| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Garrett : I am still attempting to answer the previous intervention.
At present, the city council has received support from a large number of major public companies, in terms of raising funds for the project's next stage.
Mr. Janman : The hon. Gentleman is trying to mislead the House in his attempt to persuade right hon. and hon. Members that the city council has given some form of guarantee that there will be no public sector funding. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) wants to intervene--although I suppose that he cannot intervene in an intervention--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I draw the attention of the House to the undesirability of sedentary noise.
Mr. Janman : The hon. Member for Bradford, South may be able to make his points later, in a long speech of the kind that he usually makes.
When the city council gave evidence to the Committee on Unopposed Bills in the other place, it refused to agree to a guarantee being written into the Bill that no public funding--either from Southampton community charge payers or any other source--would be used. As a former resident of the city, I may add that the word of Southampton's Labour city council is worthless, in respect of not only this but any other matter.
Mr. Garrett : The scheme will not proceed unless it can be financed from the private sector. The city council is currently in discussions with a large number of companies, which have expressed interest in contributing their money to the next stage of the project.
Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside) : If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to intervene, he may find my
Column 1168
remarks helpful--but they may worry some of my hon. Friends who are against the Bill. As this is an enabling measure, is it not impossible to detect how interested investors may be in the project until a prospectus is available? That cannot be done until the Bill has progressed. Finance is at the heart of whether or not the enabling motion is passed.Mr. Garrett : I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful contribution. He is quite right--and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will observe that I have tried to stay within the rules of order in referring only to the worth of the Bill.
The Bill was deposited in the other place in November 1988 and it received its Second Reading on 13 April 1989. By the time that the Bill was considered by an Opposed Bill Committee between 30 October and 13 November 1989, the number of outstanding petitions was reduced from 16 to five. The city council agreed to accommodate concerns raised by petitioners and the Committee.
The Committee looked at every aspect of the scheme in detail, and its members spent a day in Southampton looking at the route, as well as listening to seven full days of evidence. It considered a very full range of issues, including external and environmental impact, efficacy of easing traffic congestion, the effect on trees, parks and open spaces, details of proposed funding and the benefits and advantages of the chosen Briway system.
Only two small changes were made in Committee--one proposed by the Bill's promoters to safeguard parkland, and the other a small rerouting proposal by the Lords Committee.
Immediately afterwards, Parliament did not agree the carry-over of Bills in the Session beginning in November 1989--so all Bills needing revival were effectively killed. The Leader of the House proposed and right hon. and hon. Members agreed, after consideration, that the Bills could proceed, but would have to start afresh as new Bills. So Southampton's Bill is not unique in losing some months due to procedural disagreements.
On 8 May 1990, the Bill finally received its Third Reading, and had its First Reading in this House. On 14 May, it was passed by the Examiners.
Mr. Hill : No progress was made because Southampton city council could not agree. There has been a terrific amount of interplay, and the Conservative group, aided by the Liberal Democrats, is completely opposed to the Bill. The objections that I have expressed in the House come direct from the city council.
Mr. Garrett : Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain the motivation for that opposition when he makes his own speech.
The Bill's Second Reading was blocked for the first time on 22 May by Conservative Members, but, subject to this revival, its merits can be properly considered during a Second Reading debate. The democratic argument for further consideration--leaving aside the merits of the proposal--are unanswerable, and the citizens of Southampton would be badly served if the project could not be more closely considered during later stages of the Bill's progress.
