| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Glenda Jackson: May I point out that millions of Londoners have no means of travel other than public transport, which, in many instances, means the underground? For them, fares are of major significance. For example, 56 per cent. of those who live in Camden have no access to any form of private transport. The fact that the hon. Gentleman's party has kept wages down and allowed fares to rise has caused real difficulties for many of my constituents.
Mr. Congdon: With respect, I consider that argument nonsensical. If fares are kept artificially low, the net result is that Londoners--and others, but when the Greater London council was in control it was Londoners via their rates--end up subsidising wealthy tourists to use the underground. That is absurd. There is another net result that is equally significant. The Minister mentioned it earlier. If fares are kept low, London Transport cannot generate surplus revenue to reinvest in the capital infrastructure of the network.
Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam): My hon. Friend has made a valuable point. Does he agree that considerable concessions are already available to those in need--pensioners and students, for example, who have their own travelcards? Most of those who pay for tickets at the normal rate are in work.
Mr. Congdon: My hon. Friend has made a good point. Such schemes are very helpful.
I do not accept that, when people are deciding whether to travel by road or rail--or by bicycle, perhaps--their choice is determined primarily by price, especially in the rush hour. I believe that it is determined primarily by the nature of their journey. For those who live near an underground or overground railway station that method of travel is very convenient, but it is inconvenient for those who live some way from a station and whose place of work is some way from the station at the other end.I believe that the key factor is convenience in relation to people's travelling patterns--and, as I have said, the incidence of delays is crucial.
A far better way of encouraging more people to use the network with the minimum of inconvenience is to invest in maintaining it to a high standard, ensuring that the signalling works properly and that the track does not cause problems. There would then be no excuse for delays.I mentioned Victoria underground station. The one problem with using that station is that it is not very pleasant to stand on the platform in a crush because there has been a delay as short as two or three minutes. We need investment in signalling, to ensure the maximum number of trains at peak times. I hope that investment via the PFI, over a certain period, will yield the improvements that we all want.
Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham):
If, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) suggested, users of the London underground were heavily subsidised, would that not be a monstrous injustice to residents of south and south-west London, where underground lines are extremely sparse because the railway network is the old British Rail southern region and, before that, Southern Railways? Nevertheless, people there have to pay their taxes and local taxes to subsidise the inhabitants of the hon. Lady's constituency. Is that not unjust? Surely we should have nothing to do with it.
Mr. Congdon:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right.At the time of the GLC's Fares Fair policy I, as a Croydon resident, did not like having to subsidise other people's fares, and I am sure that many of my constituents would have felt the same.
Ms Jackson:
It was something of a revelation to hear the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) talk about something other than military bands. May I ask him, and the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon), how people in Twickenham will benefit if the air that they breathe is thickly polluted with fumes from petrol-driven vehicles? I know that my constituents would much prefer cars to be taken off their roads. One of the problems is this way of looking at London as if it were a series of totally separate entities, rather than perceiving that the failure to meet its transport needs is one of the reasons why, in transport terms, it is in such a mess.
Mr. Congdon:
I certainly accept that it is right to look at London's transport needs as a whole. As I have said, my constituency has no underground stations, but I do not object to the investment of large sums in London Underground. However, I take issue with what the hon. Lady said about her constituents' wanting to get cars off the road. That really means that people want to get other people's cars off the road, but to continue to drive their own.
I am afraid that all the arguments about restraining cars, through bans or congestion taxes--as suggested by the hon. Member for Eastleigh--are dishonest in terms of the electorate. Most people with cars want to be able to use them. The challenge to transport policy is to ensure that, especially during rush hours, people have a realistic alternative and that they can be sure that, if they turn up at the station, they can expect a train to arrive and to take them to their destination on time without their having to leave two hours earlier than they would otherwise have done.
Mr. Tim Smith (Beaconsfield):
I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East(Mr. Congdon) as he is an old friend of mine and I agree with much of what he said. He made an especially important point when he said that, although the price of public transport is important, people are essentially looking for reliability in terms of a good public transport system. If it is published that a train will leave the station of departure at a certain time and reach the destination at a certain time, people want to know that on the whole that is likely to happen because they have appointments and meetings to get to and they are busy people.
My constituents have told me that they would not mind paying a bit more to travel in from Beaconsfield, Gerrards Cross and Denham on the Chiltern line to secure a bit of investment, a reliable service and decent trains. That important point demonstrates that, although price is important, a number of other factors are involved in assessing public transport.
Mr. Wilson:
Does the hon. Gentleman think that, through public investment, the Chiltern line provides a decent service? If so, why does he want to give it away?
Mr. Smith:
The service is not being given away. People in the present management are among the most enthusiastic about privatising services.
Mr. Smith:
Of course--they know that they can provide an even better service if the shackles of public ownership are removed from them. I have discussed with Mr. Adrian Shooter, managing director of the Chiltern line, his plans for privatisation. The investment has been
I do not know whether Mr. Shooter will win that franchise, but I hope that he does because the management has done a good job and would do an even better one if the company were in the private sector. Therefore, the privatisation of British Rail has my full support. I do not understand how anyone can fail to support it when public ownership has been so disastrous in the past 40 years.
Mr. Wilson:
I am sorry to intervene again, but I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument. He says that the public service on the Chiltern line is disastrous--to use his word. He says that a public service, delivered within the public sector, paid for by the taxpayer and operated by Mr. Adrian Shooter et al, is disastrous. Is that his position? If not, he is proposing that the public sector should pay for the assets and that the profits should go to a private operator. Where is the long-term perspective in that?
Mr. Smith:
I said no such thing. I said that, generally, since nationalisation, British Rail's history had been disastrous and most people would agree with that. In many ways, the Chiltern line is an exception to that rule. [Hon. Members: "Ah."] It is. Not many hon. Members can say perhaps, as I can, that most of the customers of the line in their constituency are satisfied with the service. Nevertheless, there is no room for complacency and improvements could and will be made if the service is privatised.
I better say a word about the Bill. I was pleased when, on 28 February, I discovered that the Government had decided to publish the London Regional Transport Bill because it is a model Bill. It will have no direct effect on public expenditure or on public sector manpower and it will not create any compliance costs for business. Those are three attractive characteristics.
On 28 February, I was serving on the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill, which ran to some 200 clauses and about 30 schedules. Another tremendous virtue of this Bill is its brevity. It has six clauses. Into those six clauses, the Opposition have managed to read privatisation. I have considered those clauses carefully and I cannot find any reference to the privatisation of London Underground Ltd. I have therefore concluded that the fears referred to in the Opposition's so-called reasoned amendment are utterly unfounded.
My understanding of the Bill--on more than a cursory reading--is that it does something important for London Regional Transport. It removes commercial shackles that were inadvertently placed on it by the London Regional Transport Act 1984. The Bill has my full support because I am a strong supporter of the private finance initiative. All public sector bodies, including London Regional Transport, should make maximum use of it. There has been much talk in the House about how Conservative Members cannot provide any concrete examples of the PFI in practice, but I have two almost concrete examples--I say almost concrete because the M40 will be not concrete, but tarmac.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |