| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 1391
tradition in the Conservative party caused the accident that befell it yesterday in Mid-Staffordshire. If there had been more of the common sense of the hon. Member for Christchurch, there would have been more votes for his candidate and conceivably fewer for mine. I hope that I can now pass from less partisan matters and return to transport matters. The Minister gave the game away in some respects when he said in concluding, as if with pride, that there is new transport in London --the Jubilee line and the docklands light railway in the Newham constituency. There certainly are new lines, but they are not railways that are built because of strategic considerations or comprehensive transport planning. If they were, they would not be proposed by the Government who, in both cases, are more concerned with the needs of the developers and of the capitalists, some of whom are from different parts of the world, than with developing London properly. Such developments are being made for the wrong reasons and they illustrate the present position.Most Members of Parliament and certainly most members of the public want a transport system, both rail and road, that caters for mass movement, which integrates the demands of both road and rail and which is planned on the basis of being a public service. The Minister's aim is for some sort of transport and railway system which is linked to theories from a think tank of 10 or 15 years ago and which looks on the transport of individuals purely as a market commodity. That is how the Government have been running the railways. It annoys many of us when we see clearly services that are not up to scratch being advertised in ridiculous television commercials. What might otherwise be an atttractive crooning voice appears ridiculous. The habit of announcers at stations talking about "customers" rather than passengers betrays the philosophy imposed on the British Rail management by the Government.
The Minister talked about the Silvertown and north London lines, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) referred, and about the anomalies of the Barking to Gospel Oak service. The Minister may have forgotten that in Question Time recently the Secretary of State admitted that that service was in a terrible state and that a special report had been called for. The service may be a bit better now, but it should not improve only because the subject has been raised on the floor of the House, or because the Secretary of State tried the line himself and found it wanting. That is not the way to make improvements. We want improvements to result from the buoyant demand for mass movement. I shall confine the rest of my remarks to three aspects : routes, people and safety. It is clear that there is no comprehensive national planning for upgrading or putting in new railway routes. If there were, we should not have our present trouble over the Channel tunnel. The Government do not even understand or look to the vision of their 19th century forebears. The forget that almost 100 years ago Sir Edward Watkin planned the great central railway with a specific eye to serving the Channel tunnel. It would be good for the country, including the north-west, if the remnants of that railway were now safeguarded. I know that it might be difficult to put it through urban
Column 1392
areas, but it would be good if it was safeguarded at once. That would plug a gap in the Government's strategic thinking.The mess-up over the Channel tunnel is another illustration of the Government's lack of strategic thinking and of the fact that the project has been tied to private enterprise purse strings. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will, no doubt, refer to Stratford. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) said that his constituents wanted to end up not in Stratford but in central London. It may be forgotten that a journey from Stratford to central London would take only five, six or 10 minutes on the cross-rail--if it were built. People want a big international centre with plenty of space and with fast routes to the Channel tunnel, which is easy to reach from all parts of central London, from the north-west and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said earlier, from Wales. Stratford would fit that description. It may sound a long way from central London--
Mr. Spearing : That is true. In terms of time, through the cross- rail route which we all want to see, it would be very close. It would take five to 10 minutes to reach from most parts of the City and the west end. The Government's lack of vision has caused the problems.
I have here a map produced by British Rail in 1980, under the far-sighted chairmanship of Sir Peter Parker. British Rail wanted a cross-rail route from Euston to Victoria and, if it had dared to propose it, a route from Paddington to Liverpool Street as well. The plan was presented complete with a cost-benefit analysis, but the Government turned it down. I believe that it was never meant to have any success. If British Rail had put the plan into action, cross-London trains would have been running now and we should not have our present problems in London. It is because of the Government's shortsightedness that we did not get them at that stage.
We can go back even further. The Government talk about Victorian virtue. The Metropolitan railway joined Liverpool Street and Paddington--now also the northern part of the inner circle--with links at both ends 100 years ago. It was not a capitalist invention. Conservative Members' ideas about economic theory are mostly wrong. The Metropolitan railway was built as a result of the vision of a man called Charles Pearson, solicitor to the City of London corporation, whose driving force was philan-thropic. He thought, "Let us build a railway from the overcrowded insanitary city to the countryside so that people can live in decent suburban surroundings and come to the City to work." The driving force of the Metropolitan railway was not capital. The railway was the result of good strategic town planning of the sort that this Government do not even recognise. They are more than a century behind the times when it comes to transport in London.
The cross-rail option would be the better option because it would provide much more relief than some other routes--certainly more than the Jubilee line option, which the Government have chosen. They have no strategic understanding of national trunk routes or even of routes in London.