At every stage, the project has been the subject of exhaustive consultations with specialists and public opinion in Southampton. The MVA consultancy employed Dr. George Gaskell of the London School of Economics to conduct a public consultation exercise in the
Column 1169
summer and autumn of 1988, and the search for the most effective scheme involved an international competition with proposals from 17 companies and consortia drawn from every continent. I was very pleased that the Briway system, which is British, was chosen. Expert and local evidence was called in the House of Lords Committee. The rapid transit scheme that the Bill proposes is a practical and imaginative attempt to address current and future public transport challenges in a changing city without burdening Southampton's community charge payers or national taxpayers. That is why, in two independent surveys into public opinion in Southampton, 76 per cent. of all householders and 75 per cent. of individuals in a street survey wanted it. That is why it received all- party support in the other place, with only one dissenting voice heard there on Second Reading. That is why Lord Montagu, chairman of English Heritage, introduced the Bill and spoke in its support. That is why the scheme is not opposed by Hampshire county council and the local chamber of commerce, and why the majority of all councillors on Southampton city council twice voted in favour of the scheme.Mr. Hill : Hampshire county council takes a completely neutral view. It is neither for nor against the project. One could not hope for the county council to adopt a fairer attitude, given that it is the area's transportation expert.
Mr. Garrett : That is why Hampshire county council is not opposed to the scheme. That seems to me to be a mindless and irrelevant interruption.
That is why the Department of Transport is actively considering the practicalities of introducing the scheme. Most important, that is why no fewer than 20 industrial and commercial concerns--many of which are national household names--are prepared to support the rapid transport scheme commercially. In the face of that support, denying the Bill the chance to progress would not only be undemocratic but would be a disgracefully wasted opportunity for the people who live and work in and travel to and round Southampton city centre.
Having followed the Bill's progress through the parliamentary process, discussed the proposal with people backing it, seen the congestion that the scheme is designed to tackle in the city, and seen and ridden the prototype vehicle for the scheme on its test track in Cranleigh, I am convinced that the matter is of sufficient importance to proceed to a Second Reading debate in the House, and I look forward to the House's assent to this motion.
7.20 pm
Sir David Price (Eastleigh) : The kindest comment that I can make about the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) is to remind the House of those famous lines of Oliver Goldsmith : "Every absurdity has a champion to defend it."
Mr. John Garrett : If that was a spontaneous reaction to my speech, why did the hon. Gentleman have to read it?
Sir David Price rose --
Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East) : Because the Southampton Tory party told him to.
Sir David Price : I think that the shadow transport spokesman should be a little quieter at the moment.
Column 1170
Mr. Janman : The shadow transport spokesman just made a comment from a sedentary position. Does my hon. Friend agree that he is one of the people who would be likely to use this new transport system, because he is unable to use his car?
Sir David Price : I should have to say that that would not apply, because I intend to try to prove to the House that this proposed transport system does not convey people from their homes to the shopping centre.
I argue that the fact that they passed this Bill in another place is absolutely no reason why we should. I remind the House that two years ago there was a Hampshire county council Bill to build a Lyndhurst bypass. It was successful in another place and received a Second Reading here, but in Committee hon. Members were very stern in their condemnation of the Bill. They went so far as to suggest--in very parliamentary language--that the promoters of the Bill had been wasting the House's time. Therefore, on this occasion we are entitled to consider the merits of the Bill, because obviously, if it has merits, we should proceed with it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I hope that the House will bear in mind the fact that the most appropriate occasion to consider the merits of a Bill is when it is before the House on Second Reading. We are now discussing a procedural motion.
Sir David Price : With respect--
Mr. Fry : Does my hon. Friend agree that what is relevant to whether the House continues to allow procedural motions such as this to proceed is consideration of what lies behind the Bill, such as the fact that, at the moment, there are between 50 and 70 schemes for light rail systems, most of which will never be approved by Government? Not only do Bills that have little or no hope of success waste the time of Parliament--surely that is valuable enough--but they also lead to an awful waste of public money.
Sir David Price : I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. Also, it is relevant to whether the House passes this motion to consider whether the purpose behind the Bill is to produce the form of light transport that the hon. Member for Norwich, South was talking about--the type of system that I know my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) supports, as I do. That is why I think that some reference to the scheme becomes necessary, if we are to decide whether to assent to this motion. I shall endeavour to show the House that the scheme does not do any of the things that the hon. Member for Norwich, South suggests.
