UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Transportation

  • Michael Howard – 2004 Speech to the AA Awards Dinner about a Car Being a Necessity

    Michael Howard – 2004 Speech to the AA Awards Dinner about a Car Being a Necessity

    The speech made by Michael Howard, the then Leader of the Opposition, on 25 February 2004.

    You won’t be surprised to learn that I think the Government is failing to deliver in all sorts of areas. And that includes transport.

    When politicians talk about transport, what they normally mean is trains and buses. It’s vital that we get policies in these areas right, as Britain needs a first-class public transport system. The Government is taking more and more control, tying up the railways in red tape.

    For example, any progress on the vital West Coast modernisation project has to be agreed by Virgin, Network Rail, the Strategic Rail Authority, the Office of the Rail Regulator, the Department for Transport, the Treasury, and Number 10. No wonder there’s no time left for anyone to run the trains on time.

    But despite the importance of our railways and buses, politicians have to recognise the fact that most of our journeys – almost 90% – are made by car. So I want to rise to the challenge that Brian Shaw has set me, to make motorists feel like customers, not like victims.

    The car is at the heart of our transport system and it needs a Government that supports it rather than persecutes it. There’s no point being anti-car. We should all be pro-travel. A properly balanced transport policy would support every kind of transport so that people can get about in the way that suits them best.

    A Conservative Government would be the intelligent friend of the motorist. I don’t think the car is evil. I don’t even think it is a necessary evil. I think it is a necessity, which for many people remains a pleasure.

    Over the years, the car has become safer, more efficient and less polluting. We should celebrate that. The car enhances the quality of all our lives. It means that we can visit friends or relatives, go shopping, enjoy the countryside. The car gives independence and control to millions of people, and I want to keep spreading that independence and control.

    The stereotype of the driver – male and middle aged – has long since disappeared. The fastest-growing groups of car users include the elderly and the disabled. For these groups in particular the car represents a huge advancement of their quality of life.

    And of course, the growth in car use over the last few decades reflects the welcome change in our society, with far more women choosing to work and be financially independent. Far more women now own cars and they are vital to them in their busy lives. The car is a necessity, not a luxury.

    So Government should do all it can to make driving an enjoyable experience. There isn’t a public transport system in the world that could replace it. It was absurd for John Prescott to claim, when he became transport minister in 1997, that he would have failed as Transport Minister if he did not reduce the number of journeys by car. If he had succeeded, it would have meant a significant diminution in the quality of people’s lives. As it is the number of car journeys has increased by 7 per cent since 1997.

    Nothing sums up better the Government’s wrong-headed approach to the car than the whole issue of speed cameras. They are the classic example of a Government determined to intrude to an astonishing degree into people’s everyday lives. They epitomise big Government. And they are yet another example of a Labour stealth tax.

    We agree with both the AA and Sir John Stevens, the Head of the Metropolitan Police, who said last week that he doesn’t “approve of the use of speed cameras as moneymaking devices. The proper use for them is as a measure to lower the accident rate” . A survey run by the AA Trust has helped identify our most dangerous roads. Can it be right that there are a third more cameras on our safest roads than on our most dangerous roads? This is the sort of nonsense that we will put right.

    Let me tell you that under a Conservative Government there would not be a single speed camera in place just to raise money. If a camera is not contributing to road safety, it will be taken down.

    We are also looking at other important areas. We have suggested a review of speed limits, raising the maximum on motorways to 80 miles per hour while reducing the maximum on our most dangerous roads.

    In the coming months we will be producing more policies covering road safety, tackling the problem of our most dangerous drivers, helping the emergency services with their use of the roads, and the many other key practical issues that face us. We’ll be working closely with the AA to make sure we get them right.

    Our approach to transport policy is based on three key principles:

    Governments should give people a genuine choice about the mode of transport they choose.

    Long-term transport success will come from steady and predictable investment policies, not from incessant political interference.

    The necessary investment levels will require private sector money, and that is as important for roads as it is for railways and buses.

    So I welcome Brian’s remarks about how the structures of government have failed our transport system. When he tells me to study the waste and poor performance in the way roads are funded and delivered, I can tell him that we’re already doing that. We’re going to learn from other countries, in all parts of the world, who often seem able to produce the world-class transport infrastructure that we in Britain have a right to expect for ourselves.

    And when he says that his remarks should not be seen as a bid for higher public spending I can tell him that I am very grateful indeed. It means I won’t get told off by Oliver Letwin, the Shadow Chancellor.

    The Conservatives are committed to giving Britain the best transport system possible. I want to thank the AA, and everyone here, for all the hard work that you do in making sure that we have access to your experience and expertise.