My second theme is people. The Government regard the public not as passengers but as customers, and their
Column 1393
attitude to the most important people on the railways other than the passengers--those who run it--is deplorable. British Rail's industrial relations record has been very poor lately. BR brought in a gentleman whose name I forget who had been with the motor industry, and we all know the trouble that we had. I know from talking to people on the railway just how dismayed they are at the way things are going. They are squeezed all ways. A few moments ago, the Minister himself referred to the shortage of drivers. Drivers have been resigning from the southern region.The psychology of the management--the way in which it goes about things--is all wrong. Running a railway is like running a family business : it requires loyalty and team work. Managers must show that they understand the difficulties and problems of those who operate the service, but they are not doing that. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) properly referred to women and safety on British Rail, yet even now it is extending the one-person operation of trains. I shall return to the safety aspect of that in a moment but it is certainly important from the point of view of people travelling at night, especially women. British Rail is steaming ahead--if that is the right word--with disregard for the needs of its passengers, both on platforms and on trains.
My third theme is safety--a theme of considerable importance. Hon. Members have repeatedly referred to King's Cross and Clapham and the Government have made expositions concerning their adherence to safety standards. The Minister has been engaged in conversation for some time, but I ask him to pay particular attention to my remarks on this subject. He and I have had some correspondence about the one-person operation of trains on the older lines of the London Underground. When London Regional Transport--or, more accurately, London Underground--introduced the one-person operation of trains on the Piccadilly line, I protested to Sir Keith Bright, the then chairman. I regarded the introduction of the system as increasing the hazards and asking for trouble.
I raised the matter again in the House on 13 March 1989. I asked the Minister to review that practice. In a public speech on 8 September 1989 in Upminster, bearing in mind Zeebrugge, King's Cross, Clapham and one or two other episodes of that kind, I said : "We have now seen disaster on the sea, and in London on the river, on an escalator and on an open railway line. In each case we ask, Why did it happen?' If we get another London disaster, this time in tunnels in the bowels of the earth, it could be that that question need not be asked, since the answer might be in this speech. Mr. Parkinson must now act to make that impossible,".
In that speech, I was referring to the refusal of the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), to ask LRT to stop the extension of one-person operation on London's older tubes. I discount the Victoria line because it works on a different system.
I have had correspondence with the Minister for Public Transport and I am glad that he is present today. In Hansard there is an answer from the Minister to one of my written questions, and he has reproduced in full a letter that he sent to me. I asked him to check with the railway inspectorate whether one-person operation on deep tube trains was satisfactory to the inspectorate. I believe that it is inherently unsatisfactory. In his answer the Minister stated :
Column 1394
"The inspectorate arranged for an exercise to be carried out in the early morning of Sunday 28th January on the Bakerloo Line between Oxford Circus and Piccadilly Circus. It involved four trains, none of which was in passenger service. The simulated emergency was deemed to have been caused by the incapacitation of the driver of the leading train. The simulation was done in such a way as to create the conditions likely to be met if the incident had occurred during the peak hour service the Chief Inspecting Officer tells me that he regards the arrangements as acceptably safe and that they constitute a suitable method to deal with the unlikely event of a train stopping within a single-bore tunnel due to the sudden disablement of its driver."--[ Official Report, 22 March 1990 ; Vol. 169, c. 655-56. ] There are other risks with one- person operated trains, as we are aware from the King's Cross inquiry. Hazards occur when unlikely and unforeseen events occur.When the Minister received the report from the inspectors did he wonder whether the test was carried out with passengers on the trains? Did he wonder whether the test was carried out simply by the staff? As I have given the Minister notice of this point, will he tell us whether the simulated accident or hazard took place with simulated passengers or were the trains empty?
Mr. Portillo : The trains were empty of passengers, but there were observers including London Underground Ltd employees, an inspecting officer from the railway inspectorate and two trade unionists, one of whom was a safety representative.
Mr. Spearing : I am grateful to the hon. Minister. Other than his political motivation and his economics, he is a reasonable Minister. He is courteous and fair. However, I believe that there is a lacuna. When we ask why hazards happen or why a single wire should dangle down, as it did at Clapham, or why a single cigarette should start a conflagration as it did at King's Cross, we may forget that someone in the chain of responsibility has forgotten to ask the obvious. I am determined to question the safety of one-person operation on the older tubes. The chairman of LUL has pushed the issue aside and the Secretary of State has pushed it aside twice. However, to the Minister's credit, he said that he would consult the inspectorate and, perhaps because of my questions, the inspectorate performed a simulated exercise.
