kilometres run by local bus services in England has fallen by 0.9 per cent. since 1996–97.That is bad news— although sometimes I should appreciate an explanation in plain English of why one cannot always sit down on buses.

In summary, there have been modest improvements: there is no doubt that more money is being invested, but we are not achieving the value for money that we need. We must urgently address the problem, specifically the hot spots. Another accident or tragedy that could have been avoided is entirely conceivable. I welcome the new research into health and safety aspects, and congratulate the Transport Committee—of which I was not a member at the time—on having pushed for and obtained a result. Without its report, I doubt whether this debate would have taken place. We must encourage people to use alternatives, including leaving their cars behind, at least some of the time. There must be real choice, especially in rural areas. The state of buses and trains there can sometimes be quite appalling. Based on the fact that we are making chickens more comfortable, pigs are more protected, cattle are not as cramped and sheep seem to have more space when they have to travel on trains, is it not time that people enjoyed the comfort and relaxation of a seat on every tube, train, tram and bus journey?

4.5 pm

Mr.Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)

I join those who have thanked the Transport Committee for looking into this important area. It is right that this subject is debated. Although we do not have a full Hall today—partly because the business in the House is subject to a one-line Whip, and partly due to the desire of many hon. Members to get home in non-rush hour trains that are not overcrowded—we have had a quality, good-natured debate and a number of valid points have been raised. I hope that the Minister will respond to those points and take them on board when deciding what further action needs to be taken.

I am aware that it is difficult being a Transport Minister. The Conservative, Paul Channon, used to say when he had that responsibility that it is the only job in the world where you have to apologise to people when they arrive late for your meetings. I know that the Minister has problems, but I hope that he will consider some of the serious issues raised this afternoon. Overcrowding on public transport is a real problem. Hundreds of thousands of passengers— mainly, but not exclusively, on our railways— face the daily trauma of gross overcrowding. I accept that a certain level of overcrowding can be regarded as a sign of success, because people are using that form of transport. However, it is a question of degree. The Transport Committee has rightly identified current levels of overcrowding on public transport in many parts of the country as chronic and unacceptable. That problem must be addressed.

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs.Dunwoody), in a wide-ranging opening speech, was right to say that there are knock-on effects. If people travel on an overcrowded, delayed train, employers are faced with staff who are tired, stressed and uncomfortable when they finally arrive at work. Although the personal effects of overcrowding can be seen, the knock-on economic consequences are harder to identify. Estimates of the cost vary. I noticed in the report that one estimate put the cost to the City of London alone at about £230 million a year. The economic costs are substantial.

There are safety aspects, too, as some hon. Members have said, but it is right to put those aspects in context, because rail is still a safe way to travel and poses a much lower safety risk than other forms of transport. Of course, that should not be used as an excuse for failing to deal with or reduce the serious effects of overcrowding. The Transport Committee was right to say that the current methods for monitoring overcrowding are not reliable and should therefore not be considered acceptable. The Government have accepted that criticism, for which I think all hon. Members present are grateful. The Government must, however, ensure that changes take place as soon as possible and effective collation of reliable information is introduced.

I should like to comment on the problems faced by different types of transport. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr.Marsden) said that buses are widely regarded as not having the same overcrowding problem as trains. That is right, but improvements can and should be made. The design of buses is important. It is amazing that all buses are not fitted with a drop step, so that elderly passengers and those who suffer from arthritis can get on and off much more easily. I have a classic 1972 BMC work bus. Even that has a drop step at the back to enable people to get on it more easily. It is amazing that bus designers have not found a simple and cost-effective way of having a lower step that is capable of use by disabled passengers. Having said that, I welcome the bus industry's target to make 50 per cent. of the full-sized fleet accessible to mobility-impaired passengers by 2010.

The report also welcomes new initiatives in London for the new articulated buses— or, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich called them, bendy buses. One of the benefits of those buses is the introduction of the new cashless system where passengers prepay. We should examine places outside the capital without pay before-you-go systems. It was not that long ago— perhaps a decade or 15 years—when most buses had a conductor. A person got on the bus, which immediately left the bus stop, and the fare was collected while the vehicle was in motion. The advent of one-man-operated buses has made buses less attractive to the public, because it has lengthened journey times, and in some cases has meant that people have to queue in the rain waiting to get on while those ahead in the queue pay their fares. We should consider encouraging the introduction of prepayment systems throughout the country.

