Transport Policies

§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

I beg to move, That this House condemns the Government's irresponsible transport polices which are careless of the social and economic needs of individuals and communities, have failed the travelling public, put lives at risk and caused great harship and inconvenience; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce transport polices which give proper priority to people's needs for safety and service. Hon. Members who are regular attenders of transport debates have a feeling of deja vu. It seems that almost every transport debate is preceded by a ministerial reshuffle. Therefore, my first duty is to congratulate the Secretary of State on having survived this time. My second duty is to pass on my congratultions to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) on his promotion to Minister of State, Department of Transport.

There will be general and genuine regret at the departure of the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). Yesterday was a good news-bad news day for him. The good news was that he was offered a knighthood, and the bad news was that he had to go to the Government Back Benches to get it. Quite frankly, he deserves more than that. He vigorously defended successive policies with successive Secretaries of State. I am glad to see him in his place. All hon. Members look forward to his further contributions to our transport debates—all the more so now that he is free of the shackles of ministerial responsibility.

One wonders at the unreality of the Government's amendment. They seem to live in a totally different world from that of ordinary mortals. A cursory glance at press headlines over the past few weeks will enable one to see the story of traffic chaos on the roads, and of the Government being under attack for their failure to preserve their road maintenance programme and being behind with their by-pass programme. There is astonishing chaos at airports, and stories of sit-downs in the middle of Luton airport runway because of great dissatisfaction with what has been happening. Yet the Government seem to pretend that everything is all right.

Our motion sets out the truth. The Government are obsessed with deregulation, privatisation and cost cutting. Quite frankly, that attitude pushes safety and the well-being of the public to the back of the minds of those who run the transport system. One of the most chilling statements to come from the King's Cross disaster inquiry was made by one witness, who said: We thought of fire in relation to damage to property and not as a hazard to passengers. That is a most chilling report, and it was made because of the Government's obsession with deregulation, privatisation and cost cutting. It puts a dead hand on the initiative of those who seek to serve public industries. There is no doubt that the people in British Rail who want to plan for a better future find themselves stifled by constant references to bringing in private capital.

I fully understand why the Government are embarrassed at their philosophical inadequacies and the way in which they have been exposed by recent events. I appreciate that they sought to divert people from the real problems that face them by having a question planted and by giving a response to the North committee report. It was an attempt to divert the attention of the general public 312 from what is happening. Having had a copy of the Minister's reply placed on the board at 6.30 this evening, I cannot be expected to comment on it in full or in any great depth. At a quick glance, I see that there is a lot of sense in it. I particularly welcome traffic light monitoring to stop people steaming through intersections long after the lights have changed to red. It is an extremely dangerous practice.

High technology is mentioned in the North report and in the Minister's response, but there is no mention of who is to pay for it. If it is to be the local authorities, it will be no use asking hard-pressed rate-capped authorities in London—where much of the problem of traffic congestion arises—to find the money to pay for that sort of technology. The Minister must be a lot more positive about where the finance will come from.

The Minister ducked the controversial issue of random breath testing. Frankly, I support it, and I believe that it is an additional arm of enforcement that the police need —unlike the Under-Secretary, who appears to believe that it is a substitute for current enforcement procedures. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will explain the difference between random breath testing and discretionary testing. Discretionary testing would appear to be as unconnected as random testing with the commission of an offence. I hope that he is not trying to smuggle in the sus law in another form—"You look a likely candidate for testing" —because that may cause a problem.

We are concerned about the Government's shortcomings, especially in relation to air traffic control and holiday traffic. We have heard all the old, tired and familiar excuses. It is always someone else's fault. It is the greedy holiday company, the strikes of foreign traffic controllers or the Civil Aviation Authority—anybody or everybody is to blame except the Government. However, the Government have accepted responsibility. A few weeks ago they began to see the writing on the wall, so they asked the Civil Aviation Authority to provide, by September, some plans to prevent the chaos next year. They cannot have it both ways; either they have responsibility or they do not.

We have been worried about air traffic control and safety for a very long time. There are no Ministers left at the Department of Transport who were in office when the Airports Act, which privatised British airports, was considered, but officials will remember that when that measure was going through its various stages we moved amendments to regulate the hours and the conditions of service of air traffic controllers. We were concerned about fatigue, and the amount of work carried out, but the Government steadfastly refused to have anything to do with it. We argued that if pilots had regulated hours of work, so should air traffic controllers. The Government, however, assured us that everything was all right.

Flow control has now been introduced because of a spate of near-misses. It was public outcry and concern about what was happening that brought about flow control. The Civil Aviation Authority and the Government between them bungled the whole issue, because none of this was unexpected. The amount of traffic was expected. As late as 14 July, the Under-Secretary told me that in March the Government had been assured by the Civil Aviation Authority that there would be some restriction on the number of planes flying. I am not quite sure what the sentence means, but it says that the National Air Traffic Services 313 anticipated an increase compared to the average delay of 10 to 15 minutes experienced in 1987."—[Official Report, 18 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 339.] I am not sure whether the Minister was saying that the average was 10 to 15 minutes in 1987 or whether he was expecting an increase of 10 to 15 minutes this year. If it was the latter, it was clearly a misprint, because it should be 10 to 15 hours, which is what has been happening.

The problem has not been caused by an increase in traffic. The amount of charter traffic has gone up only by 2 to 3 per cent. That figure is confirmed in a brief which I am sure many hon. Members will have received from Britannia Airways. Britannia Airways claims that its experience is that by using bigger aircraft, it is running 25 to 30 fewer flights weekly than it was in 1987. There has not been a failure in terms of air traffic control and there has certainly not been insufficient runway capacity. There is plenty of that. It is not inefficient management of the current air space; it is simply that, with the equipment available, the best efficiency will not allow any more traffic to fly.

There are two sorts of solutions to the problem of the long-suffering public whose holidays are being ruined by long waits at terminals and the whole experience of flying. In the short term, we must look for solutions other than those so far proposed by the Secretary of State.

I reject night flights. They are an imposition; they transfer the agony from inside the airport terminals to those people living under the flight path. I venture to suggest that the short-term relaxation on night flights will result in permanent night flights next year. The best solution is to transfer some of the existing air space——

§ Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham)

It sounds as if the hon. Gentleman does not know that, since the relaxation on night flights, only two extra flights have gone through Heathrow instead of through Gatwick, neither of which was at night. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State listened to the representations made on behalf of the people living around Heathrow.