Two questions arise. First, why is it that, two years after the introduction of one-person operation, there was a simulated exercise? From the context of the Minister's letter, I guess that it is quite clear that it was not done before. If there is a disaster--I hope that there will not be--somebody will ask, "Did they have an exercise?" It will be proved that they did not--at least not until the one that the Minister mentioned. Secondly, when the Minister read the letter, as I did not, did he ask himself whether the passengers in the trains were make-believe passengers in the sort of density that everybody who uses London Underground experiences in rush hour conditions? I emphasise the Minister's answer, which states :
"to create the conditions likely to be met if the incident had occurred during the peak hour service."
If we are to test a school fire exit--some hon. Members have done that in their younger days, and I have been responsible for supervising such tests- -would it be good enough to say, "Yes, we did a test with the staff and the caretaker"? That is what happened underground. If we conduct such a test in a cinema or a large opera house, as one must do under the law, and we said, "Yes, we did a test
Column 1395
with the usherettes and the manager," would anybody accept it as a valid test? I suspect that, when the Minister got the report, he forgot to ask himself that question.Can we accept as a valid test the evacuation of tube trains underground in a simulated condition that the inspectorate believed is likely to occur in the rush hour when there were no passengers present, not even people who might be expected to simulate passengers? We all know what happens in the event of an emergency at sea, on land or in the air. People do not expect it. The London Underground test was not the sort of exercise that should have taken place. Such a test should be done only when trains are full of passengers and when they do not expect such an exercise to take place. In all modesty, I advise the Minister that he has slipped up in accepting that as a valid test of the safety of our underground trains.
1.27 pm
Sir George Young (Ealing, Acton) : It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) who shares with me an interest in the bicycle as an even cheaper means of public transport, and an interest in Acton--an interest which turned out to be mutually exclusive for us. I join the hon. Gentleman in his compliments to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) who has ignited a lively debate. As many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, I propose to keep my remarks relatively brief.
I inform my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) who, like me, has sat patiently throughout the debate, that I would be the same shape as he is were it not for the fact that I travel regularly on Network SouthEast from Ealing Broadway to Paddington or by Piccadilly line in the rush hour from Acton Town to Westminster. Congestion in the coaches keeps the elongated structure that is now addressing the House.
Anybody who travels on the tube or on Network SouthEast will say that congestion has got worse and that conditions have deteriorated. There are simply more people travelling. Also, there are more interruptions and cancellations than there used to be. Not all of them are the fault of the operators, but quite a lot are. As a result, more people are writing to their Members of Parliament--certainly those in London--complaining about conditions. They know that, over the past 10 years, the economic fortunes of this country have improved. As a result, they expect part of the greater wealth that has been created to be diverted to the improvement, modernisation and expansion of public transport in London, the south-east and in other parts of the country.
Superimposed on the resentment to which I referred and the rising expectations that I have touched on is a third factor, which is linked to the welcome awakening of interest in environmental concern. It is a questioning of the role of the motor car in our society, concern about the pollution that it is causing and anxiety at the land use implications of catering for its appetite. In London, there has certainly been a major shift of public opinion on this matter. In the past few years, there has been a swing against road construction and in favour of public transport.
Column 1396
Our job as Back Benchers is to report that shift in public expectation to the House. That is what most of us have tried to do in the debate. The Minister's job is more difficult. It is to capture the changing public mood and to convert it into practical, realistic and affordable policies. No one could do that better than my hon. Friend who is a fellow London Member and who has finely tuned political antennae. Some of the guiding principles involved in making that difficult conversion from the gut feeling that we should spend more on public transport to devising and implementing he practical policies of building new lines and modernising others have been touched on in the debate.My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said in his excellent speech that we should avoid dogma. We have painted ourselves into a corner over the high-speed Channel tunnel link by saying that there should be no public money for the route. With respect to my hon. Friend the Minister, it is not just a question of a faster link ; it is also a question of increasing the capacity. The capacity on the existing proposals will not be adequate if the traffic forecasts are right. It was doubtless a well-intentioned policy at the time to say that there would not be a public subsidy for the high- speed link, but that policy is now outdated and unrealistic and should be changed. We have insisted on high environmental safeguards, which have tipped the project from being viable to unviable. Therefore, it seems wholly sensible that the taxpayer should help to fund the project. If the full potential of the Channel tunnel investment is to be realised we shall have to look afresh at the rail network in this country, at terminals and all the rest. The investment regime that may have been right when we were considering simply an internal network for this country may be wholly inappropriate when we begin to consider a network that is part of a continental network, with all the implications for competition and exporters that go with that. I hope that we shall not be dissuaded by Opposition Members from looking to passengers for part of the contribution towards the greater investment that we all wish to see. We are not pushing up fares simply because we are reducing subsidies to public transport. Fares are being increased because the Government are committed to a major expansion in public transport and they rightly believe that as the passenger is the principal beneficiary, he has a role to play in funding the investment.
