House of Commons Hansard Debates for 31 Jan 1991

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe) : After that withering criticism of the Treasury, I rise to speak as chairman of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. In that capacity, the House will

Column 1155

expect me to give the views of the trustees on the Government's proposals as set out in the Bill. As trustees, selected by right hon. and hon. Members as a whole to manage the fund, my colleagues and I, from both sides of the House, try our best to improve its provisions in the interests both of hon. Members, past and present, and their dependants. We have taken a leading role in securing many improvements in the scheme over the years, including a faster accrual rate, the age-- service conditions for early retirement at a general election, and the provision for ill-health retirement pensions. As I made clear in our last debate on parliamentary pensions on 17 January 1990, however, there remained a very strong case for further improvements. This debate, more than a year later, breaks all known records for frequency of postponement and, regrettably, although the Bill provides for some improvements long advocated by the trustees, it does not meet all our aims--in particular, our very strongly held view that the scheme will remain most seriously flawed until the injustice of a Member's contribution of 9 per cent., compared with one from the Treasury of only 4.4 per cent., is redressed. Anyone who thinks that the House of Commons puts the interests of hon. Members first should look at that comparison and the failure, over a protracted period, to bring it more into line with the average of contributions paid by employees and employers in occupational pension schemes generally. According to the latest survey I have of occupational pension schemes, by the National Association of Pension Funds, employees in the United Kingdom contribute 4.4 per cent. towards the cost of their pensions and employers 8.8 per cent. So in the United Kingdom as a whole, employers pay twice as much as employees whereas, in our scheme, hon. Members pay more than twice as much as the Treasury.

I must remind right hon. and hon. Members that the initial steps towards the improvements for which the Leader of the House is now providing were taken as long ago as May 1987, when we debated the Bill which became the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1987. That Act allowed for the amendment of the rules governing Members' pension arrangements by secondary legislation. Draft regulations under the 1987 Act will be considered later this evening in relation to the TSRB's latest report. However, we still await consolidated regulations, which is a matter that I raised with the Leader of the House for the trustees at a recent meeting with him.

In the debate on the Second Reading of the 1987 Act, strong pressure was exerted by Members, notably on the rate of their contributions and the level of benefits. In consequence, the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham), agreed to refer the parliamentary contributory pension fund to the Top Salaries Review Body, as reported in the Official Report of 24 July 1987, column 502. The TSRB's report was published in May 1988, since when the trustees of the fund have discussed them, at innumerable meetings, with three successive Leaders of the House : the right hon. Members for Colchester, South and Maldon, for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) and for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor).

With all of them, the trustees pressed the claims which were set out to the House in my speech of 17 January 1990.

Column 1156

I know that all three right hon. Members sought and, indeed, helped to close the gap between us, and that the Bill that we are debating would have been much less satisfactory but for their efforts. It must be emphasised that the present Leader, within days of his appointment, made plain his readiness to help in every way possible and that at least one important change to the Bill, as originally drafted, owes a very great deal to his responsive attitude to our representations. The Bill now includes a clause which will enable the House to express an opinion and, indeed, to reject any proposal by the Leader to vary the Exchequer-Member contribution ratio which appears unreasonable to the House. The clause does not guarantee a debate. The House will be unable to act unless the Leader tables a proposal and I hope very much that he will go as far as he possibly can in this debate to assure us that it will be his firm purpose, and must also be that of his successors, to provide parliamentary time on an amendable motion to enable the House to state its views whenever the interests of Members are affected by any question on which he can act by making a proposal under the clause. Not to do so will merely increase dissatisfaction with the present imbalance as between ministerial and parliamentary control over the scheme. For the moment, however, I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for going further in this matter than any of his predecessors were able to go.

Mr. Ray Powell : I am rather concerned about the TSRB and its responsibility. Can my right hon. Friend satisfy me and other right hon. and hon. Members that, if the TSRB rejected what the House suggested to it, the avenue open to hon. Members, particularly on resettlement grant, would be to take action in the House by a majority of the House--351 hon. Members out of 650 who could attend the House and sign an early-day motion, perhaps excluding Ministers and a few others--appending their signatures to an early-day motion? At least, if the TSRB rejected our suggestion, we could take action. Will my right hon. Friend assure me and others that that will be possible?