More can be done with the bus network, especially in London. Buses in the capital operate under an incredibly complex contracting system, which is expensive and offers no incentive for bus operators to provide anything other than a basic service. I would like to see that system replaced with a net cost system, under which bus operators would receive all or some of the percentage of the income that they generate. They would then have a real incentive to improve service and make their buses more attractive.

As has been said by every contributor to the debate, the problem of overcrowding is most acute on our railways, and although it is most serious in the London area, it is clearly not restricted to the capital alone and affects many other areas. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs.Ellman) identified some of the problems in her part of the world.

A difficult balance must be struck between reducing overcrowding on trains and the desire of commuters for a reliable and regular service. As a passenger, I am prepared to accept some overcrowding on a short journey. The Committee rightly identified the problem. If I am undertaking a train journey that I know will not take more than 15 or 20 minutes, I do not mind having to stand. What matters to me is that the train will arrive, the journey speed will not be unduly slow and I will arrive when I expect to. I therefore disagree with the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, who called for a seat for every passenger. We need not go that far. Those passengers taking short journeys do not necessarily demand a seat; they want to know that the train will get them to their destination on time.

The Committee also echoed the view of the Rail Passengers Council that the monitoring regime is flawed. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that when he responds.

Several hon. Members asked about the lengthening of trains. I regularly used trains not only to go to school but during the early part of my student days. In those days, the train was regularly longer than the platforms of many of the stations, and an announcement was made: "Those passengers who wish to alight at the next station, please make your way towards the front of the train" It beggars belief that we are being told that the trains cannot be lengthened because of the absence or inadequacy of satellite systems. It ought to be perfectly possible for train operators to put on two or three extra coaches when required, even if the platforms are not long enough to accommodate the length of the train. That used to be done many years ago without, as far as I am aware, any undue difficulty. These days, given that the driver or someone else on the train has the ability to lock doors, we should be able to have a fairly simple system whereby some doors can be identified as having to be kept locked at certain stations without our having to get into satellite technology, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr.Horam) mentioned.

While I am on the subject of overcrowding, I should put in a plea for those members of the public who are of a larger stature—and I should perhaps declare an interest. I find it irritating when I travel on a train that, in many of the new carriages, there is inadequate legroom, and my legs touch the seat in front. I accept that I am unusually tall, but it is surely not beyond the wit of those who design and build rolling stock to put in at least a couple of seats with more legroom, and perhaps even a greater seat width, at the front or back of each carriage, to accommodate those members of the public who are larger than the norm. They, too, ought to be encouraged to use public transport.

We also need to look into how new rolling stock is bought or leased, particularly in light of guidelines regarding the length of franchises. If we are to have more shorter franchises, surely train operating companies will be unlikely to take the same level of risk on rolling stock. The Government should investigate that.

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and others have highlighted procurement problems, such as the confusion that occurred when South West Trains and South Central both ordered new stock to replace the Mark I rolling stock. Also, we have heard that the trains could not be put into service because the power supply needs to be upgraded. There are also issues of rolling stock compatibility. There ought to be a more effective mechanism in place to ensure not only that rolling stock that can be used straight away is ordered, but that stock ordered by different companies is compatible.

Some of the very worst examples of overcrowding are seen on the London underground. As the report explains, there is difficulty in expanding the infrastructure. I think that we can accept that that is a particularly difficult problem to solve. Crossrail and Thameslink are solutions to some extent. Estimates suggest that Crossrail would probably mean a transfer of 7 per cent. of tube passengers from existing lines, and would help to reduce levels of overcrowding on all London underground lines. Clearly, that is of benefit.

I do not understand why operating companies on the underground do not run seatless carriages. When I use the underground, 90 per cent. of the time my journey lasts less than 15 minutes and invokes travelling only three or four stations. Why can companies not put on a carriage with no seating, with straps along the length of the carriage, to accommodate more passengers? I understand that one problem with some of the rolling stock is that the wheel arches are concealed under the seats, so if one took the seats away, there would not be a straight floor area. However, that is not the design of all underground trains.