§ Mr. Hughes

I have heard extravagant claims in my life, but that takes the biscuit. The hon. Gentleman knows that night flights have not so far expanded because airlines claim that, if they fly at night, they cannot get in at the other end. It has nothing to do with his representations; it is a fact of life. I suggest that once airlines get used to the idea of flying at night, changes will be made.

We should transfer some of the space permanently reserved for military aircraft to civilian use. I believe that will provide the space needed greatly to ease the problem. That is not a novel suggestion. In West Germany, they have opened up five new air corridors because of demand. I do not see any reason why that cannot be done as a temporary measure here.

In the longer term, the tragedy is that the CAA is way behind with its investment programme. It became infected by the Government's drive for cost-cutting and it now admits that it should have asked for more money some time ago. At least it has now been converted and is willing to ask for more money. Much more money is needed, and quickly, to speed up the present computer strategy.

§ Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Hughes

No, I think not, because time is moving on very fast.

314 The CAA must start to bring forward its plans for expansion of the system, which it does not envisage coming into operation until the year 2000. Much must be done also to train new air traffic controllers by the use of radar simulators. I am horrified to discover that those simulators were called for as long ago as 1964, but there is still none in place.

The Government must move away from the impression that it is said they have given to the charter and airline companies: "Just take the customers' money. It does not matter what you do once you have it. Take it and expand the business, and who cares what happens after that."

I want to refer briefly—perhaps too briefly because of the importance that it warrants—to P and O's safety record. During the whole period of the P and O dispute we vigorously expressed our anxiety about the potential damage to safety because of the company's proposals. Regrettably, since P and O has been sailing its vessels again, our concern has been justified. There have been far too numerous reports about safety codes being breached and, although the Minister has said that those breaches will be examined, many people believe that they will not be examined properly.

Is the Minister aware that on 17 July there was a report in The Observer about a fire on the P and O vessel European Clearway? Is he further aware that Mr. John Douglas Ball has sought the permission of the Attorney-General to take out a private prosecution because he is so dissatisfied with the Department of Transport's lack of action? As further information is coming forward every day, would the Minister be prepared to meet seafarers with direct recent experience of P and O to ensure that all complaints are thoroughly investigated? That has to be done to allay the fears.

The prime example of the dead hand of Marsham street stifling initiative is the report by British Rail on the Channel tunnel rail services south of London.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Has my hon. Friend read the full report about John Ball and the European Clearway, which stated that the breaches of safety were so numerous that John Ball referred to them as a horrifying catalogue of breaches of safety by P and O? When there was an oil leak on the ship five weeks ago, which he reported, the people in charge said, "Stick a bucket underneath and catch the oil." A similar incident resulted in a fire. When he reported the problem, he was so disgusted that no action was taken—although a serious fire had occurred, it was dowsed—that he rejoined the strike. Is it not time that the Government wrenched themselves clear from Jeffrey Sterling and P and O, even though he handed over £100,000 for the general election campaign, and sorted out some British justice for once?

§ Mr. Hughes

I hear clearly what my hon. Friend says. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is rubbish."] Well, I did hear it. If my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will no doubt mention P and O in more detail.

I found the British Rail report on the possibility of dedicated lines south of London to the tunnel apathetic and timid in the extreme. The report illustrates the true extent of British Rail's demoralisation. There is no sense of urgency or initiative, and no projection that increased business can be obtained by aggressive marketing. It is all passive and reactive. It mentions the Martin Vorhiees 315 Associates report and the SETEC report—SETC being a French group of consultants for Eurotunnel. The report says that, in certain circumstances, this will happen and that, in others, something else will happen. There is no decision about which set of forecasts it believes to be true. It ignores Eurotunnel's forecasts.

The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) is showing me his pamphlet, but he will do his own puff on it when the time comes. BR's report ignores the Eurotunnel statistics on the grounds that they are not sufficiently detailed for reliable use. It forecasts that there might be additional growth in traffic as a result of the tunnel. The other reports say that there may be some change in business, depending on economic growth.

Having looked at all the figures, British Rail decides that it will provide for only 80 per cent. of capacity. That means that there will be 55 days when the first choice train will not be available and 28 days when there will be unsatisfied demand. That period just happens to be when we would be trying to get traffic. British Rail is already planning for overcrowding. That makes no sense, and it ought to do something about it.

If British Rail cannot bring itself to consider the matter with some inspiration, what hope is there for the future? Under the heading "Financial Evaluations," at paragraph 13.3 of its report British Rail says: The results of the financial evaluations indicate that:—

1. (a) There is no financial case for providing extra route or terminal capacity in association with the MVA forecasts until well into the twenty-first century."

If BR does not have the initiative, gumption and go to see what is happening south of London, what hope is there for those of us who saw the Channel tunnel as an engine for regeneration of economies in the north of England and Scotland? None at all. On the same day as the report is published, we are blandly told in a press release that there will be another 18 months of consultation with local authorities to see what might be done for services to the north.

It is time that BR stopped being so negative and acquiescent to Government policies without so much as a whimper of protest. Of course, the Secretary of State will say that the picture is not all bad. I can see forming in his mind the words "Heathrow rail link", because he thinks that that is a good one to bring out. The Secretary of State may be preening himself on approving BR's participation in a joint venture with the British Airports Authority for a fast, direct link and glorying in the attraction of private capital.

The press release gives the impression that it is all the result of an independent study by consultants and that the right hon. Gentleman is accepting proposals, but that impression is not the whole truth. The report—the "Heathrow Access Study"—by Howard Humphreys and Partners in association with others, gives the game away, on page 64, when it says: The most favourable option of those considered during the final stage of this Study ultimately depends on the Government's objectives. If the sole objective were financial viability, it is fair that any of the schemes considered could be chosen, at a suitable fare level. If the object were to improve travelling times and conditions for all users of public rail transport to the airport, the LUL solution is the only one that meets that condition … But the analysis we have performed … demonstrates clearly that, if what is required is a scheme which: 316

• —is financially viable;
• —is attractive to providers of private capital;
• —increases consumer choice;
• —benefits the maximum number of people and attracts passengers off the roads"

But there is a contradiction. The report states clearly that the best solution to the general travelling public is that of London Underground Ltd. The report continues: then the option which seems substantially the best"— not the best— is the proposal which BR/BAA have developed. On the basis of our own understanding of the Government's objectives we would therefore recommend that this proposal is the one that should be taken forward. It is not the best. The recommendation is made on the basis of what the consultants think the Government want. That is the problem—the Government are not interested in service or objective criteria. They are interested in sheer dogma. The only solution is that which attracts private capital. Nothing else matters. As long as that is what determines the service that is provided, the public will suffer delays and hardship and, ultimately, I believe that their safety will be imperilled as well.