Mr. Morris : Ultimately the power to decide rests with this House. The Treasury has enormous control over Ministers, yet we need help from them. Further to my hon. Friend's comments, I must tell the Leader of the House that I believe the pressure for change as far as resettlement grant is concerned is now becoming totally irresistible.

Very clearly, as I know the right hon. Gentleman accepts, it would have been preferable if the regulations on the Order Paper could have been laid before now, but I have been given assurances, which are reflected in the regulations, that some of the improvements and amendments for which they provide will apply as if they had been laid when they were first agreed between Leaders of the House and the trustees.

In the debate on 17 January 1990, there was wide support for improving the benefits of the scheme. At the same time, concern was again expressed about the Exchequer-Member contribution ratio. That concern was reinforced by the publication of the Government Actuary's report on the valuation of the fund as at 31 March 1987, showing a surplus of £7.4 million. Today there is even stronger feeling, as I hear daily from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, that urgent action must be taken to redress the balance. What

Column 1157

the Bill demonstrates is that the trustees' representations to successive Leaders of the House have produced some improvements in benefits, not least for widows, and in the pace of progress towards a more acceptable balance between Members' and Exchequer contributions to the Fund.

While I must again emphasise that we have not achieved all that we had hoped for, Members will see that there are real improvements in the Bill. If the trustees had been the sole arbiters, these improvements would have been at once more substantial and of quicker effect ; but the House must recognise that the extent of our power to change the scheme is limited. As of now, we have the power to recommend, but not the authority to act executively, in relation either to benefits or the level of contributions to the scheme. That basically is why the parliamentary scheme still compares unfavourably with others in terms of the proportion of the scheme's costs paid for by its Members and of the benefits that it provides.

One of the most important changes provided for by the Bill is the increase in the rate of pensions payable to widows to five eighths, rather than the current half rate. It is less than the two thirds that the trustees argued for. Nevertheless, it is a welcome step forward. As the Leader of the House knows, under the current Inland Revenue rules, the maximum widow's pension that may be paid is two thirds of her husband's pension. The trustees asked that the surplus in the fund, shown by the Actuary's report, should be used to increase the widow's pension to the rate acceptable to the Inland Revenue. We won only half a loaf, however, and I give notice now that there will be further strong pressure for a two-thirds widow's pension.

Anyone who thinks that such pressure is uncalled for should look at some of the pensions now in payment to the widows of former Members of Parliament. At his death in 1984, the widow of a former colleague, and very close friend of mine, with total service of some 20 years, was entitled to barely £50 a week. That is but one example of the way in which the widows of former Members have fared and why Sir Anthony Kershaw, formerly the Member for Stroud, said here on 27 April 1987 :

"It is an absolute disgrace that this should be tolerated even to speak of it ought to give one a sense of shock."--[ Official Report, 28 April 1987 ; Vol. 115, c. 104.]

Some of the regulations on the Order Paper will apply with effect from 6 April 1988. In one case, the effect will be to provide an increase in benefit for widows or widowers of hon. Members who have died since that time. It will be clear to hon. Members that a large number of widows and dependants will not, however, benefit from the rise, including the widow of my colleague and friend who died in 1984.

To help in meeting the problems that can arise, I am glad the Government have agreed that measures may be taken, under the extension of the Members' Fund Acts, to allow the trustees to relieve any hardship for widows or widowers who lost their husbands or wives before April 1988. The trustees have been told that the question of retrospection is difficult. We accept that it is clearly logical to have April 1988 as the date of automatic entitlement to the higher pension of five eighths, but the possibility of any extra help for those whose husbands died before then will become available only after regulations to amend the Members' Fund Acts have come into force. The House will

Column 1158

know that I speak in the debate also as chairman of the managing trustees of the House of Commons Members' Fund.