My idea seems a perfectly acceptable solution. Before someone asks, "What about the disabled?" let me say that the disabled would not seek to use that carriage. I would expect able-bodied people to use it, freeing up more seats for the old and the disabled. I hope that that can be looked into. I would be interested to know, if it is not feasible or viable, why that is so.

The only area where I part company with the view of the Committee is on bus overcrowding, where it refers to proper enforcement of bus priority measures. I agree that such enforcement is desirable, but I also think we should look at this issue rather more widely than the Committee appears to have done. What I find offensive is going through a city with a 24-hour bus lane when there are not 24-hour buses. Local authorities ought to be required to ensure that bus lanes that are not part of a contraflow operate only when the buses themselves are operating.

Why are we not more imaginative'' The Chairman of the Committee mentioned that in some areas it is difficult to have a bus lane because of the congested carriageways. The Minister has heard me say this before, but why do we not operate a system that encourages car sharing? If two mothers get together and decide to share a car instead of both going in their individual cars to pick their children up from school, they should be allowed to use the bus lane. America has a similar system on certain freeways, with some lanes that one can use only if one is sharing one's car with others. We should look at some of these ideas to help reduce congestion, and to encourage people to share their vehicles.

I know the Minister will not be able to deal with all the points that have been raised today, but I hope he is prepared to look at this issue seriously. A number of points have been raised in this debate that I feel cannot be dismissed or ignored. It is time we saw a programme of action from the Government ors this serious issue of overcrowding.

4.22 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr.Tony McNulty)

I want to start by echoing what others have said about this having been a very useful debate. The report is excellent, and we accept the importance of the subject matter. I want to come on to some details in a moment, but as a Transport Minister, I think that we too infrequently have properly focused and reflective debates on various aspects of transport that take account of where we are and where we seek to go. On the whole, we have had some very intelligent and practical suggestions—of course, there are some exceptions, which I shall come to—and it is appropriate that we discuss these matters in some detail. I would like to start by regaling the House with some comments about my week, which has been a fairly mixed one in terms of travel. I started by going from Liverpool Street to Purfleet on Tuesday on nice upgraded c2c rolling stock, which was all very pleasant. I returned to Liverpool Street from Southend that day on slightly less nice rolling stock, but it was a pleasant enough journey none the less. I had a seat both ways because I was travelling outside peak hours, so that was fine, and it was quite a reasonable journey in both directions.

Someone referred to South West Trains. Yesterday I went on one of its old slam-door trains down to Woking, and then to Guildford and back to London. Again, that was huge fun. As I said to people yesterday, I guarantee when the last of that rolling stock comes off the railway lines there will be a slam-door heritage society saying "Save our slam-doors, we want them back, and we do not like the new stuff at all"—assuming that such a society is not in existence already.

The issue is all about balance. I am stupid enough to smoke, so for all the rather decaying elegance of the slam-door rolling stock, I could not care less because there was a smoking carriage and that was all I wanted, as it was only an hour-long journey. The service was reliable, and I arrived at my destination on time and in good order, albeit having knocked 10 minutes off my life by smoking the couple of cigarettes that I had en route.

This morning, I had the great pleasure of going down to Portsmouth on the same South West Trains rolling stock, which again delivered me on time and in comfort. Clearly I got back in time, because I am present in this debate. Most interestingly—I do not say this as a profound point on behalf of the Government—I took the 8.38 train, and although I know that there were plenty of people on it to begin with who probably alighted at Woking or Guildford. I think that only six of them got off at Portsmouth. I did not count, but it was at least a 10-carriage train, if not a 12-carriage one. It was absolutely empty, although I make those remarks by the by.

On the subjects that the report feels will help in responding to overcrowding, I thought that it dismissed rather too abruptly the notion of flexible work modes and flexible travel times. In respect of what hon. Members have said about the London context—the commuter network and London underground—those notions will not solve every problem, but the greater the number of people who can be shipped outside those peak hours, the less overcrowding there will be. Let me say that I am not arguing that that is a panacea by any means, before hon. Members suggest that that is what I am saying. We recognise that there is a problem, and with all the honesty that I can muster, I must say that there will always be overcrowding difficulties.