Mr. Janman : May I refer back to some of the comments by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett)? For some unknown reason, he has a connection with the city of Southampton, although I am not aware of it--but perhaps he will correct me about that later. The hon. Member said that it was democratic to allow this motion to proceed. However, this is a revival motion for this Session of Parliament. Given that there is plenty of evidence from the city of Southampton that it is very much divided on the matter--there is plenty of evidence that the city does not want it--it would be undemocratic to assent
Column 1171
to this revival motion so that the Bill could proceed this Session until there was a proven and clearly drafted case for the need and desire for such a transit system.Sir David Price : My hon. Friend makes a telling point. I invite the House to consider this project for a would-be rapid transit system--that is the name of the Bill. That very name suggests that the new system will produce enhanced facilities to convey the good citizens of Southampton from one part of the city to another, perhaps to bring them from the suburbs to the shopping centre. However, the system does none of those things.
In documentation with the Bill, the system is referred to as a "people mover". That is a sick joke. It no more moves people in any meaningful or constructive sense than a rollercoaster at a holiday camp. In fact, this scheme is little more than a rather grand rollercoaster. The phrase "people mover" reminds me of old-fashioned Soviet newspeak--it might have been written by George Orwell. The real problem facing the city of Southampton is the same as that facing many other large towns in this country--the future of their city centres and especially of city centre shopping facilities. In the past, many large stores were located in the centre of cities, which acted as a magnet, and people came from all around to shop there. That is no longer the case, for a number of reasons that we are all aware of.
It is perfectly proper for the city of Southampton to try to counter that, and I shall remind the House of the reasons for it : the movement of population out of inner cities into the surrounding countryside ; and the enormous increase in motor car ownership. In the Southampton area, many families have two cars, and quite a number with teenage children have more.
Mr. Fry : Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the ways in which the system could operate is in conjunction with park-and-ride facilities? Perhaps I am wrong, but I understand the only way that one could park and ride on this scheme would be if one drove into the centre of Southampton to get on to it.
Sir David Price : My hon. Friend is, as always, extremely well informed.
The third reason is the advent of out-of-town shopping centres. To the east of Southampton, developers are in the process of building a large shopping complex which will combine one of Sainsbury's Savacentres and a Marks and Spencer with large parking facilities. The city of Southampton must put its mind to competing with that sort of attraction. The proposals in the Bill, which are very narrowly defined, go nowhere near meeting those challenges. If anyone doubts that, he should read the note circulated by the promoters of the Bill to hon. Members before this debate ; it states :
"the proposed system is not directly intended to improve transport from outlying areas into the city centre".
Therefore, the system does none of the things that a good modern system--
Mr. Michael Brown : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that, during debates on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, an objection was raised when any hon. Member connected with the Bill spoke to people in the Box at the end of the Chamber. You deprecated it when that was taking place, and you and one
Column 1172
of the other Deputy Speakers said how important it was for hon. Members connected with the Bill not to leave the Chamber and go to chat to people in the Box. Will you ensure that that does not happen tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker?Mr. Deputy Speaker : I have no recollection of instructing the House in the way that the hon. Gentleman has suggested, and persons beyond the Bar of the House are not recognised by the Chair.
Sir David Price : The Bill is entirely irrelevant to Southampton's genuine transport problems. It is of no value to the majority of our citizens.
Mr. Ashby : Hon. Members have mentioned "park and ride", and it has been pointed out that it is necessary to get into Southampton to use the system. I have heard that Southampton's beautiful parks will be used as parking places, which would surely be most--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We cannot deal with such matters in this debate. The motion enables the House, if it chooses, to discuss the matter that the hon. Gentleman is now trying to discuss ; but we are currently discussing a procedural matter.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Hon. Members must not seek to raise points of order, or any other points, while I am on my feet. This is a procedural motion which will enable the House to decide whether it wishes to discuss the merits and content of the Bill, and I suggest that we keep to it. No points of order can arise.