In relation to other improvements, I turn to one for which the trustees have pressed for some years : to allow Members to cease payment of contributions when entitlement to a maximum pension of two thirds of salary has been achieved. Members in this position now have to continue paying a 9 per cent. contribution without gaining any increase in their pension rights. Happily the regulations referred to on the Order Paper now provide for them to retain a notional holding within the fund without the deduction of further contributions, so the wholly reasonable case made by the trustees is now conceded. On a technical but important point, I must also thank the Leader of the House for including the necessary powers to allow the trustees formally to appoint investment agents, as required under the Financial Services Act 1986.

Further improvements, which result from pressure by the trustees and recommendations contained in the 26th report of the TSRB, include an increase in the death-in-service gratuity from one year's salary to twice the annual salary of a Member. I am naturally very glad to note that, in keeping with the trustees' request, this will be backdated to 1 May 1988, thus covering all deaths in service during the present Parliament, of which there has been a tragic number. There are also improvements in the Bill for the provision of pensions on early retirement. Under the present system, the entitlement is determined at the point at which the Member leaves the House. There is then a sharp cut-off so that, for example, a Member with 20 years' service, who leaves just before his or her 60th birthday, is under severe disadvantage compared to one who leaves just after the age of 60. The new arrangements provide much more flexibility ; and I commend them to Members on behalf of the trustees.

The regulations on this will also allow for service in the European Parliament to count towards the qualifying period. Here I need to ask the Leader of the House, on behalf of the trustees, if he can give any assurance that the change will be reciprocated in the parallel European parliamentary scheme. I fully understand the concern of former MEPs who feel that they are seriously disadvantaged by the Government's decision not to make retrospective the provision for counting their service as MEPs in relation to early retirement. The trustees have had many and strong representations from former MEPs on this vexed issue. We played our part in ensuring that they were drawn urgently to the attention of successive Leaders of the House. We did not, however, and do not now, have the power of decision in the matter ; and, as the House knows, the Government, in holding the line against retrospection, feel that they cannot go, as it were, the extra mile.

I stress again also my understanding, and that of my fellow trustees, of the extent of feeling, in all parts of the House, about the serious imbalance between Members' contributions to the fund and those of the Exchequer. The mechanism for determining what is paid into the fund, agreed as long ago as 1972, was essentially to ensure that the Member's contribution would be fixed and the Exchequer's contribution would vary in such a way as to keep the fund at a viable level to meet its pension liabilities.

What this means in practice is that when, as a result of good management by the trustees, the assets of the fund

Column 1159

increase, the Exchequer contribution is decreased and the Treasury benefits rather than Members or pensioners. The absurd situation has now been reached whereby, I repeat, Members contribute over twice as much as the Exchequer to the fund, while outside the House the average employer pays twice as much as the employee to his occupational pension scheme.

Some aspects of the Bill are outside the responsibilities of the trustees : for example, severance pay for Ministers. That innovation stems from a recommendation by the TSRB on which the Government have resolved to act in the interests of right hon. and hon. Members who lose ministerial office. Another issue that is outside the trustees' terms of reference is that of the resettlement grant, to which both my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and the Leader of the House referred, for Members who lose their seats or otherwise leave Parliament at a general election. I am, of course, aware of how resentful Members are about the manifest inequities of the present rules for payment of the grant. Indeed, as the House knows, I sought recently to reflect the strength of feeling on the issue by tabling a motion which attracted 336 signatories, a clear majority of the House, on the day it was tabled.

It was more than a modest start, but the motion now has still more signatories, from both sides of the House, and I have had numerous messages from Members, not least Conservative Members, who would have signed had they not been inhibited from doing so by the offices they hold. Thus the number of signatories of the motion, huge and unprecedented though it may be, is well below the total support for its purposes.