§ The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon)

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: 'congratulates the Government on its success in developing and implementing policies to provide the public and industry with an efficient transport system, giving both value for money and an improved quality of service; welcomes the increased investment in transport infrastructure which is accompanying a reduction in the burden on the taxpayer; applauds the increasing involvement of the private sector in transport projects; and reaffirms the Government's overriding commitment to the safety of travellers.'. Although there was not much with which I agreed in the speech made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), there were two things. The first is that I also would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir. D. Mitchell) for his magnificent services to the Department of Transport and to the Government. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North for his comments at the beginning of his speech. The only thing about which I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman is that my hon. Friend left for private reasons. We would have loved to keep him for a great deal longer. He will be sorely missed.

The second respect in which I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen. North is that I also would like to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) as Minister of State. Since I have been in the House, all hon. Members from Southgate have been close personal friends. I think that my hon. Friend will make a magnificent contribution to the Department.

§ Mr. Skinner

Watch him-he will stab the right hon. Gentleman in the back.

§ Mr. Channon

This concern for me is very kind.

In our previous debate, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said that I would last 173 days. I have lasted a little more than that, but we shall see how we get on.

The motion asks us to condemn what it calls 317 the Government's irresponsible transport policies". I do not think that it is irresponsible to start, as the Government do, with a clear understanding of what constitutes a good transport system—one which is affordable, reliable, efficient and convenient. It must be designed, built and operated with proper respect for the environment, and, above all, it must be safe.

Nor is it irresponsible to draw a clear distinction between those features of a good transport system which are the proper concern of the Government and those which are not. I think that it is the job of Government to set standards of matters of safety and the environment. It is our job to ensure that the nation has a proper transport infrastructure, but that does not mean that every new project has to be funded by the taxpayer and approved in Whitehall. It is our job to ensure that there is free and fair competition between transport operators. After that, it is up to operators to provide the service that the public want, at a price that the public are prepared to pay.

I understand that Opposition Members may not like such an approach to transport policy. They hanker after the old days of interventionism, central planning, state finance, monopolies, and regulation of this and that—in fact, all the old stuff that we had in the past.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

rose——

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

rose——

§ Mr. Channon

Here they are: regulators every one, subsidisers the lot. I cannot give way to both hon. Gentlemen, so I shall give way to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

§ Mr. Banks

Will the Secretary of State accept that where transport operators are competing for finite

§ Mr. Channon

I shall deal with roads in a moment. Before I finish, I want to deal also with rail investment and with investment in the Underground which, when the hon. Gentleman was one of the leaders of the Greater London council, he was so scandalously incapable of providing —[Laughter.]

§ Mr. Banks

Come outside and I will take you all on.

§ Mr. Channon

You may have to regulate the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch)

My right hon. Friend has laid down as the criteria for public transport, what the public want and what they are prepared to pay. Does he agree that there is another factor in the equation— provided that that transport does not have detrimental effects on other members of the public?

§ Mr. Channon

My hon. Friend will recall that I said earlier that environment was a crucial factor. I agree with my hon. Friend and I suspect that I know what he is getting at. I strongly recommend the House to read my hon. Friend's booklet, which should be required reading for every hon. Member. We may have an exam later.

I turn first to the Opposition motion. At least the part relating to maintaining safety standards will be common ground between us. The House must face up to the fact that the most serious safety problem that we have to tackle is road transport. Let us consider the facts. Over 5,000 people were killed on Britain's roads last year. Compared with air travel, motorists run 16 times the risk of being killed; cyclists run 170 times the risk; and motor cyclists 318 about 440 times the risk. It is true that Britain's roads are among the safest in Europe, but I do not derive all that much comfort from that. There are far too many avoidable accidents on our roads and their economic cost and cost in terms of human suffering is unacceptable.

Therefore, we have set ourselves the firm target of reducing the number of deaths and injuries on Britain's roads from 300,000 per year to 200,000 per year by the end of the century. We are taking action on several fronts to achieve that. We are putting emphasis on bypasses and orbital routes to divert traffic around towns which are where 70 per cent. of all road accidents take place. We are working with local authorities to improve road layouts in towns and are diverting more effort into research into the causes of accidents and how to prevent them.

§ Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)

rose——

§ Mr. Channon

I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but this is the last time, because I must get on.

§ Mr. Holt

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that one of the most dangerous roads in this country is the A1 north from Doncaster? There is no major motorway to the north-east of England. If my right hon. Friend is seriously interested in cutting deaths, he should give us the motorway for which every political party and every local authority in the north of England is asking.

§ Mr. Channon

I understand my hon. Friend's concern, which he has often expressed to me. Naturally, we shall consider any representations that he makes and we certainly wish to improve the roads in his part of England. I take note of his representations on that important matter.

We have been accused today of being irresponsible about safety. At this very moment, our current motorway safety campaign is in operation. The police are dealing severely with motorway accidents caused by bad driving and are deeply concerned about their prevention. Our main task must be to ensure that we have the right laws and that they are being obeyed. Today we published our interim response to the 137 recommendations of the North report on road traffic law. We accept the conclusion that the offence of reckless driving should be redefined. We agree that drinking drivers who cause fatal accidents must be punished appropriately. We agree that the penalty points system needs rethinking and we agree in principle to the use of video cameras to detect speeding and traffic light offences. We are pursuing the question of insurance policies against disqualification. We shall now consult the police and other interested parties, and I shall publish our final conclusions as soon as I can.

I turn now to a point which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) specifically raised—the question of ferry safety. Mr. Justice Sheen's report made a number of recommendations which we are putting into effect——

§ Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)

As regulations?

§ Mr. Channon

Yes, as regulations. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to support us—[Interruption.] Thank you very much. I am most grateful, and I am glad to hear it.

Regulations are already in place, dealing with some of the key issues raised in the Sheen report—including the 319 procedures to be followed to ensure that ferries do not sail with loading doors open. Other regulations have been drafted and will be brought forward. I am determined that the regulations should be right and I am sure that the House will agree that ill-thought-out regulations will benefit no one——

§ Mr. Skinner

The Secretary of State is in Sterling's pocket.