As hon. Members have suggested, to some degree that issue is a question of balance. There are public policy options, some of which are realistic and some of which are not, that we could put forward now, weighing all those elements into the balance. We could quite easily get rid of overcrowding tomorrow by tripling fares in peak hours and keeping them relatively low outside those times. It would take a fairly brave and courageous Government to do that, even though it would work as a public policy instrument. We could work to get more peak and off-peak capacity in the London network by eradicating freight, at least in peak hours. That has not happened entirely, but on some lines it has had to happen. We could say that there should be no freight anywhere on the London network between 9 am and 5 pm. Again, in terms of the competing public policy concerns, that is not a terribly useful policy option because of what we say about getting more freight on to rail, but it would free up significant elements of the network for commuters. The matter is therefore one of balance, as the report rightly says.

I also fully endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs.Dunwoody) about the impact of overcrowding not only on business, but on tourism and on people's quality of life in the broader sense. I would again add the small caveat mentioned by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr.Knight) about the length of the journey. If one is making a 15 or 20-minute journey, those quality-of-life aspects are clearly less important—although the situation may not be acceptable—than if one is stuck on the same commuter run for an hour and a half every day and arrives in a less than polished fashion.

I can imagine that it is not terribly nice, not least in the height of summer, for somebody to set out for work fresh, full of confidence and ready to greet the day only to find that by the time that they arrive at their destination, the first thing that they want to do is to turn around and go home or to have another shower. I accept that that is an unpleasant journey for many people, and we need to respond to that. I also accept that capacity, management, rolling stock and the issues raised by the Committee are the sorts of areas that we need to examine, and I will return to them in a moment.

I am enormously grateful that the report at least touches on the issue of buses, not least as I am the Minister with responsibility for them. They are an important mode of transport. There is less overcrowding on buses and in some areas they can be a useful and flexible alternative to rail. In an increasing number of cases, operators and local authorities, with or without the Government's assistance, are doing more to emphasise that flexibility and to compete with rail where they can.

I endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend about bus priority measures above and beyond bus lanes, guided bus routes— particularly with fixed lights for buses—and all the other elements that assist the efficiency of the bus network, not least in peak hours. Such measures, albeit to a different degree, address essentially the same problem—space and capacity. In terms of bus operations and bus priority measures, there is a question about how full buses, with 50 or 60 people on board, as opposed to cars containing one person, can share and sometimes be a priority in the limited space on the road network. As we have said, that is to some extent the case for the rail network.

I agree with the report that the use of capacity is fundamental. The issue is not only about a panacea of huge new swathes or tranches of additional capacity, but about whether we are best using the existing capacity in all circumstances.

To return to the tale of my travels, I forgot to mention South East Trains, which I used to go to Gillingham last night. I wondered what was going on when I was sitting in a carriage at the front of the train, and all of a sudden people poured into it from the back. I thought that something was going on, but that I was not being told. However, there was announcement as I got off at Rainham—in Kent, not Essex—that the train was too long for the platform and that people getting off at that small station should do so from the front two carriages. The train was modern, new rolling stock.

I will explore what people say about satellites not working and so on, because it is fairly troublesome. The 10 or 12-carriage trains that I took yesterday and the day before stopped once or twice. I guess that they would stop far more readily during peak hours at stations whose platforms are far too short to accommodate 10 or 12-carriage trains. However, the announcement was made, and people were clearly anticipating it. I will take the point more seriously than we may have done until now.

The issue is about balance. The Committee made some intelligent, good points about the balance among rolling stock, new stock, new capacity and all those dimensions. Underlying those issues, as Members have said, is the internal governance of the industry, its assorted levels and the question of who is talking to whom. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) mentioned the issue of the SRA versus the Government and all the other layers.

Members will know that we are in the midst of a rail review that is considering that matter, and I ask for the indulgence of the House, because I will not say too much about it in order to avoid pre-empting or prejudicing the review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that we want to make that as quick a piece of work as possible and we will look to reporting by the summer. Again, the points made in recommendations 13 to 17 on rolling stock and other matters are equally important.

Mr.Greg Knight

We also look forward to the publication of the rail review report. The Minister mentioned that he expects it to be published in the summer. Will he give an assurance that it will be published before the House rises for the summer recess?