Sir David Price : As I have said, the Bill deals with none of Southampton's transport problems, and I therefore think that it would be a waste of the House's time to proceed further with it. Let me refer any hon. Member who considers that an irrelevant consideration at this stage to the story of the Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill 1988. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the only possible advantage of the proposed system--it is not even a circular system surrounding the shopping centre ; it is a distorted U-bend--is the provision of a "mickey mouse railway" for the kids. I am, of course, entirely sympathetic to the case that could be made for experimentation with some novel form of transport that could bring the majority of Southampton's citizens closer to the city centre, and bring people in from outside.
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport) : As my hon. Friend knows, we are debating whether we should take parliamentary time to consider this Bill. Is he aware of the proposal for a light rail transit system linking Fareham with Gosport, and with an underwater, under-harbour link with Portsmouth, which may proceed in due course if parliamentary time is available? The matter is currently being studied, but giving parliamentary time to the Southampton Bill might prevent proper consideration of a much more sensible scheme.
Sir David Price : That will interest many hon. Members. Most of us who are here tonight are probably sympathetic to new transport systems, and to the idea that they should be integrated with parking. My real objection to the Bill is that it achieves none of the objectives that we consider desirable, and is taking up parliamentary time for the sake of a scheme that will not secure a common public aim with
Column 1173
which many of us sympathise. That is why some of us have called it a mickey mouse scheme. Moreover, it has no tourist advantages--it is only a little U-bend around the middle of Southampton--and is environmentally damaging. One of the glories of Southampton is its old walls, which the scheme would jeopardise.Hon. Members should consider how far the terms of the Bill correspond with the system that they think will result. We have not been told the names of any of the supposed great private sponsors, but without the money the whole project will collapse, as the hon. Member for Norwich, South conceded. On that ground alone, the Bill is a waste of parliamentary time.
Mr. Hill : There was great excitement in Southampton city council about a year ago, when Mr. Peter de Savary bought Eastleigh airfield. The press office rushed into print the story that Mr. de Savary might be prepared to link Eastleigh airport with the city centre. That, too, was pie in the sky--and we have been eating a lot of that pie.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. That has nothing to do with the motion.
Sir David Price : Let me return to the question of where the money will come from. Given the time that has elapsed since the Bill's Second Reading in another place, I should have thought that by now it would be clear--
Mr. Michael Brown : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not dream of challenging your ruling, but may I draw your attention to the guidance that was issued when we last debated a revival motion--on a Bill that affected my constituency? The Chair ruled that, as the Bill had not been presented to the House for Second Reading, it was in order for "reasonable latitude" to be granted for the background to be explained, and that the Chair could therefore allow
"more than the customary flexibility."--[ Official Report, 14 January 1991 ; Vol. 183, c. 672.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I very much hope that, when the hon. Gentleman said that he would not dream of challenging my ruling, he meant what he said.
I think that the House will agree that, so far, I have allowed the "reasonable latitude" advocated by the occupant of the Chair on that earlier occasion. It is for the Chair to judge how much latitude should be provided and how reasonable it should be, and I think that so far I have been quite reasonable.
Sir David Price : Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that it is relevant to the motion to ask the promoters for more information about where the money will come from. The hon. Member for Norwich, South made it clear that it would come from the private sector, but I know of no single corporate investor who is proposing to put money into the project. As for the individual Southampton citizen, as far as I am aware no great queue of would-be investors has formed outside the civic offices, as happened in London at the time of the electricity privatisation. I am reminded of the notice in the window of a famous Dublin undertaker, which read : "Funerals arranged--self-drive service".