§ Mr. Channon

The hon. Gentleman always says that. I shall ask him who the treasurer of the Labour party is. I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is in the pocket of the treasurer of the Labour party—[Interruption.]—and not only in the pocket, but in the flat of the treasurer of the Labour party——

§ Mr. Skinner

In case the Secretary of State wants reasonable, proper and precise information, I can inform him that I am one of the people who has nominated somebody to oppose the treasurer of the Labour party —namely, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang).

§ Mr. Channon

I never thought that gratitude was the hon. Gentleman's most conspicuous quality.

Opposition Members have repeated various allegations that the ferries are being operated unsafely. That is simply not so.

§ Mr. Terry Fields (Liverpool, Broadgreen)

It is true.

§ Mr. Channon

It is not. Marine surveyors have inspected each P and O ferry before its return to service and have made random spot checks thereafter. They have always found the vessels to be carrying a full complement of properly qualified seafarers. Opposition Members are themselves guilty of irresponsibility in this. During our last debate, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made numerous allegations about safety matters. None of them has been followed up.

Our approach is the responsible one. Where necessary, we will certainly prosecute if offences are committed. I am already prosecuting in the case of the Horsa. I am not prepared to join the Opposition in a mud-slinging session in furtherance of an industrial dispute with people who pretend to be impartial, but are fresh from their triumphs, campaigning on the picket lines as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was this morning. If offences are committed, we shall certainly prosecute. If there are not—[Interruption.] Yes, I am prosecuting the Horsa at present.

§ Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stretford)

What about the Herald of Free Enterprise?

§ Mr. Channon

The hon. Gentleman entirely misunderstands the situation, and I believe that he does so wilfully. It is for the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide.

§ Mr. Lloyd

Ah.

§ Mr. Channon

The hon. Gentleman can go on saying, "Ah", until he is blue—or should I say red?—in the face.

I repeat what I have told the House on many occasions. We shall not hesitate to tackle any offences that are brought to our attention, and reasonable Opposition Members know that to be the case.

320 I turn now to air safety, which is a major issue, which I want to put in its proper perspective [Interruption.] Surely the House is interested in air safety. I want to quote some statistics—[Interruption.] Well, not as quick as the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend.

Over the 10 years from 1978 to 1987, there was one death for every 3.6 billion passenger kilometres flown on British aircraft. That record compares favourably with any other form of transport. I want to quote the statistics, although they are bound to be taken by some as evidence of complacency, which they are not. Complacency would be a sign of real irresponsibility, but it is just as irresponsible to sow unnecessary alarm among the travelling public. Therefore, I want to give the exact facts.

Reports of risk-bearing air misses have dropped from 45 in 1977 to 13 in 1987. Of course there is an element of subjective judgment, but the. reporting criteria have not changed and the trend is clear. It is not only a British experience but a worldwide one. I am sure that the House would want to reassure the travelling public, and our main task is to ensure that the air safety trend is sustained. Improvements in aircraft design will probably be the major contributing factor, but the European Community harmonisation of airworthiness certificates will be a significant step forward.

The Civil Aviation Authority plans to introduce a ground-based "conflict alert" system by next summer covering all aircraft flying above 25,000 ft, and it is starting trials on airborne collision avoidance systems this year. In all of that, the CAA has the support of my Department and I am determined to support its efforts to improve air safety. For that reason, last year the CAA introduced the system of flow control in response to growing demands on air space. It is extremely important that the House appreciates that demand.

I see no reason why air safety should not continue to improve, but we must not cut corners on safety to relieve congestion at airports.

§ Mr. Spearing

rose——

§ Mr. Channon

I am sorry, but I must press on.

The House will be aware that air transport has increased in recent years by an enormous amount. Increases in demand were anticipated and catered for by Governments and operators. However, the rapid growth on some routes, especially to Greece and Spain, took every European aviation authority by surprise.

There is no overall shortage of capacity at airports or among airlines. Europe's air traffic control system can accommodate normal traffic levels easily enough. They can even handle the abnormally high traffic levels that are experienced on the most popular routes at peak periods. However, there is little capacity to spare if something goes wrong.

European countries are dependent on each other's air traffic control systems. A problem in one system, whether caused by an industrial dispute or a technical hitch, has an immediate impact on other systems. In recent weeks, we have seen the consequences of that all too clearly.

Everyone understands the frustrations caused by long delays at airports. No one saves up to spend their holidays at Gatwick or Luton; they want to get off to Greece, Spain or wherever. We shall do all we can to help, but there are a number of things that we cannot do. We cannot sort out other countries' strikes, nor must we subject people living 321 near airports to a night flights free-for-all. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North for his remarks about that. Above all, we cannot compromise on safety. Within those constraints, we are doing everything possible to alleviate congestion.

As a first step—my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) referred to this a moment ago —I have changed the traffic distribution rules so that charter operators can take advantage of spare capacity at Heathrow, on a temporary basis, to help holidaymakers who face hardship. That has already happened.

I have also asked the CAA to report to me on various matters relating to airport use and capacity. I have asked for an interim report in the autumn, when the Select Committee's report should also be available, followed by a full report later. Among the issues on which the CAA will have to report to me are sectorisation, discrimination against general aviation and the priority given to larger aircraft. They are difficult issues.

In the long term, we must increase our air traffic control capacity. The CAA plans to implement its new central control system by the mid-1990s, as part of its £250 million investment programme. It has the Government's full support in that—we have never yet blocked any CAA investment. However, it takes time to phase in a new system, while maintaining a 24-hour service that must be perfect all the time.

Air congestion is not a purely, or even primarily, a British problem. It is a European problem, to which we must find European solutions. The CAA took the lead in establishing a "hotline" that will help Europe's air traffic controllers to improve traffic flows. We have made British equipment available to our German colleagues to help them to participate. We have used our presidency of the Commission to move Eurocontrol into more effective action. To be truly effective, however, Eurocontrol needs to bring together all the nations concerned. Greece has just taken the decision to join Eurocontrol and last week I wrote to Transport Ministers in Denmark, Italy and Spain urging them to do likewise. I have also spoken this morning to my German counterpart about ways of improving co-operation between us.

The Government and the CAA are working together to find practical solutions to the problem of congestion. Airspace is, in the last analysis, a finite resource, but I am convinced that we could make much better use of it than we do at present. We must get much better co-ordination between the air traffic control authorities of Europe. In the next few weeks, I shall devote a great deal of attention to that.

§ Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West)

Will my right hon. Friend discuss with Defence Ministers, and possibly his European colleagues, whether there is a possibility of European military using rather less space and making more available for civilian purposes?