Mr.McNulty

I happily give that assurance. I spent virtually every day alter I started in this post—on Friday 13, as Members may know—saying that we promised faithfully to publish the aviation White Paper by the end of the year. By God, we did it—with two days to spare before the Christmas recess; it was published on 16 December. In referring to the summer, I am talking about parliamentary time rather than mid-August. As I may have said previously, I was all for saying, "Throw the aviation White Paper on the website on 24 December and we will go on holiday for a couple of months to let the pressures die down." However, we did not do that; we did it the right way.

I will look into the point made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr.Horam) about Borough Market and other pinch points. The issue has been around for ever, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, but I am not sure where we are with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the planning dimension, for which I am happily no longer responsible. However, I will explore that matter and get back to hon. Members.

Many of the points made by the hon. Member for Orpington echoed what my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said. Travel to work is fundamental and will not go away. I feel sorry for the constituent mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, who had been commuting for 20 years and said that the appalling conditions continue. I suspect that at least part of that view reflects how he or she feels today in looking back to the past 20 years, rather than a complete lack of any incremental improvements. I am sure that some things must have improved, one way or the other. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is about a trade-off.

The points about power supply in south London were well made. More and more new rolling stock is finally getting through. However, because of new designs, compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, comfort and other safety aspects, the stock has a smaller capacity. Again, there is a balance to be struck. Do we simply keep and constantly refurbish the old carriages with their slam doors and large capacity or do we accept that the trade-off in respect of new rolling stock is less seating and standing capacity? Of course we do. That is fine if one still seeks to optimise the capacity in other areas, and I accept that point, which was made by more than one hon. Member. The hon. Member for Orpington was right that, in response to a question that he asked—I do not know whether it was in the last Question Time or the previous one —my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expressed exasperation about what appeared to be the simple process involving Network Rail, the local planning authority and others in getting consideration of a platform extension proposal, let alone the next stage of getting such an extension built.

In my role as Minister with responsibility for transport liaison with other bodies in London, I have had meetings with the SRA, Network Rail and others to express the importance of some of the apparently cosmetic, small and trivial elements such as platform extensions, which are more desirable than making everyone shift up to the front of train; with six carriages. That must be done through a streamlined process. We are looking at ways in which that process can be uncoupled from the huge bureaucratic rigmarole that we constantly have to go through. If all the suggested extensions to capacity in London, such as the East London line, Thameslink 2000 and Crossrail are factored in, none of them will happen in an immediate hurry to solve the difficulty over the next couple of years. Therefore, we must try to obtain the most effective use of current capacity. If that cannot happen because of an unmitigated bureaucracy in relation to network and platform extension and so on, the points that were made by the Committee must be considered.

Happily, just because I do not think that it is funny anymore, I did not see "Bremner, Bird and Fortune". I get rather exasperated when I get to five to nine and I have not laughed much. That is the case not because of the content or the supposed satire against the Government, but because the programme is just not funny. I accept that Bird and Fortune are the best bit, rather than the Bremner bit, so it is a shame that I missed that part.

I am terribly saddened that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich is disappointed by the Government's response, which needs to be seen in the wider context of all our work. We need to start talking on a cross-party basis about the big questions such as sharing and using the capacity on our roads and rail as best we can.

I do not think that we are served by hyperbole. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr.Donohoe) will be hard pushed to find a train on which there were 2,000 people when only 1,000 could fit. Poetic licence is one thing, but we should not take it too far. I am grateful that hon. Members have occasionally reminded themselves and qualified the notion of when during the day overcrowding occurs in London or elsewhere. It does not occur on every single train on every single day, and I am grateful to the Committee for pointing that out.

I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South says about some stations having insufficient car parking space. When we deal with integration, we must reach a stage at which there are feeder park-and-ride schemes and significant car park provision, especially in outlying stations, so that people can be encouraged to board a train, if only for that last short hop into town.

On a tangential point, I recently launched a huge park-and-ride scheme with some 400 parking spaces at Selly Oak in Birmingham. It is excellently designed, with a real concern for safety, and it is only about 10 to 15 minutes from the centre of town. It has been built on land that would never have been used for anything else, because it was up against a railway line. A decision was made to transform it into a huge park-and-ride scheme for precisely the purpose that I described.

From what I gather, the scheme has worked effectively, although it did not do so at the launch. The selling point was that there were trains every 10 minutes and that they took 10 minutes to get to Birmingham New Street station. However, after having a cup of tea and doing some radio interviews, we turned to get the train and it was cancelled. What should have been a good news story for Birmingham and the Government turned into "Minister Stranded as Trains Cancelled". Happily, the trains leave every 10 minutes, so I got the next one.