In retrospect, the worst days for London were when subsidy was diverted into keeping the fares down, when there was little expansion and when congestion worsened. In retrospect, that was short-sighted policy to which I hope that we shall not revert. I am prepared to defend higher fares to my constituents as long as they are linked to substantial investment and to an improvement in services from which they will then benefit.
We have had a debate about level playing fields. I was persuaded by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that at the moment there is some discrimination against investment in public transport. I listened to what the Minister said : he hotly denied my hon. Friend's claim. I felt that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch had the balance of the argument, but I am prepared to be persuaded. I also listened with interest to the remarks about the east-west cross route. That will be of major interest to people in west London because many people who live in
Column 1397
Ealing work in the City. The Central line is congested and slow and an extension from Paddington to Liverpool Street would therefore be of major interest. I am not sure that I accept the argument, which we heard only when the Government said that they could afford only one link, that London's traffic could not cope with two links at the same time. That argument was put forward only after a decision was made that only one would be funded. I am not persuaded by that, because I believe that there is sufficient capacity in London and that London needs both.I agree that there is a problem with exporting the spoil, but that could be done by canal, for example. Paddington is on a canal and much of the spoil could be removed by that route. The Jubilee line clearly has links with the river Thames and the Chelsea-Hackney route is not all that far removed from the river. Therefore, I do not accept those arguments and I hope that the east-west cross route, which was at the top of the list, is the one that goes ahead. Two points have not yet been mentioned. The first is highly relevant. Much of the work for which hon. Members have asked during the debate involves legislation and would use the private Bill procedure. I speak as the sponsor of the King's Cross Railways Bill. I am genuinely concerned that the private Bill procedure will not be adequate to cope with the sheer volume of legislation that we want to see, which would be sponsored by British Rail or London Regional Transport. It is easy to put a sleeping policeman in front of a private Bill. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is an expert at it. I have come across it in his opposition to the King's Cross Bill.
If, as a nation, we are to invest heavily in public transport, is it adequate to expect one or two Back Benchers to persuade 100 people to stay behind after a debate on a light evening? Is it right that there should be no amendment in Committee because of the consequences on the Bill on Report? If we are to have a major expansion of public transport we need to examine the private Bill procedure. In my view it is wholly inappropriate.
So far in the debate no one has mentioned the disabled. Some 12 per cent. of the population have a mobility handicap. There are 500,000 such people in London. Much progress has been made in making public transport more accessible. Some 90 per cent. of all new buses will have the features recommended by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, including lower step heights, textured and colour-contrasted handrails, and bell pushes which can be reached without getting out of one's seat.
The United Kingdom is working within the European Community to establish the best standards for wheelchair accessibility for buses. Over 2,500 taxis now operating through the radio circuit are wheelchair accessible. By the year 2000 all taxis in London will be accessible to the disabled. Then we have the Taxicard scheme which provides over 750,000 trips for the disabled and others each year, with the number ever rising.
Britain leads the rest of Europe in designing coaches that are accessible to the disabled. The French and Belgian railways have adopted a BR design for on-train facilities. By 1993 all rail routes in Britain will be accessible to people in wheelchairs. Indeed, many trains already have appropriate facilities. There are other services for the disabled such as dial-a-ride in London for which, I am delighted to say, the Government have increased the budget by £1 million. In this debate on public transport, let us not ignore the needs of the disabled.
Column 1398
I was reassured by the commitment of my hon. Friend the Minister to support public transport. I hope that he will be influenced by pressure not just from Opposition Members but from Conservative Members. All my hon. Friends who have spoken wish to see a continuing shift in Government priorities. They are determined to see that public transport gets a square deal.1.37 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) is right to draw attention to the shortcomings of the private Bill procedure. I hope that the House will examine those matters seriously along the lines that he suggested.
I pay tribute to the way in which British Rail and Scot Rail conducted the centenary celebrations on the Forth bridge, the southern end of which is in my constituency. It was done with dignity, credit and aplomb and that should be recorded here.
As an hon. Member who is sponsored by the National Union of Railwaymen, I draw attention yet again to the success of the Edinburgh-Bathgate line. It is a new line, the financial and other expectations of which have far exceeded what was anticipated. I welcome what the Minister said about the noise insulation on new lines. I wish that initiative well. It is important, and I take the point of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) about parity with motorways.