The grant is not, of course, a severance payment or one for redundancy. As its name says, it is a resettlement grant, for people with two places of work when they retire from the House. As of now, there is a pot luck element in the rules for the grant. One former Cabinet Minister received the grant--a year's salary--because the last general election was called just before his 65th birthday, while others less fortunate, but some with over 30 years' service, received nothing because they were just over 65.

The motion would make the grant payable, subject to a minimum length of service rule, unless the Member stands for election after his or her 65th birthday. There is also provision for payment, at any age, to Members with long service to the House. This is in recognition of the resettlement problems of Members with long service, many of whom have to uproot from their homes because they can no longer afford to live in London on their incomes as pensioners. I remind the House that there has been only one general election since the rules were made, and that it was not until afterwards that the inequities of the rules became apparent. The grant is, however, payable from the Consolidated Fund, not from the parliamentary pension scheme, and it will be for the House to remove, as I hope it very soon will, the undoubted injustices which its Members see in the current rules.

To conclude, I place on record, on behalf of the trustees, and indeed all Members and their dependants, our warmly renewed appreciation of the quiet and often unseen but painstaking and always caring work of Jim Dobson, Tony Lewis and all who help to administer the

Column 1160

scheme. They go far beyond the calls of duty in the service they provide, and they deserve the gratitude of the House as a whole. 6.47 pm

Sir Peter Hordern (Horsham) : As a trustee of the fund, I am grateful for the hard work which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has done as chairman, on behalf of the House. Thanks to the extent and comprehensive nature of his remarks, there are many matters on which I shall not have to follow him. I should like to stress one point at the start. There may be some outside the House who believe that we are discussing improvements in benefit for which the taxpayer will have to pay. It is important to stress that ours is a funded scheme, which means that we make contributions to it and that improvements in benefit come from improvements to the fund and its performance. That is unlike the great majority of public sector schemes which are wholly funded by the taxpayer. Indeed, the measures which we are discussing will result in a smaller contribution from the taxpayer than has been the case in the past. I make no apology for saying that the benefits which we are considering are in themselves not only worthy but arise from the efforts of the fund and those who manage it to secure better benefits, which we fully deserve.

For that reason, however, I do not think it right to compare our scheme and the benefits which we have as Members of Parliament with schemes in other countries, tempting though it would be to do so, because I believe that those schemes are generally funded by taxpayers who must take the responsibility for them. But if ours is to remain a funded scheme, which it should, we must expect the benefits that flow from it and no others.

It would not be right for us to recommend and carry into being improvements in our own scheme. They must be sent to the TSRB which, after careful consideration and having made its recommendations, should allow the Leader of the House to bring them before the House, as is proposed in clause 6.

These matters have been referred to the TSRB in the past and on three separate occasions they have suggested that the contributions made should be in the proportion of three eighths from Members and five eighths from Government. I see no reason why that proportion should ever have been altered. It was only because the TSRB understood it to be the wish of the House that we should make a contribution of 9 per cent. I do not wish to go into the antecedents of that decision. Apart from anything else, I do not have the time. I say only that it was a scratched-up deal done rather late at night and most unworthy of us. I hope that, when the TSRB looks at the matter again, it will forget that 9 per cent. and look at the matter squarely on its merits, as should be the case.

As a result of that, not only do we pay 9.9 per cent., but the Government contribution, because of the health of the fund and the way in which it has performed, has been reduced to 4.4 per cent.--somewhat less than half the rate that Members contribute. That is the case not just for one or two years--many schemes in the private sector take a contributions holiday for a year or two. This idea is to have 4.4 per cent. for no fewer than eight years while we continue to pay double. That is a most extraordinary state of affairs which must be addressed carefully. It simply

Column 1161

cannot be right. Therefore, it has been arranged--I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on doing so--that the TSRB will recommend whatever the appropriate contribution should be. In my opinion, our contribution should be nearer 6 per cent. at most and the Treasury's 8 per cent., rising to 14 per cent. in seven years' time.