The car park has 400 spaces and it is close to the town centre. The scheme does not use land that could be exploited for housing or employment opportunities, and it has been working well. We need to work with local authorities through local transport plans and bring the rail network more into the notion of integrated local and regional planning than it has been until now.

Mr.Horam

Will the Minister speak to the Mayor of London about integrating car parking with local stations? He is putting a strict limit on the amount of parking available, and in some instances that is clearly a mistake.

Mr.McNulty

We shall not bandy words about our respective views of the Mayor of London, although he will be more than happy to converse about such proposals in relation to stations in outlying areas. London is a bit different from Birmingham, and the Mayor has a problem with stations that are very close to the city centre. However, the south London overland infrastructure of stations and associated car parks has been wilfully neglected for a long time. It is in a far worse state than in other areas, as I have noticed in the past few days while making the train journeys that I have mentioned. I frequently speak to the Mayor, who is nowadays a good friend and comrade, so I am happy to have a word about the car parks.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham that there is no denying that there is a wide range of problems. In the context of limited resources, we have to strike a balance and trade off the various aspects. He made a point about having too many players, and I have said that we are considering that point in the context of the rail review. I would not condemn Crossrail as a project, first, before it is even off the ground; secondly, before we have considered the report; and thirdly, before any final proposal is agreed or otherwise. To start railing because there is no station at Woolwich is a little premature, and the case still needs to be argued. I was happy to announce recently that, as he said, the docklands light railway is now extending to Woolwich to bring the town more into what is happening in the gateway north of the river. We should be pleased about that.

As the Government said in our response, we need to consider how we monitor overcrowding and how frequently we do so. The point about PIXCs and being away with the fairies was well crafted if not necessarily true. To return to choices, we cannot have 12-car trains across the entire network. I do not agree with the suggestion that we are firefighting. In a strategic sense, we are scrambling towards making best use of our railway network, while, as we have always said, playing catch-up in the investment that we are making.

I have deliberately focused on the points in the report rather than simply giving a litany about investment levels. Hon. Members have referred to those levels, and they are significant, but there are other problems. None the less, I am not going to go down the road of attacking the Conservative Front Benchers for their public expenditure pronouncements over the last couple of months, which showed that the fellow from Bournemouth has not changed his spots.

Clive Efford

Before my hon. Friend moves on, will he comment on the upgrading of the electricity supply and say whether it will be sufficient for 12-car trains? Earlier, he mentioned the need to make the best of our network. Are we confident that the upgrade of the electricity supply will achieve that?

Mr.McNulty

I am not being flippant, but clearly in one sense the upgrade of the supply will allow us to use capacity far more readily than would be the case if the upgrade did not occur. Whether that is sufficient at particular peak hours throughout the whole network to run 12-car trains, or at what level it can run such trains, I will explore further, because it is not a matter with which I am familiar. I shall get back not only to my hon. Friend, but to all those hon. Members who have attended the debate.

I am not about to attack the Tories, and I mean that. I wish to say to the Liberal Democrats, however, that making nice noises—as ever—is all very fine, but I should love to see their costed plans for everyone having a seat on a train. I suspect that they might run to a few billion pounds. I read with interest and relish alleged Liberal Democrat shadow Budgets when they are produced. I think of them with affection, but I did not find anything about the expansion of transport expenditure in their last three shadow Budgets. I appreciate, however, that that was before the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr.Marsden) was a member of the party.

Mr.Marsden

The Minister has already agreed that we need to increase capacity. The fact is that we do not have enough Network Rail carriages. What will he do about that? The fact that he has already dismissed such matters and said that there will always be overcrowding will be bitterly disappointing for ordinary rail commuters who will continue to suffer day after day.

Mr. McNulty

With the best will in the world, the hon. Gentleman is talking through his backside.

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Edward O'Hara)

Order, Will the Minister withdraw that statement?

Mr.McNulty

Of course, Mr.Deputy Speaker.I withdraw it.

Given our network, its throughput and the hours in the day, there will always be overcrowding especially on the London commuter network.

Mr.Donohoe

Will the Minister give way?