§ Mr. Channon

I have discussed that with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. My hon. Friend will be aware that one of the advantages of our system is that it is a joint one operating between military and civilian aircraft for the control of air traffic space. That gives us certain advantages that are not available to some other countries.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North has criticised us for having an irresponsible transport policy, but we have 322 done more for transport infrastructure than any other Government in our history. Since 1979, we have added nearly 800 miles of new trunk roads and motorways.

§ Mr. Tony Banks

Why not repair the ones that we have?

§ Mr. Channon

We are going to do that too. When the Labour party left office, it left a terrible legacy of backlogs in road repairs and Underground repairs and improvements. That was the "Banks legacy".

The schemes that we have undertaken cover the whole range of improvement, from short stretches of bypass to the construction of motorways. We have increased expenditure on road building by 30 per cent. in real terms and expenditure on road maintenance has doubled.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, in an extravagant turn of phrase, said that British Rail morale was low, but British Rail has never done better than under this Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] That certainly is true. British Rail has undertaken major projects such as the electrification of the east coast main line. It has carried forward its programme of modernising rolling stock and, since 1983, it has opened or reopened some 80 stations. British Rail has invested nearly £2 billion since 1983 and it plans to spend about £4 billion more in the next five years. We have undertaken a far larger programme of investment in real terms in British Rail than that carried out by the Labour party when it was in office. It pays lip service to the railways when it is in office, but its investment programme in BR was negligible.

§ Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)

The same old story.

§ Mr. Channon

It is a jolly good story, and it is true and accurate.

We have secured the increase in capital investment by keeping a tight rein on current expenditure. We insist on value for money, particularly in the roads programme. Nowadays, contractors complete their work within budget and ahead of time—something that was virtually unheard of in the bad old days. We are no longer in the business of doling out grants for this and subsidies for that. Privatisation, which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North has laughed at, has led to enormous savings. Industries that used to be dependent on the taxpayer are now paying their own way—and prospering, as the employee shareholders of Associated British Ports and the National Freight Consortium can testify.

In recent years, we have seen imaginative new solutions to long-standing transport problems. Within a few miles of this House is London's flourishing docklands community, represented by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). It is served by the Docklands light railway, by the Thamesline riverbus and by the City airport.

§ Mr. Spearing

The Secretary of State will be aware that the City airport had some problems with the CAA. Is he also aware that my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and myself regarded the tests that were conducted at the weekend as invalid? The loads involved were not the same as those that would pertain when the aircraft are operating. That airport was imposed upon us by the unelected London Docklands development corporation. In the cause of safety, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be a public 323 inquiry into all aspects of safety, particularly as the runway is close to large centres of population and projected shopping centres?

§ Mr. Channon

I have no application before me for any change in the present procedures. If there were any they would have to follow the normal planning procedures as the hon. Gentleman is well aware.

All the examples that I have given illustrate another important point—coming up with solutions to transport problems is no longer the exclusive preserve of the public sector. The private sector is playing a much more active role than it has done for many years. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North has already referred to the largest example of private sector finance, the Channel tunnel. That is the most significant transport project in Europe and it is being funded by £6 billion of private capital. There are other examples, and there will be more to come.

Last week I announced the new rail link to Heathrow —unlike the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, I believe that that is the right solution. It will be largely privately financed and will provide an excellent service for those who wish to travel to the airport. Next week I shall be attending the Dartford tunnel handover, paving the way for another major private sector transport project. When such projects are brought into the reckoning, alongside Government-funded schemes, it is clear that we are seeing an unprecedented regeneration of the nation's transport infrastructure.

What a contrast there is between the picture painted by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North and Conservative party policy. The Opposition do not have a transport policy—at any rate none has been published yet——

§ Mr. Robert Hughes

Yes, we do.

§ Mr. Channon

Where is it? I looked at the Labour policy review—I spent a weary hour reading it—but there was not a word about transport policy. Transport and defence are too difficult for the Opposition to handle. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have lunch with the Independent; then we will know his transport policy.

The Government have a clear policy based on clear principles: value for money, efficiency, investment and, above ail, safety. We are taking the decisions to put that policy into practice and developing a transport network fit for the next century. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North and his hon. Friends are living in the past. They have nothing to do with their time but criticise. They have nothing constructive to say. I hope that the House will support our amendment.

§ Mrs. Gwynneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

I always enjoy watching Conservative Ministers sliding out from under the burden of their transport policies. They bear a strong resemblance to break dancers. The trouble is that their facility, always worth looking at, is not always terribly admirable.

Conservative party transport policy has resulted in making it difficult to get from anywhere to anywhere. That does not apply only to people sitting in airports, but to those who try to use the motorways and the train services. Tonight I shall speak briefly about two important results of Conservative policy of the past nine years. No matter 324 how often they reel off vast numbers of statistics, the Government have no basic transport policy. They have made it clear over a number of years that they have no airport policy, either. In due course the Select Committee will report on that lack of policy. It was clear even from the Minister's speech tonight that the Conservatives are not prepared to plan to make radical plans for the numbers of people using the airports. They are even prepared to try to ignore the immediate results of their inability to face the facts.

There is a real problem with air traffic control. The Minister spoke of flow control and the difficulties at Maastricht. He spoke about the inability of all the other European nations to work together. He did not mention the inability of the Conservative Government to support European control policies, even if that was what they wanted to do. He did not point out that flow policies can at best be only a form of crisis management and were never intended to be the usual day-to-day way of organising traffic into and out of important airports. They were intended as temporary measures and, like a great many other such measures, they are turning out to be all too permanent. When the Select Committee reports, I know that it will have a great deal to say about those aspects of Government policy.

I shall deal first with the deregulation of the buses. My constituency provides a classic case of what happens when basic transport services are entered in a haphazard game of chance. When the National Bus Company was divided up, members of Cheshire county council went to the Secretary of State for Transport and told him that they had evidence that one of the main bidders—indeed, the one most likely to be selected—for Crossville Motor Vehicles Co. had a bad record of managing previous companies. The council members did not make up that information. It was based on decisions taken by the north-west traffic commissioners. When the company had operated in other parts of the north-west it had frequently had its licence to operate reduced in considerable numbers. The Minister listened to all that and said that it was not a matter for him but was the responsibility of the National Bus Company.