However, there is now a new factor in the equation because there is to be a new valuation of the assets in the fund as at June last year. That valuation should show a further substantial surplus and, because the Government Actuary has no power to do anything else, we might have to say that because of that substantial surplus the Treasury contribution should be reduced to nothing while we continue to pay 9 per cent. I dare say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I would have your support in saying that that arrangement would be unacceptable. Therefore, it is not enough simply to say what the balance of contribution might be. The TSRB should also look carefully at what further improvements might be made in our fund, as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe said.

One of the things that we considered was widows' pensions. We originally proposed two thirds, which is the proportion paid in many private sector schemes, to be paid to widows in future. But if we were to get anything it was to be five eighths or nothing, so we had to accept five eighths.

The TSRB should have looked at benefits in other funded schemes in the public sector. For example, teachers have favourable arrangements for early retirement and British Airways has a three-year salary payment rather than two for death in service.

I understand that the TSRB has been asked to look only at the level of contributions, but as the Government Actuary can look only at the state of the fund as at June 1990 and report this summer on what should be done, there will be time for the Government to consider the TSRB report on contributions. We could use clause 6 to carry that into effect. Surely it would be better if the TSRB were to take evidence from Members about desirable improvements, such as widows' pensions. It is, after all, nearly three years since the TSRB last reported and it will be aware of the defects in our scheme compared with other funded schemes. It will also be aware of the lack of balance in our contributions and the resources available to us. Therefore, I propose that after the Government Actuary recommends what the contributions should be in order to provide existing and proposed benefits, the TSRB should come forward with further recommendations before the end of the year which the Government Actuary could then calculate and quantify. That would be in time for the Government to carry the proposals into effect under clause 6 before June 1992.

The House will know that under clause 6 the Leader of the House may, with the consent of the Treasury, by regulations, make provision for the benefits here. I do not understand why the Treasury--

Mr. Ray Powell : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it the case that if the debate concludes at 7 o'clock, we do not have to come back at 10 o'clock, but that if it does not conclude at 7 o'clock, we may have to come back at 10 o'clock?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : What the hon. Gentleman does this evening is a matter for him.

Column 1162

Sir Peter Hordern : I am just coming to the end of my remarks and I hope that the House will be patient. I am, after all, a trustee of the fund. This is a bad deal and it is quite wrong that we should have only an hour and a half in which to debate it. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am going to have my say.

I do not understand why the Treasury should be mentioned specifically under clause 6. It is bound to take a view anyway. The Treasury is getting off lightly, through no merit of its own. It has nothing to do with the success of the fund. If the trustees had wanted to, we could have invested all the money in Government securities, and where would the Treasury have been then? It must distinguish between the pay-as-you-go schemes and the funded schemes. A period of silence and modesty on the part of the Treasury would be welcome. Its part in all this has been distinctly shabby. I am astonished that the Treasury has had the nerve in clause 6 to show its head above the parapet. If that had happened in the private sector, the Treasury would have been castigated as a bad employer. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on bringing the Bill to the House and I wish him every success. 6.56 pm

Mr. MacGregor : I am grateful for the way in which the Bill has been received. Several of those who have spoken have great experience in these matters. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was a distinguished Minister and a key architect of the personal pension scheme. I have no doubt that he will mount a powerful case to the TSRB along the lines that he put to the House tonight.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for all that he does as chairman of the trustees. He does a tremendous amount of work on matters of detail, as well as on the kind of things he has been talking about this evening. There is a general feeling that the Bill should now go ahead so that we can get on with it. It has been long delayed. As hon. Members have said, it is comparatively modest, but it is right that it should be enacted. Therefore, I hope that we can now reach a conclusion on the Bill.

Some issues that have been raised during the debate are more relevant to the regulations--particularly the point regarding Members of the European Parliament, to which we may have time to return later. It is not a simple point that can be dealt with quickly, but it is one that I am considering. However, there are real complexities which we may be able to discuss later.

I said a great deal in my opening remarks and I now recommend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the debate can continue after 10 o'clock. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) that an hour and a half is a ridiculous amount of time to debate such an important matter. I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we allow the Bill to go forward, can the debate on the motion continue after 10 o'clock? I do not wish to delay the House, but I do wish to talk on the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Column 1163

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House-- [Mr. Wood.] Committee tomorrow.

MINISTERIAL AND OTHER PENSIONS AND SALARIES BILL [MONEY] Queen's Recommendation having been signified--

Resolved.

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund or the payment out of money provided by Parliament of--

(a) any sums required to be so charged or paid under that Act ; and

(b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so charged or payable under any other Act.-- [Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I take it that if the opposed private business should end early the motion will be debated immediately afterwards? Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : The hon. Gentleman may certainly take that to be the position. However, on present form, I am not sure how likely it is. If the situation should arise, I will bear the hon. Gentleman's interest in mind.

Column 1164

Southampton Rapid Transit Bill [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Promoters of the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session ; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with ;

That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session ;

That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and shall be ordered to be read a second time ;

That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the last Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session ; That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the last Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business ;

That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted ;

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.-- [The Chairman of Ways and Means.] 7 pm

Mr. John Garrett (Norwich, South) : The motion is simple and straightforward. Its purpose is to revive the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill so that it may receive further and detailed consideration in this House. It is not the purpose of tonight's debate to rehearse the principles or the detailed substance of the Bill ; the proper time for that is the Second Reading debate and later stages. I do not intend to take up the valuable time of the House in an attempt to discuss the merits of the Bill. I am sure that I should be ruled out of order were I to do so.

The only question raised by this revival motion is whether the Bill should have an opportunity to resume its passage through Parliament, whether its contents are sufficiently important to the city of Southampton to justify the parliamentary and public scrutiny of a Second Reading debate and, should the Bill be given a Second Reading, to justify Committee consideration of petitions on it. The Bill was given lengthy consideration in another place.

The city of Southampton faces a period of rapid growth, resulting in pressures on its transport infrastructure and in unprecedented economic development. The rapid transit project that the city council is promoting by way of this Bill has been judged, after extensive study and consultation, to be the best way of meeting the changing transport needs of Southampton in a period of scarce public resources. On two occasions this judgment has been confirmed by a two-to-one majority on the city council, all parties having been given the opportunity of a free vote.

The city council has had to bring a private Bill before Parliament simply because a rapid transit system of the type proposed counts, in parliamentary terms, as requiring authority for a private Bill, just as railway Bills do. I regard this procedure as thoroughly outmoded, and I welcome

Column 1165

Governmemt proposals to change it so that non-parliamentary means may be found to deal with such matters. In any case, we owe it to the city of Southampton to give the matter further consideration. The scope of the Bill is very specific. It authorises its promoter--the city council--to build a 4.4 km rapid transit system round the city centre. It involves the construction of a largely elevated track or guideway, segregated from all other means of transport, on which would travel electrically powered vehicles running on rubber tyres. The Bill includes power to acquire land by compulsory purchase, within defined limits of deviation of the route ; to franchise the system out ; to form a company ; and to dispose of the system.

Southampton's is not the only Bill proposing a rapid transit or light rail solution to local transport problems to have come before the House. Such ventures are appearing increasingly around the country as transport authorities look for fuel-efficient and cost-efficient ways of addressing modern travel needs and their economic and environmental implications.

Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West) : Like the hon. Gentleman, I am an East Anglian Member, not a Southampton Member. He may be aware that the city of Cambridge probably has greater transport and traffic problems than Southampton and the rest of the south coast put together. A rapid transit system has been mooted for Cambridge. All sorts of solutions are being put forward. However, the authorities in Cambridgeshire are concerned that there should be complete unanimity of opinion about such a dramatic change. Is there unanimity in Southampton?

Mr. Garrett : I hope that I shall be able, in the Second Reading debate, to deal at length with that point. All that we want at the moment is the revival of the Bill so that it may receive a Second Reading. If there is to be a test of the strength of the opposition to it, no doubt that will take place at later stages. This motion is very specific.