I interrupted the opening speech on the complex matter of the electrification of the Glasgow to Edinburgh line. There is a strong view, which I hope is increasingly shared by Mr. Bleasdale and others, who will take the decisions, that it would be much cheaper and more practical to electrify one of the southern routes than one of the northern routes. Both routes go through my constituency and Linlithgow is my local station. I recognise the problem of the cost of electrifying the line through the Queen street tunnel. Perhaps soon there will be a statement for expectant Scots on this important matter.
Lastly, I speak with some passion on an issue about which I hope the Department of Transport, including the Minister, will do something quickly, by which I mean this afternoon. It concerns the Department because for some years specialist rail equipment of great complexity has been fabricated at the Atlas steel works in Armadale. The steel works is unique in Britain in a number of respects. It was established originally to make armoured plate for the Dreadnought battleships. It has been taken over by William Cook plc. It is not part of my case to denigrate those who run Cooks. Andrew Cook is an extremely distinguished and imaginative iron founder and has a reputation for modernisation. In many of his actions he has not been an asset stripper. The circumstances of Armadale, however, are sad to say the least. It has been decided to close the foundry.
I may have other opportunities to raise in the House other aspects of the events that are taking place at Armadale. I have been lucky to secure a ten -minute Bill on 25 April to amend the Fair Trading Act 1973 to allow the courts further powers of interdict and injunction to prevent purchasers of assets of firms which are subject to potential inquiry by the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission from pre-empting possible decisions of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry arising out of recommendations of the MMC.
Column 1399
This very afternoon--this is an indication of the urgency--Mr. Charles Cruickshank and his colleagues in the Office of Fair Trading are seeing William Cook plc about the decision to close the Armadale foundry. Immediately, before a possible recommendation to the MMC, the issue for this debate is where British Rail will obtain the important specialist equipment that it requires if it does not come from Armadale. What will it do if it does not have a guarantee that the equipment, which this very afternoon is being transported by lorry to the North British steel foundry in Bathgate, will be used for many years to come? There is a feeling that Aurora, for all its protestations, will not remain at the North British site at Bathgate for very much longer. If that is the position, and other than the rail-making equipment going to Sheffield, possibly to Whittens, British Rail will have to purchase vital equipment in France? Is it not highly undesirable, not least from the point of view of purchasers across the exchanges, that equipment which has been expertly made by Atlas for many years should have to be obtained in France? We should not have to be dependent upon the French or on any other source outside Britain.Could the Department, this afternoon, contact Mr. Charles Cruikshank and Mr. Ray Woolley of the Office of Fair Trading to ascertain their point of view? Could the Department contact the officials of the Scottish Office? The Minister of State, Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), and officials such as David McFadyen and Gordon Kincaid, have been nothing but extremely helpful in these circumstances.
I am the Minister's political opponent, but in this matter I have no criticism of him. On the contrary, he is interested in the issue. Will the Department of Transport contact Scottish Office officials this afternoon to find out their view of the position? They could go one better and talk to Mr. Bob Mairs of West Lothian Enterprise, who has a detailed knowledge of the matter, to find out what I am talking about.
This is a matter of considerable consequence to British Rail. When the NUR group, of which I am a member, gave a farewell meal to Sir Robert Reid, he asked whether there were any last-minute requests. I made a request then, before I realised that the Atlas steel works was to be closed down, that the outgoing chairman should find out about the issue. I put that request to the incoming chairman of the same name, Bob Reid, recently of Shell. I hope that British Rail and the Department of Transport will find out urgently about this matter. The Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, Jim Shaw, and I felt strongly enough about the matter to go to the High Court the day before yesterday to try to get an interdict. I make no criticism, public or private, of Lord Marnoch, the judge, for not giving us that interdict. In this country, fair trading is heavily weighted in favour of ownership and it would be difficult for the court to have come to any other conclusion. I am not criticising the judiciary, but this is an urgent matter of public interest and I want the Minister to find out more about it as quickly as possible.
Column 1400
1.46 pmMr. John Bowis (Battersea) : I hope that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will forgive me if I do not follow him down the foundry route. Courtesy of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) we have had an interesting ride--in railway terms, one might call it an excursion ticket--round the country's railways, ending in Scotland. I shall bring the debate chugging back safely to London to consider transport in our capital, and link this debate with the theme of my motion--that the solution to London's traffic and transport problems lies predominantly with public transport.