It became clear from answers to questions that I asked subsequently, when ATL holdings bought Crossville Motor Vehicles Co., that any problems with the reliability of that company were regarded as the responsibility of the NBC. That is the marvellous double bind. Assets can be sold in any way that people like, and if there is a problem the Minister will say it is not his fault but that of the National Bus Company, which by then no longer exists. So when we want to argue about the quality of ministerial decisions that allow such sales to go ahead, we are told that everything is the National Bus Company's responsibility.

What happened in Crewe was simple and uncomplicated. The company is doing there exactly what it has done before. First, it ran down the number of maintenance engineers. Then it sold off the maintenance garage. Thirdly, it decided to get rid of the central bus station and offer an alternative somewhere outside the centre of town. In other words, that was a classic example of asset-stripping, and that was what we said it would be before these people were allowed to bid for the assets. We predicted what would happen when the legislation went through the House—and that sort of thing has happened again and again.

The safety of passengers is of no concern to the company. If it were, it would not have been before the 325 traffic commissioners and had its licences reduced as often as it has done. The interests of the people of Crewe and Nantwich are of no concern to the company, either, or it would not have sold off the only town centre bus station that was capable of handling the constituency's needs. Furthermore, the relationship between bus transport and other forms of transport is of no interest to the company. It is not prepared to discuss interlinking or the planning of joint services. The company is one of those that move in, buy up assets, take away as much as they can carry in both hands and then apologise for being unable to comply with the undertakings that were asked for originally, because they cannot—a classic case of the results of Conservative transport policy.

Such problems are not restricted to the buses. The other important employer in Crewe is the railway industry. Time and again we have witnessed the effects of Government policy on the railways. The railways are not important to the Government. The Secretary of State gave us statistics to prove that he had offered the railways whatever investment they wanted, but he never points out that, because the railway services must comply with wholly unrealistic financial targets, basic services are deteriorating at such a speed that most passengers experience difficulties every day——

§ Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde)

Does the hon. Lady agree that the introduction of new electric locomotives on the west coast main line will enhance the service to her constituency?

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

I have no difficulty in encouraging the building of new locomotives. I trust that the jobs that are involved will not be handed to foreign companies—such as the Americans—or to any other companies that submit interesting but not necessarily 100 per cent. accurate estimates of cost.

When asked to examine what is happening to rail traffic in this country, an independent consultant made it clear that British Rail is planning to turn away 3 per cent. of its customers and that it is running its services in a way that is grossly unacceptable to its customers. The independent consultant NERA, working for the Rail Federation, found numerous examples of overloading and suggested, for example, that between Carlisle and Crewe the overloading factor was 200 per cent. That means expensive seats for passengers—if they are lucky. More often than not they find it impossible to travel in comfort, and they are constantly faced with rising fares and falling standards. Yet we are told not to worry because British Rail is prepared to invest a great deal.

The Channel tunnel shows the quality of planning under the Government. I went to the chairman of British Rail and pointed out that in the Crewe and Nantwich area we have an ideal site for a Customs and Excise facility and for the transhipment of goods. We were told that BR was prepared to look enthusiastically at any plans put before it. There has been no real response by British Rail to the immediate difficulties that will arise when the Channel tunnel is in operation. No decisions have been made. As far as British Rail can see, running times between London and the coast seem to be all right as long as the whole journey is within three hours.

French railways have put an enormous amount of money and effort into providing a first-class service between Paris and the coast. It will be possible to run 326 trains through the tunnel at great speed, but when those trains reach the British coast they will have to slow down to little more than 26 or 28 mph. It seems to be difficult for British Rail to understand that passengers might not be too delighted at that. Even the plans now being suggested by British Rail do not make it clear that it is prepared to move at the speed and with the urgency that will make the difference.

I have heard that the amount of money that the French railways are prepared to invest would ensure that French trains could run as far as Ashford, at which point French railways expect that freight and people would be put on the road. That is not an unrealistic assessment, and it will begin to happen if British Rail is not prepared to improve facilities and to update running times and the provision of rolling stock and locomotives on this line. I see no signs from British Rail that it even understands the implications of this measure.

§ Mr. Irvine Patnick (Sheffield, Hallam)

Having looked at the corporate plan for British Rail I see that it is spending £180 million on new traction and rolling stock on the east coast line. It is also spending money on the west coast main line. To say that it is not spending money is twisting the facts.

§ Mrs. Dunwoody

If the hon. Gentleman reads what I said, he may understand the point. We know that no matter what British Rail says, it intends to balance the books by getting rid of thousands of railwaymen. That can hardly contribute to the safety and comfort of passengers. it also intends to balance the books in such a way that even the improvement of rolling stock will not be carried out in British Rail workshops, but will be used as a means of offering support and jobs to other countries.

To the Government, transport is way down the line in terms of investment and policies. The passenger is the last person that they are prepared to think about. Whether one travels from Manchester on the Shuttle that cannot get into London airport, or on a train that goes through Crewe and on which first-class passengers, let alone standard passengers, are not able to find seats, the reality of Conservative transport policy is less for more and under more difficult circumstances. It is not a policy of which the Government can be proud.

§ Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough)

I have a great regard for the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) who said that she could not get to where she wanted to go. Much is now clear to me. She is obviously emulating the lady in the music hall song: Oh, Mr. Porter, what shall I do? I want to go to Birmingham, But I ended up in Crewe. That is a slight digression. I shall not follow the line taken by the hon. Lady. This is a short debate and it can cover everything from air misses to the quality of tea on British Rail. All that any of us can do is pick one or two subjects and try to air them. I shall restrict myself to the subject of air congestion and the need of the traveling public for an adequate transport infrastructure.

The Select Committee on Transport, of which I have been a member since its inception, is currently investigating air safety and runway capacity, especially in the south-east. I cannot anticipate our report, nor can I reveal any of the information because it is not generally 327 made public at this stage. However, I must comment on the debate that is now raging on who is to be blamed for the congestion and delays experienced by so many people, particularly those who want to go on holiday.

I should make it quite clear that the blame is most definitely not to be laid at the door of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. It is his duty to respond to the advice given to him by the Civil Aviation Authority and it is the duty of the CAA so to advise. As he said, he recently requested an early response from the CAA on its suggestions about how the present situation may be eased. He had to ask for that response, and that is significant. Clearly, before the crisis that built up this summer, he did not have the advice that he needs, and that is why he had to ask for it.

Secondly, and perhaps surprisingly to some people, the problems are not the sole fault of the present chairman of the CAA—[Interruption.] I said, not the sole fault of the chairman of the CAA. Mistakes have been made in the past, and as he is the current front man he has to take the criticism. In due course the Select Committee may pronounce on the CAA's share of the responsibility. However, it is worth quoting to the House at least two of its defences. First, the CAA is not responsible for the actions of foreign air traffic controllers and, secondly, it does not arrange the schedules of the various airlines.