Mr.McNulty

No, I will not. I am not being complacent. We are not washing our hands of the matter. What I said is a fact. I defy anyone, even those hon. Members who represent the commuter belt or those from the minor, third party to tell me how, in terms of resources, rolling stock or any other capacity, matters will change. While we continue to have an on-off, walk-on service and do not limit the number of people on our trains—I have not heard of such a policy—we shall not have anything other than overcrowding in the peak hours.

Bob Spink

As the Minister asked me to do so, I shall tell him what I think should be done. We must put more rolling stock on the lines, so that the 12-car trains can be up and running on the London, Tilbury and Southend line during rush hour and have an additional station on Canvey Island. That will increase the capacity of the line and allow people to travel in safety and without overcrowding. Will he now stop waffling and tell the Chamber what he will specifically do to resolve the problem for my constituents?

Mr.McNulty

Again, with the best will in the world, the hon. Gentleman has offered one solution to increase capacity and another to increase the passenger throughput on that capacity. He cannot have both. He wants more trains on the LTS line and another station, so that even more people can get on an already crowded LTS line. That is not a conceivable way in which to ensure that the LTS line never has capacity problems and overcrowding It reinforces my point. I am not being complacent. I recognise the limitations on the capacity that we already have in London and commuter land, and that our plans—even the three that I mentioned—although they will add to capacity, but not significantly, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, will not overcome overcrowding at peak hours, which is simply a fact of life. We can ameliorate and mitigate it and try to lengthen the peak hours so that there is only a degree of discomfort, and not the nasty overcrowding there is at some times.

However, neither the hon. Gentleman nor any party would be able to find the necessary resources or be able to do the other things that would have to be done to eradicate crowding and overcrowding on London commuter lines. To suggest otherwise is to be away with the fairies, or is for minor third parties that do not have a hope in hell of securing power.

Mr.Donohoe

I wish to return to my point about having a definition that is understandable. There are maximum levels of occupancy for car and bus travel. Will overcrowding on trains be defined?

Mr.McNulty

That touches in part on the fatuous suggestion of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham about chickens and pigs. Do we wish to start from the premise that we no longer want a walk-on service anywhere on our rail network? Do we want to say, "304, 305, 306—that's your lot, you can all clear off and wait for the next one?" I have not heard any party proposing that policy. We must address extra rolling stock in peak hours, extensions to platforms and the many other ways in which the problem in London and the south-east can be ameliorated. I apologise for dwelling on that region, but 70 per cent of passenger journeys take place there.

If there is a walk-on service, the key question is what to do to ameliorate overcrowding in peak hours.

Mrs.Ellman

Will the Minister give way?

Mr.McNulty

No, because I am about to finish so that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, the Committee Chairman, can have some time.

I am not suggesting that there are no problems in other areas. That is why I have apologised for dwelling on London and the south-east. No one is suggesting that walk-on services should not prevail.

Mr.Deputy Speaker

Order, I remind the Minister that we have until 5.30 pm.

Mr.McNulty

Do we? In that case, I will give way.

Mrs.Ellman

My hon. Friend the Minister stated that 70 per cent. of passenger journeys took place in the south-east and he gave the unfortunate impression that he did not have equal concern for passengers in the regions. Would he like to rectify that?

Mr.McNulty

I did not give that impression, and it is obtuse to think that I did. I was simply apologising for dwelling on London and the south-east where the majority of journeys take place, and where there is most of the overcrowding.

The report accepts that we should work on the premise that there will be walk-on services and we will not restrict the number of people on our trains. Many reasons for overcrowding have been described in the report and by hon. Members. It is a cause of concern and discomfort but in most regards it is not a health and safety issue. That is stated clearly in the report and the response. However, if we are to maintain walk-on services, we will not get to a stage where how many square feet each commuter should have will be defined. That would be inappropriate.

With regard to the other end of the scale, fair points have been made about whether the definition and measurement of the performance of the train operating companies in achieving anything less than overcrowding should be looked at again. In that sense, PIXCs and fairies are entirely reasonable. Should the TOCs look again at how they measure overcrowding? There is always scope to revisit how things are measured. Should they measure their performance on that more often than once a year? Of course they should. The Government's response states that there should be more than an annual snapshot of overcrowding.