I hope that I have said enough to make it clear that the Bill makes no constructive contribution to the real problems relating to Southampton's city centre and its local businesses. It is about as helpful as throwing a
Column 1174
drowning man both ends of a rope. I do not think that we should waste the House's time any further, and I very much hope that the motion will not be passed tonight.7.37 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside) : As the House must be well aware by now, we are debating a revival motion, not a motion for Second Reading. So far, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have shown considerable understanding when hon. Members have strayed a footstep or two into the detail of the Bill. The detail must be considered to some extent, because, if the revival motion is not carried this evening, the Bill will be killed off completely. Our views on both the principle and the detail are therefore relevant to what is essentially a procedural motion.
Let me declare an interest--not a pecuniary interest. My constituency, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), comprises part of the suburbs of Southampton : mine covers the western half of the blue horseshoe that surrounds the city, while his covers the eastern half. My constituents and I are frequent travellers in and out of Southampton, as I have been all my life. Some people go there to work, some to shop and some to visit Southampton's two theatres--and very good they are, too--or its museums and art galleries. Southampton has a great deal to offer, although my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) would be the first to admit that it is probably not the tourist mecca that some others cities represent.
Mr. Hill : We are trying to make progress with the sporting facilities at Lordshill. I understand that my hon. Friend opposes the scheme, for many reasons. We are short of an ice rink and all other sporting facilities-- Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is straining my reasonable latitude.
Mr. Hill : The point that I am trying to make to my hon. Friend is that it is not much good having a people mover if there is opposition to sporting facilities in the city.
Mr. Colvin : I am not sure whether you would like me to respond to that intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Viggers : Southampton needs an ice rink, but Gosport has one. It will be on the route of the Gosport to Fareham light rail transit if and when--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Let us get back, please, to the motion on the Order Paper.
Mr. Colvin : On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Test, I have taken my lead from democratically elected local representatives--the parish council of Nursling and Rownhams, which would be seriously affected by the planning application to which my hon. Friend referred. We must pay attention to the views of democratically elected local representatives on ice rinks, tennis courts, and the people mover.
Southampton is, par excellence, a transport city and experiments of this nature could appropriately be carried out there. It is Britain's premier gateway to Europe. Moreover, 60,000 people travel into and out of Southampton every day. That represents 120,000 movements into and out of the city each day. That could rise to 200,000 movements when the proposed city centre
Column 1175
development goes ahead. I am told that it would be funded completely by private enterprise money and would cost £1 billion. Transport pressures in the city will then increase.My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh referred to out-of-town shopping. That raises another interesting point. My constituency suffers from many pressures. There is much pressure to build out-of-town shopping precincts in the vicinity of Romsey, but my constituents hotly resist such development. They would prefer to travel by some means of mass transport system to Southampton, thereby bringing prosperity and jobs to the city, instead of having to tolerate unnecessary development in their own backyard.
Mr. Janman : If I heard my hon. Friend correctly, the implication is that someone who lives in one of the outer suburbs of Southampton, such as Lordshill, would be able to get on to the rapid transport system and go to the centre of the city. If, however, he looks at the proposals as outlined on the map, he will see that the rapid transport system does not go anywhere near any of the outer parts of the city. It goes round the periphery of the city centre.
Mr. Colvin : If my hon. Friend would contain himself--that is the first and last time that I shall give way to him--he would hear that most of us who live in and around Southampton are subjected to considerable traffic congestion. The city of Southampton is not well endowed with car parks. There are about 15,800 car parking spaces in the city. One of the advantages of the proposed people mover is that additional car parking places for my constituents who want to go into Southampton could be provided on less valuable ground, thereby releasing the ground at present used for car parking for more intensive development.
I should like to be able to park my car in a convenient car park and then get on to the people mover to go around Southampton. I do not enjoy walking round the city on a wet day. As Southampton is in the south of England, hon. Members with constituencies elsewhere might presume that it is a lovely, dry and sunny place throughout the year. It is not. According to the Meteorological Office, in the past 10 years, Southampton had on average 119 wet days out of 365. When one walks from the car into Southampton city centre to shop or to go to work, one needs an umbrella or a raincoat one day in three. It would be much more comfortable if one could get on to a people mover.
Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre) : How will the proposal help to reduce the congestion between my hon. Friend's constituency and Southampton?
Mr. Colvin : I shall come to that point in a minute. There is congestion on the roads when one drives in and out of Southampton, but we are dealing in this motion with traffic congestion in Southampton because it does not have a people mover. Southampton would be an excellent place for a rapid transit system--or what has been referred to in the debate as a people mover. They are becoming popular elsewhere in the world. I have a list of the cities that enjoy such a facility.
Sir David Price : If my hon. Friend wants to improve public transport from his constituency to Southampton, he should work with British Rail and the county council so
Column 1176
that the system is sited over the existing railway line. He might then achieve his aim. This, however, is just a mickey mouse scheme in the middle of Southampton.Mr. Colvin : I take my hon. Friend's point. That would require another private Bill. I wish that these matters could be proceeded with by means other than private Bills and the need for procedural motions.
Mr. Viggers : This is the third time that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) has referred to the proposal as a mickey mouse scheme. I submit that that is unfair to mickey mouse. Disneyland has just such a system. It works extremely well because it is designed exactly to meet the needs and shape of Disneyland, whereas this scheme is not designed to meet the needs and shape of Southampton city centre.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Perhaps we could return to the motion before the House and get away from Disneyland.
Mr. Colvin : I trust that in cities such as Jacksonville, Miami, Bordeaux, Sydney, Toulouse, Strasbourg, Orly, Taipeh and Chicago private Bills were not required for either the municipality or free enterprise to construct the people mover systems that those cities now enjoy. A people mover was constructed in Lille in 1983. Admittedly, it was a small, mickey mouse system to begin with, but it was so popular that it was extended three times and has now carried over 130 million passengers in total.
Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East) : Perhaps in Lille and the other cities that the hon. Gentleman mentioned they did not have mickey mouse politicians similar to the right-wing bunch of school boys sitting alongside him while he makes a serious attempt properly to debate the motion.
Mr. Colvin : After that helpful intervention I shall continue.
Mr. Hill : I have been going to Strasbourg for a considerable time and I have never noticed a railway on concrete lines going through the city. The only little railway there is for tourists. It is shaped like a Noddy train and pulls about four coaches. Is that the railway to which my hon. Friend is referring?
Mr. Colvin : I have not had the advantage of going to Strasbourg to see the railway, but I will go now and have a look at it. I have not been to the cities that I mentioned, but perhaps my hon. Friend has. There are three options facing Southampton. First, it can do nothing about its traffic congestion. Secondly, it could, given a fair wind, as it is trying to do, secure the passing of the revival motion so that it can introduce a light rail system at ground level, which would conflict with existing traffic and cause even greater problems. Thirdly, it could have a so-called people mover such as that recommended in the Bill. It would be electronically powered and automatic with unmanned vehicles. It would probably run on rubber wheels and it would be on a segregated guideway, which would mean that there would be no waiting. It would probably have great passenger appeal. I would certainly use it. It would not conflict with any of the existing roadways and would not add to congestion or exacerbate existing traffic problems. It would have to be either under ground or above ground. The proposed system is above ground level. That view was
Column 1177
shared by Her Majesty's Government, when, in April 1989--the House has been at this for a long time--Lord Brabazon of Tara said : "This is one of a number of private Bills providing for new light transport systems in our major cities. Potentially these systems have many advantages : for example, where segregated from other vehicles, they achieve faster speeds than buses ; they also have the flexibility to cope with gradients and curves beyond the capacity of conventional railways."-- [ Official Report, House of Lords, 13 April 1989 ; Vol. 506, c. 463.]He also said that the Government had no objection to the Bill and that he hoped that the other place would give it a Second Reading, which it did.
If a magic wand could be waved, I should like to see a people mover operating in Southampton. I would certainly use it. Surely it is up to Southampton and its elected representatives to decide. It is not for us to dictate to Southampton on such a matter.
| Next Section
| Home Page |