The emergence of stringent environmental criteria for such schemes is a point which I believe is not lost on the Under-Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test) : I fully agree that this is a procedural motion. However, this is the first chance the House has had to look into some of the imperfections of this system. It is only right that we should be allowed to broaden the debate. Unless the reasons are given, how can we decide whether the Bill should be revived? We cannot just have an empty debate. I suppose that we could simply go home in 30 seconds without discussing this terrible Bill at all.

Mr. Garrett : The hon. Gentleman flatters me. His remarks should have been addressed to the Chair. I did not say that this was a procedural motion ; it was you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who said so--and quite rightly. If the hon. Gentleman wants to refer at great length to the merits of the Bill, it is up to him to try. I am sure that you, Sir, will give him guidance as to whether he is in order. Hon. Members will know of such other projects as the Midland Metro and ones in Manchester, Avon, Sheffield and South Yorkshire. Many more are expected, and the Minister gave notice of these when, on 18 December 1990, he presented evidence to the inquiry of the Select Committee on Transport into light rail systems.

Column 1166

Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough) : As a member of the Select Committee, I can tell the House that we have not yet published our report. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of schemes likely to meet the present requirements is very small? Southampton, at first sight, does not seem to be one of them. Does the hon. Gentleman think that this procedure should go ahead? It is the money of many community charge payers in Southampton that will promote this Bill and, in so doing, push a scheme that is very unlikely to come to fruition.

Mr. Garrett : I look foward to reading the Select Committee's report so that I may compare its criteria with the characteristics of this proposed system. As to whether the legislation should be proceeded with, presumably the House will make its decision tonight. In his evidence to the Select Committee, the Minister said that another half dozen schemes might be in operation before the end of the century. Successive Transport Ministers in the present Government have welcomed such schemes.

The route proposed in the Bill aims to link the major features of the city and to connect existing public transport facilities--the railway, ferries, the bus station, coach transport facilities and the majority of car parks.

Mr. Tim Janman (Thurrock) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Garrett : Not for the moment.

Twelve stops are to be provided, including the Pirelli site, Ocean Village, about three quarters of a mile of Associated British Ports land in various stages of development, and the Woolworths site. The scheme that the Bill proposes is intended to ease existing and future traffic congestion in Southampton city centre at a time when the city is poised to shift from a port-based economy to become a major south coast regional centre.

The service will be safe, reliable, quiet, frequent and easily extendable, subject to further authorisation. Some of the content of the Bill is concerned with the provisions for future funding of the scheme. It is a marriage of public initiative and public funding, and the Bill makes specific provision for the system to be franchised out.

Mr. Janman : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Garrett : In a minute.

Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have some experience of dealing with private Bills. You, Sir, will recall that when I moved a motion of this sort last year, the Opposition, quite rightly, expected me to give way to enable hon. Members to ask questions on matters about which they were concerned. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should adopt such an attitude, because on that previous occasion the Opposition expected me--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. That matter is not one for me to consider.

Mr. Garrett : You will have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I gave way on almost every other sentence at the start of my brief speech, but now I want to make a little progress.

The scheme will not be owned by the city council. Southampton made it clear that if money cannot be raised from the private sector, the project will not proceed.

Column 1167

However, the council believes that private funding is available, and that in the current financial climate it is the best way to ensure that the city centre gets the extra transport capacity that it needs.

Mr. Janman : Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West) rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order.

Mr. Garrett : Where was I? The council believes that private funding is the best way of ensuring, in the present financial climate, that the city gets the extra transport capacity that it needs in the shortest possible time scale.

Mr. Ashby : As this is a revival motion, the House should consider what prospect the project has of being successful. I heard that no interest whatsoever has been expressed by private sources in funding the scheme. As the hon. Gentleman emphasised that private funding is the most necessary ingredient, can he say who is prepared to finance the project? All the information that we have suggests that no interest in funding has been expressed by the private sector.

Mr. Garrett : I will deal with that later. However, the city council has made it clear that if the money cannot be raised from the private sector, it will not proceed.

Mr. Janman : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Next Section

Home Page