I happily accept the points that have been made on this, but we are not going to get to a stage where there is anything other than a walk-on service. If we were, everything from franchising to rolling stock would need to be reconfigured. We are trying to make the best of what we have. The SRA is looking at its overall network utilisation strategy. That will raise further dilemmas and public policy choices if people are serious about taking this as other than either a narrow parochial issue or a partisan one. There are serious issues throughout the network, not only in the areas in which there is overcrowding, about what we do with various types and levels of services. Serious questions need to be asked about utilisation and capacity in our core urban areas—in London and beyond—in the areas surrounding and linked to our urban areas and in the interconnections between urban areas. Posing and answering those questions may go some way to relieving the issue of overcrowding that the report has raised.

As has already been said, there will also be a rolling-stock strategy. In both general and specific terms, there are great concerns in some of the franchise arrangements about how overcrowding should be tackled. I fully accept what the report says about safety not being used by the TOCs as some sort of umbrella excuse or alibi for not making service improvements. That point was well made. We need to reach the stage at which we are affording our people the railway network that they deserve.

There has been a significant level of investment, which has been sustained and planned for the first time in a long while. I say that as a reproach to previous Governments of both persuasions. Such a major infrastructure needs constant care and attention in terms of maintenance, and that has not been forthcoming. We are therefore, in some respects, still playing catch-up.

As one hon. Member said—I apologise that I cannot remember who—the report deals admirably with the vexed question of overcrowding, but raises as many further questions after study as it gives answers. In addition to the immediate response that we gave to the report, we will deal with those questions in a serious fashion. Moreover, given that my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee has expressed such disappointment at the Government's response, I will also take that back to the Department. We will take the report, its contents and how we build on it to allay people's concerns about overcrowding very seriously indeed. I will also respond to hon. Members on the matters about which I said that I would do so.

I conclude by thanking the Committee for its report. As with a range of its reports, it is exact, to the point and commendably concise, but it is none the less substantive, reflective and thought-provoking for all that. Hon. Members should be assured that we will take the findings extremely seriously. I do not doubt that this issue will continue to vex hon. Members, and that we will return to it regularly.

I repeat, because it is only fair to be as honest and responsible as one can in these positions, that a magic wand will not be waved over the next five, 10 or 15 years by whatever party is in power, to eradicate completely any hint of overcrowding in the UK—certainly not on the London and south-east network—unless we were to go down the PIXC route. That idea was suggested not by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich but by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, who argued that everyone should buy a seat and people should not stand on a train at all, which is absolutely in the land of the fairies.

4.58 pm

Mrs.Dunwoody

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak for a second or two at the end of the debate. It is fashionable to accuse the House of Commons of being out of touch with the interests of constituents, but for those of us who are involved in transport it is clear that one of the most important things that affects people's lives is their day-to-day contact with transport—movement between their homes and their jobs and their jobs and their social life. That is why the report is important. Although it is short, it lays out some very important issues.

The debate today has been fascinating because it has shown the interest that individual Members can demonstrate from their own areas. It is important that we understand that the problem affects not just one area but the whole of the UK. It is also true that in transport the changes that are introduced are frequently incremental—large sums may be spent, but the traveller does not always see the immediate and direct effect. However, without proper planning and incremental improvement, there will never be a change in the situation of those who are subjected to intolerable conditions daily on their way to work—I use the word "intolerable" deliberately. Every day in this capital city, staff have to close stations so that they can assess the number of people on the platforms because it has reached a dangerous level. In our other cities, people push and shove on to trains every day, to get to work in conditions that should not be acceptable in any civilised society.

Our report addresses specifically not only what the problem is, but what ought to be done about it. I will not repeat all the suggestions, and I am grateful to the Minister for his kind words. However, the House of Commons works best when we realise that we have a duty to those who elect us to ensure that we understand the conditions of their lives. Those conditions are affected by the decisions that we take. Transport is one of the basic and important subjects on which we make decisions, and we must not lose our appreciation of its importance in the lives of our constituents.

The debate has been useful. I should give the Minister notice that I do not intend to keep coming back and talking about the same subjects for the next five or 10 years; I may haunt him, but I will not keep asking the same questions. However, I expect, and demand, changes, and my Committee will ensure that those changes are made.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Five o'clock.