The background to my speech is the London assessment studies, on which we shall soon have an official announcement. If the reported conclusions of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Transport, as set out in one national newspaper today and repeated on some radio stations, are true and some of the major road options, such as the Chiswick tunnel, the south circular and the western environmental improvement route, WEIR, were not to be pursued, it would be a great tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's willingness to listen to my hon. Friends and myself in the southern strip of London. I refer particularly to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe), and my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) and for Fulham (Mr. Carrington). That would best show that the Government have their priorities right on the future of London's transport. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot respond to this today because it is a leaked story. However, we must look for public transport solutions and imaginative solutions to our capital's problems. I set my arguments against the background of gridlocked roads and rat-run side roads where, as Lord Dewar said, pedestrians are divided between the quick and the dead as they try to cross some of our side streets. My argument is also set against the background of a public transport system which is overloaded, particularly central London, and the history of public transport in London. That history involves private company fighting private company, fighting public company, with no decisions being made.
The other day the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and I shared a morning assignation, courtesy of LBC radio. She departed from a separate starting point by rail, I started by underground and bus and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) started by taxi. We wanted to see who could reach the station first. I have to say that the taxi got there first followed by the railway train. My package came in last, not least because I started from Battersea square where there is no bus, no railway station and no Underground, so Shanks' pony came into play for the first half mile or so. When I found my Underground station I had crossed the river.
In answer to questions to my hon. Friend the Minister, I was told that there are 244 Underground stations north of the river and only 29 south. That would suggest that more than half the population lives north of the river, but that is not the case. A fair half of the population lives south of the river, yet we are totally unserved by the Underground system. Clapham Junction, the busiest rail
Column 1401
junction in the world, is in my constituency with 1,000 passengers per minute passing through it at peak hours. That station is totally unconnected with the Underground system.In London more than 80 per cent. of commuters into the centre travel by public transport, but 90 per cent. of people travelling to other destinations travel by car because there are no cross routes. The rail network is directed into the centre and our great capital city has no cross routes, particularly running from east to west.
Mr. Adley : Presumably my hon. Friend is aware that in the days of steam there used to be an excellent service from Clapham Junction to Kensington Olympia and to many other places in London. Does he agree that while the phrase "integrated transport policy" may be anathema to some of our hon. Friends, there is still a lack of adequate consultation and joint operation between British Rail and London Underground? Does he agree that Clapham Junction would have tremendous potential if some of the other lines were used?
Mr. Bowis : I could not agree more and I shall come on to some of those opportunities, although I am not sure that I shall incorporate steam in my plans.
Mr. Matthew Carrington (Fulham) : Shame.
Mr. Bowis : My hon. Friend says "Shame" now, but I am not sure that he would approve of steam trains puffing through Fulham.
We have not yet reached the stage at which British Rail is working out ways of bringing long enough trains into our capital city. The trains are too short because the platforms are too short. At one point there was an announcement that British Rail would start a programme of building extensions, but I understand that it has been held back. If we are to have trains which allow people to get in rather than to fall out, we need a serious programme for longer trains to run through inner London.
My hon. Friend the Minister, in his earlier response to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch highlighted the Government's achievements and I pay tribute to them. For the first time we have a Government who are enabling British Rail to invest at a level not seen since the Conservative Government of the 1950s. That is a great tribute. We have gone back on to the rails in terms of investment. The same is true of London Underground and the docklands light railway. I want to see Portillo statues of my hon. Friend to match the Brunel statues all round our capital city, when we have expanded the imagination and opportunity that is lacking in the planning of our network.
Mr. Corbyn : What about Adley statues?
Mr. Bowis : They should be outside London, perhaps on the Christchurch line.
When I speak to the planners in British Rail and London Regional Transport, I am impressed by their knowledge, dedication and striving to provide the service that they believe is required. But I always feel that there is something lacking--that little spark of someone saying, "Let's try something new. Give us an idea and we will work it up to a scheme that we can put forward to our bosses and our paymasters." I want to hear hows rather
Column 1402
than whys coming out of those offices when I put ideas to them. We could put forward many ideas to solve our problems.Hon. Members have mentioned how one assesses the relative investment costs as between rail and road. There was an interesting dialogue between my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) as to the degree to which car drivers pay for roads through the tax system. Most rail passengers also contribute to road costs as car drivers, whereas car drivers often do not use the rail network to any extent and therefore do not make a contribution to it through rail fares.
Rail investment embraces not only tracks but rolling stock.
Mr. Bowis : And signalling, as my hon. Friend says. However, figures for the road network include expenditure only on the roads themselves--not on the vehicles that use them. One must be careful to compare like with like.