It is also untrue to say that no responsibility at all should be attached to any airline for the present congestion. The schedule set by some operators of four or five return flights per day by one plane would be testing enough at any time of the year. Given the kind of congestion that occurs in the summer peaks, some airline scheduling has been more than optimistic and on the verge of being foolhardy. This problem has not been uniformly shared because delays have arisen with some companies far more than with others. When the CAA and the Government come to consider solutions to alleviate problems that may arise next year and in the ensuing years, tight scheduling must be investigated.

The main reason for congestion at our airports is simply the increase in demand about which my right hon. Friend spoke. It is not true to say that the rise in demand was clearly seen by all the airlines even last year. We must ask why the increase has taken place. It is simply because more of our people are better off and more of them can afford to fly, often more than once a year. Therefore, the problem is of economic success and widespread affluence —not the kind of picture of the United Kingdom in 1988 that the Opposition try to paint. This picture of affluence applies throughout transport. That is why 2.3 million new vehicles took to the roads in 1987 and why projections show that by the year 2000 car ownership will increase by about 20 per cent. to 25 million. Traffic could increase even more as people use their vehicles more regularly.

Congestion on our roads raises the question of road safety. I shall insert a caveat here, because, while it is absolutely legitimate for us to be anxious about this matter, we must put it in perspective. Road deaths today are only 13 per cent. higher than they were in 1926 and we have 10 times the number of vehicles on our roads. Even in the past 12 years road deaths have been reduced by 20 per cent., while vehicles have increased by 22 per cent. One 328 reason for the improved record on our roads is that we have a far better motorway network than for many years. That brings me to my main point.

The increased demand for transport that we are experiencing will mean that a better and more sophisticated infrastructure is needed. An inadequate infrastructure will only lead to more accidents. Accidents on our roads are often due to the sheer frustration that many motorists experience after being in long traffic jams or to being unable to overtake on inadequate roads.

§ Mr. Skinner

Give us some infrastructure.

§ Mr. Fry

Of course, there will be those who say that the road safety measures that we have at the moment still need tightening up. Perhaps they are right,; such measures are an inadequate answer to the congestion that we are facing and to the frustration being experienced by some road users.

I say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who I understand will reply to the debate—I hope he will take my remarks as well-intentioned—that sometimes, when he is quoted in the media, his comments suggest that road safety measures can, perhaps achieve rather more than they can, and the main obligation to provide more roads sometimes tends to be lost. That is why some people perhaps criticise him rather unfairly.

Greater road safety alone cannot be a sufficient answer. Of course we can say that lower speeds will reduce accidents. We can produce statistics to show that a speed limit of 50 miles per hour will produce fewer accidents than a speed limit of 70 miles per hour, but we could reduce that argument to an absurd level. A traffic speed of one mile per hour would produce very few accidents. On the other hand, the effect upon our economy would undoubtedly be disastrous. We cannot all go by train, because the trains do not always go where we want to go. That is sometimes forgotten by protagonists in this area.

Our journeys today are becoming increasingly diverse and sophisticated. The sheer congestion on the roads is opening up great opportunities for rail, and light rail, and that challenge is to be met by British Rail and local authorities in the immediate future.

I am not convinced that random breath testing will be approved by those who experience it, quite apart from the people who answer opinion polls on the subject.

§ Mr. Skinner

Said he, with first-hand experience.

§ Mr. Fry

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that I have been breath-tested on the motorway and was found to be totally clear; but it is not a pleasant experience to go through, and many innocent motorists will reject random testing on the ground that it is an intrusion into their personal liberties.

If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) wishes to make a speech, perhaps he can catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the normal way. I am sure that if I sat and spoke to him while he was speaking, the House would not think that that was the way to conduct its affairs.

§ Mr. Skinner

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Fry

I would not give the hon. Gentleman anything, even the time of the day.

§ Mr. Skinner

Very droll.

§ Mr. Fry

I hope that the Government, despite the pressure from some sources of the media and other lobbies, will not allow completely random testing.

The traveller's safety does not depend on road safety measures alone. Much depends, whether we travel by road, rail or air, on an adequate infrastructure. Our people will travel more, and more often. They can afford it, and it is the Government's responsibility to assist them. I praise the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because he has clearly seen the need for the better service that is being demanded. To his great credit, he has clearly seen that it is unlikely that the Treasury will provide sufficient public funds to provide that infrastructure in full. That is why I applaud his efforts to encourage people to talk and to become involved in the private funding of various transport projects. The Channel tunnel, the Dartford bridge, the City airport and the new Heathrow railroad are all excellent, but we must regard them only as a start.

§ Mr. David Tredinnick (Bosworth)

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents and many people living in Leicestershire hope that private funding can be found to electrify the midland main line to Sheffield?

§ Mr. Fry

My hon. Friend knows that I am a joint Chairman of the all-party Committee concerned with that subject, and that the Committee shares his view.

§ Mr. Skinner

Speak for the midland main line electrification.

§ Mr. Fry

We shall try to avoid the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

The public are demanding a higher standard of service and the Government are finding it increasingly difficult to finance it entirely from state funds. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has my full support in examining every possible scheme for the involvement of private money and private risk-taking. We should look beyond just building new bridges or new airports by private finance, because we must consider how we shall obtain better public transport in our cities, better through communications and more motorways, by-passes and access roads.

Not all the schemes put forward will be financially viable, but many urban roads will give much better access and open up areas of redevelopment, which will be highly profitable to developers. Surely those same developers who will make the profit should therefore be expected to make a greater contribution to new road building. Similarly, it is essential that the Treasury's Ryrie rules, which reduce the Department of Transport's spending budget by the amount of the mixed public-private investment, must be revised and probably changed.

My right hon. Friend is entirely right to think the unthinkable in terms of transport provision, whether it be toll roads or privately funded rail extensions. He, at least, is a man of strong vision and energy, as well as being a realist. It is the Opposition's thinking on transport which appears to be stuck in a 1950s time warp, where subsidy is the sole answer. The Secretary of State is prepared to look to the future and to find any means to secure greater safety and services for the travelling public. I shall have no hesitation in supporting him in the Lobby tonight.

§ Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute)

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) on joining the Department of Transport. I congratulate also the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) on his recent honour. I am sorry to see him leave the Department of Transport. In my short time in the House I found him to be a Minister who was prepared to listen. He was always kind, courteous and helpful. I wish him well on the Back Benches.

I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate. It is right that we should consider safety and the service to the travelling public. The condition of the urban environment has worsened during the past decade. There is greater traffic congestion—none more so than in the City of London—more air pollution and a poorer, but more expensive public transport system. Many of the deficiencies have been catalogued, such as the sight of holidaymakers stuck for hours at airports or on a motorway for two hours negotiating a three-mile contraflow. Traffic is increasing by 13 per cent. every year and the roads and motorways can no longer cope.

It is a costly and dangerous situation. We have suffered from a lack of planning, vision, foresight and political will, and successive Governments must share the blame. [Interruption.] Fundamental errors were made by cutting road maintenance programmes—[Interruption.]

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)

Order. I am having some difficulty in hearing the hon. Lady.

§ Mrs. Michie

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Fundamental errors were made by cutting road maintenance programmes in the 1970s, slashing the railway network from 17,000 to 10,000 miles, and even withdrawing the trams from our cities. What complete folly that was.

§ Mr. Tony Banks

I agree with the hon. Lady. Trams were one of London's great transport boons. She may not have heard, but a Conservative Member said from a sedentary position that the withdrawal of trams was a Socialist policy. The last tram journey, on which I had the great honour to travel as a babe in arms, was in 1953, when we had a Conservative Government. I just remind the hon. Lady of that because she is obviously too young to remember herself.

§ Mrs. Michie

I wonder who was the younger travelling on the trams. Trams were also withdrawn from Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh, and that was a terrible mistake.

City transport is a focus for employment, education, retailing, leisure and health care. Cities must depend on transport to function, for the movement of goods and people. This vital service has a considerable impact on the quality of life of those living in the cities. Surely the challenge is to find a compromise between competing demands for mobility and a decent environment. There is no doubt that the urban environment has worsened during the last decade. As I said, there is greater traffic congestion, more air pollution and a poorer, but more expensive, public transport system. Pedestrians in particular have had a raw deal. Abused by motorists and intoxicated by exhaust fumes, they need standards of Olympian fitness, or the mentality of moles, if they are to use some of the pedestrian bridges or subways.

331 The result is that our environment has deteriorated and our standard of living has suffered accordingly. Nowhere is that more true than on the streets where we live. It is our children who have suffered most as a consequence. Because of the dangers of excessive traffic, which is often allowed to travel far to fast, children no longer have the freedom to visit their neighbours without being escorted by an adult, let alone the freedom to play in the streets or cycle to school, and it is often only the street that they can play in because of the lack of playground facilities.

Let me say a quick word about the railways. We have never made the best use of our railways. The cuts and the colossal lack of investment have been a huge mistake. Financially British Rail may say that it is doing better, but at what cost? There is surely room now in which to improve the service to the public. The great mistake that was made was the lack of co-ordination between rail and road transport. There was no co-ordination of freight, and that was one of the failures of nationalisation. It is terrible that freight is carried up and down our roads on huge juggernauts. It should be taken by rail to freight depots spotted all over the country, and thereafter the containers taken to wherever they are required. If containers can be taken on and off ferries, they can be taken on and off trains. That is not a problem.

We have referred to the loss of trams. I hope that the Minister will encourage the expansion of the light rail transit system, to improve safety and reduce congestion —we are looking for that in the midland metro light rail transit system—to relieve pollution, to allow motorists to park and ride and to allow people to shop in a traffic-free environment. The Government talk about privatisation and the private money that must accompany it, but I want to hear how that will help the integration of our transport services.

§ Mr. David Clelland (Tyne Bridge)

The hon. Lady may be aware that Tyne and Wear did have such integration between the light railway system and the buses, but that that has been destroyed by the Governments privatisation policy. The Government have destroyed integration and the promotion of co-ordination. Their privatisation policies led, first, to duplication, and eventually to the elimination of transport systems for the general public.

§ Mrs. Michie

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The Government must not turn their back on integration. That means planning a variety of public transport services to meet identified transport needs in such a way that passenger transfer between services is helped. Passengers should not have to wait a long time between buses, between a bus and a train or between trains. Such changes should be convenient and the ticket should be valid on both services.

However, integration alone is not a panacea. Considerable investment is required to make up for years of neglect of the public transport system. The numbers of maintenance and running staff employed need to be increased if service reliability, cleanliness and passenger safety are to be restored to acceptable levels. We are looking for a better quality service.

We have talked about holidaymakers, but I hope that Ministers and others involved will also think about the ordinary domestic travellers. I should like to see much 332 more traffic going out of airports in the regions of England and the nation of Scotland—from Glasgow, Edinburgh and Prestwick. I hope that the Minister understands that the Scots hate having to travel to London before going on to——

§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

So do the Mancunians.

§ Mrs. Michie

I am talking about the Scots, not about the Mancunians.

In order to understand what the general public have to put up with, Ministers, and, indeed, the Prime Minister, should give up their ministerial cars for three weeks and move 400 or 500 miles away from the House and then travel here and back twice a week. They should see how they get on with trains that leave and arrive an hour late, and aeroplanes that leave Glasgow half an hour late and circle over Heathrow for 25 minutes. The situation is diabolical. My goodness, no wonder we want a Scottish Parliament, so that we do not have to do that twice a week. I believe that the Government's amendment is very bland.

§ Mr. Tony Lloyd

It is a terrible amendment, not bland.

§ Mrs. Michie

I hope that the Government will answer many of the points that have been raised, particularly that about integrating the transport services.

§ Mr. Terence Higgins (Worthing)

This motion takes no account of the tremendous success of the Government's transport policy in allocating massive amounts to additional infrastructure in every form of transport and in using resources more efficiently by eliminating wasteful subsidies. It is important to start from that point. I join the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and other hon. Members who have congratulated my hon. Friend for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) on his new appointment. We certainly wish him well.

I also join those who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), who has every reason to be pleased with and proud of his ministerial career. We have known each other for a long time. We were both selected as parliamentary candidates in the same week, and whereas I failed to get on the short list for his constituency, he got on the short list for mine. Ever since, I have noted with great interest the tremendous contribution that he has made to the House both from the Back Benches and as a Minister. I feel sure that he will continue to make a very important contribution.

I wish to concentrate on road and air transport. I begin by stressing the importance of the Government's commitment that through traffic should be taken away from towns, and I do so for important constituency reasons. The Government recently appointed a firm