Reference has been made to the central London rail study. I am an exponent of the Hackney-Chelsea line. The original study suggested an east-west link in addition to the Hackney-Chelsea line, or a north-south cross-rail. If we can have both, that will be fine--but if not, I want the Hackney-Chelsea line. It will not come as any surprise to hon. Members that that is because the Hackney-Chelsea line could be extended south through the virgin territory of Wandsworth, which is developing in terms of new businesses and other developments. It is territory where private sector finance could be brought into play. The line could be taken to the Southfields link with the District line, rather than to Fulham Broadway. At this point, I stand a little aside from my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham in case he has other ideas.
The London assessment studies contain imaginative ideas such as the light railway link to Roehampton, which could relieve some of the A3 traffic. My favourite proposal is the opening up of the west London line, linking it to Clapham Junction, and in turn linking Clapham Junction to the Underground network. If the line was extended from Willesden to Clapham Junction, there would be the option to extend it further south, to Balham.
Other schemes propose linking the east London line to Balham, and one begins to see a network building up that could provide precisely the kind of east-west link, and the links all round London, that the capital currently lacks. Proposals for many other lines are on the drawing board, in other, some private, studies. They include the new Fleet line, extending the Bakerloo line, the new City line, and extending the Piccadilly line to Clapham Junction via Chelsea and Battersea Bridge road.
Also proposed is linking the Jubilee line to the City airport, extending the Central line to Richmond, and taking the DLR down to Lewisham and up to Finsbury Park. Perhaps the most imaginative of all is the inner London rapid transport scheme, which comprises two intertwining circles. That could make the Gospel Oak connection to which the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) referred, with interchanges at Clapham Junction, Willesden Junction, Peckham Rye and Canonbury. That is an imaginative scheme for the future, but other schemes go way back in time. There was a
Column 1403
proposal in the 1920s for a Wimbledon- Sutton line. We should consider them all, and decide which can be adopted.If there must be a minimalist solution, I want the Hackney-Chelsea link, the west London line and the east London line to Balham. I would also like Clapham Junction to be rebuilt. It provides an important cross-link in the rail system, but it is totally inadequate in its present form. It is totally inappropriate for the disabled, for example, and consideration must be given to how the whole station could be redeveloped.
Comparisons have been made with the Paris Metro. I am often told that it offers a cleaner and more frequent service that is easier to use than the London Underground. I am sure that all those claims are true. The Metro also has more stations. Passenger journeys in London total 815 million per annum, whereas they number 1,484 million in Paris. The Paris lines are much shorter for the number of stations that they serve. London has 273 stations, whereas Paris has 351. The Metro provides a more convenient service, so it is used more frequently.
Having considered introducing some of Paris's ideas, perhaps we could consider transport over the Thames, which tends to divide London's traffic systems. People often speak of the need for a new river crossing in south and south-west London. Perhaps we need such a crossing, but it should be not a new road river crossing but a public transport river crossing. I can see the case for an imaginative new bridge, incorporating a light railway, a bus lane, a cycle lane and provision for pedestrians. That would add to local services. Had I had more time, I would have spoken of buses, midi- buses and the opportunities offered by more bus services. The red route scheme is important in enabling buses to travel through London. If that scheme were linked with a transponder system to enable buses to travel through traffic lights, we would have a bus system in our capital city of which we could be proud.
I shall be the first to erect statues of my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport if he gets transport in London right--every station could have one. In summary, I shall completely misquote Petruchio from "Taming of the Shrew", which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) might at least recognise. He said, "Say that she rail, while then I'll tell her plain she sings as sweetly as a nightingale." The more my hon. Friend the Minister rails, the more we shall give him the plaudits that he deserves. 2.1 pm
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : Friday socialism is about to be practised, and I am sure that someone will tell me how much I have so that we may share it evenly until 2.30 pm.
I congratulate the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on the motions that they have tabled. I cannot understand why they are in the minority in the Conservative party. Their suggestions not only make sense but are very much in demand among the electorate--certainly among the electorate in London, where transport is becoming a hot political issue.
Even the Government are becoming aware of that. A number of stories have been trailed in newspapers that
Column 1404
about next Tuesday the Secretary of State will make announcements taking him somewhat out of the realm of the craven supporter of the road lobby. The Labour party welcomes that. It is not anti -car or anti-road, but it believes that the Government are anti-rail, which is demonstrated by their policies. We want more public transport, specifically more rail use, because we believe that rail travel is cost- effective, environmentally friendly and socially desirable. The Labour party is not anti-car, but it is fervently pro-rail and pro-public transport.What annoys me is that the Government have washed their hands of responsibility for an integrated national transport policy. No one is taking a strategic overview of transport requirements in Britain or in London. The London group, of which I am chair, met the Secretary of State, who said, "I am not in the strategic transport authority" ; and British Rail said the same. Who is the strategic transport authority for London? Labour Members and many Londoners are asking that question.
I looked back through some Greater London council publications and found the 1981 Greater London transport survey, which followed the surveys that it commissioned in 1971 and 1962 as the London county council. It considered all forms of transport in London--road, rail, river--and pedestrians and cyclists. Who does that now? The Government have abolished the GLC and taken away the natural strategic transport authority for London and the south-east, but they have not filled the void. Many of the decisions are dictated not by transport requirements or social desirability but by who can put up the most money, and the transport policy follows. That is happening increasingly in London.
I went to an exhibition that was mounted by Olympia and York, which is putting up some of the money--not a great deal--for the Jubilee line. We have agreed that that is not perhaps the first priority for a new line, but the Government favour it because some money is coming up front. Olympia and York is a responsible company which has transport planners who could show the Department of Transport a thing or two. It even has in its offices a model of London including transport lines which the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment use. I am all for socially responsible private sector investment, but the idea that the Government have to go to these people for not only money but expertise shows that the Government are derelict in their duty to Londoners and to transport requirements in the south-east.
I have a specific question which has been asked before but about which I am concerned because it relates to the Channel tunnel and the repeal of section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. Will an announcement be made? We know that public money must be invested to save the project. The Government have painted themselves into a corner by saying that no public money will be invested. I want the Government to make it clear either that they stand by that statement or that if public money is to be invested in some covert way--as a green dowry or money provided in extra subsidies because of commuter traffic--there will be a proper public inquiry to determine the best route to serve the interests of the south-east and the country generally, linking the Channel tunnel and London.
Ms. Ruddock : Is my hon. Friend aware that yesterday a joint statement was issued by the London boroughs of Southwark, Lambeth, Lewisham and Greenwich making
Column 1405
the very points that he has made and saying that they totally oppose any overground routing of Channel tunnel rail links for freight or passengers through their boroughs?Mr. Banks : I well understand the points that are being made. The Minister and I have discussed this matter. There should be a public inquiry. We should not leave matters as they are, with British Rail being able to cobble together a deal with someone who comes up with the money and having to use the arcane procedure of a private Bill to get the legislation through. The Government cannot keep washing their hands of what is perhaps the most important transport decision to be made this century and perhaps the next. The Government cannot walk away from the issue of responsibility.
I want a public inquiry. As hon. Members know, I favour the idea of a second Channel tunnel terminal, to be located at Stratford in my constituency in the London borough of Newham, and there are good reasons for doing that. The case is good : it would be £1 billion cheaper ; there would be minimal environmental damage ; the project is supported by the relevant local authorities ; there is a prospect of providing 10,000 jobs in the area ; and it would revitalise the east end of London. It is no good my just continuing to make that point. I should like to see a proper, independent public inquiry so that we can find out what is considered to be the best location for the terminal and the linking fast route. I should be happy to abide by a decision of that inquiry.
The Government's decisions are based not on the transport needs of Londoners but on where they can get the most money. The transport decisions follow. The majority of people in London think that transport is one of the most important of issues. Transport chaos looms in the capital city. It is not just a matter of alarmist talk by the Opposition ; everyone who moves about in London--whether on the roads, on the Underground or on Network SouthEast--knows that to be a fact. This is the Government's responsibility. They cannot walk away from it. We demand action from them today.
2.9 pm
Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield) : In view of the time, I shall compress my remarks.
I welcome the debate on railways and public transport policy. It is interesting that whenever railways are debated in the House, there is an inevitable comparison between the investment that British Rail puts into the industry and the investment that is put in by our continental cousins, especially the French. The comparison between British Rail investment and that of SNCF with the TGV concept is always made. It is true that the TGV is a glamorous form of rail transport and that every country would like one. With France's land mass and ability to drive railways through the countryside more easily than we can, it has a transport system that is the envy of most of us.
How modernised are the rural railways in the Pyrenees or in other parts of France when one goes off the main glamour rail routes into areas that do not have the benefit of such investment? There is no doubt that railway investment in the United Kingdom stretches from Penzance to Thurso. Wherever the railway is in operation, especially in rural areas such as mid -Wales and the north of Scotland, new forms of signalling equipment, radio telephone equipment and rolling stock have been introduced. That has transformed the railway system in
| Next Section
| Home Page |