    I have had the most wonderful evening. Thank you for inviting me and letting me tell you something about what the Conservatives would do if we were elected.

    The policies I have set out are not some academic exercise. They are the means to an end. And the end is to make people’s lives bigger, by making government and its power to meddle smaller.

    To make people’s lives easier.

    To make people’s lives better.

    That’s our objective and we are determined to do everything we can to achieve it.

  • Grant Shapps – 2022 Comments on Self-Driving Cars

    Grant Shapps – 2022 Comments on Self-Driving Cars

    The comments made by Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Transport, on 19 August 2022.

    The benefits of self-driving vehicles have the potential to be huge. Not only can they improve people’s access to education and other vital services, but the industry itself can create tens of thousands of job opportunities throughout the country.

    Most importantly, they’re expected to make our roads safer by reducing the dangers of driver error in road collisions.

    We want the UK to be at the forefront of developing and using this fantastic technology, and that is why we are investing millions in vital research into safety and setting the legislation to ensure we gain the full benefits that this technology promises.

  • Andrew Adonis – 2012 Comments on Rail Fare Increases

    Andrew Adonis – 2012 Comments on Rail Fare Increases

    The comments made by Andrew Adonis, the former Labour Secretary of State for Transport, on 11 January 2012.

    Prior to 2010, train companies had the right to increase individual train fares by up to five per cent above the average RPI+1 per cent level. This was a legacy of the privatisation settlement.

    I scrapped this flexibility because I believed it was deeply unfair to allow commuters to be penalised with such hefty fare increases. There was also a lack of transparency, and I was not convinced that train companies were not gaming the system at passengers’ expense in their use of this flexibility.

    The ending of the flexibility was strongly opposed by the train companies, but they complied and it was highly popular with passengers. It was my firm intention to continue the policy for subsequent years, and I was mystified when Philip Hammond, my successor, reinstated the fares flexibility. The only people who supported this change were the train companies.

    It is the job of government to be on the side of the travelling public. Labour took this seriously, which is why we scrapped the fares flexibility. By contrast, the present government appears just to be on the side of the train companies.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Expanding ULEZ

    Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Expanding ULEZ

    The comments made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 29 July 2022.

    The health of Londoners across the capital is being damaged by air pollution and I’m doing all I can to improve it. This data shows how important it is to take bold action that benefits all Londoners. If the zone is expanded, five million people living in the outer boroughs would also be able to breathe cleaner, less polluted air and this is why I’ve been consulting on expanding the ULEZ London-wide.

    Deadly air pollution contributes to children developing stunted lungs, asthma and a whole host of other health issues and new research has shown that it also puts people at increased risk of developing dementia. We need to act now to protect the most vulnerable from the worst consequences of toxic air and build a safer, fairer, greener and more prosperous city for everyone.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2022 Statement on TFL Funding (July 2022)

    Sadiq Khan – 2022 Statement on TFL Funding (July 2022)

    The statement made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 28 July 2022.

    Today, the Government has given TfL a short-term extension to the current emergency funding deal until 3rd August 2022. This is only necessary as the Government shared the long overdue draft proposal for a funding settlement to TfL late last Friday, and it’s right that time is taken to thoroughly scrutinise the offer and understand it’s impact on Londoners and TfL services.

    This is a £10bn transport authority that is crucial to supporting jobs and economic growth across the country. TfL must consider if this draft proposal provides the funding needed in order to avoid having to make painful cuts, and it’s in no one’s interest to have conditions attached to this funding deal that come at a cost – damaging TfL, unfairly punishing Londoners and our economic recovery.

  • William Harcourt – 1884 Statement on the Explosion at Victoria Station

    William Harcourt – 1884 Statement on the Explosion at Victoria Station

    The statement made by William Harcourt, the then Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 28 February 1884.

    Sir, last night, at Charing Cross Station, in consequence of the information that had been received, the clerks particularly observed and searched the luggage there. That was about half-past 11 o’clock at night. I had better, perhaps, read the words of the Report on the matter which I have had from the police— 11.30 P.M. yesterday.—James Chamberlain, second cloak-room clerk, when looking over the stored luggage, lifted up a shabby black American-leather portmanteau, two feet by twelve inches, and finding that the weight of the contents was all on one side, he became suspicious, and opened the portmanteau with a duplicate key, finding, on the right hand side, well covered by some newspapers, a quantity of dirty white-looking cakes of an oily nature, four inches by two inches, packed closely around a tin box in the centre, the box being about four inches square, and the edges hermetically sealed with black sealing wax, and parts of an old pair of trousers pushed in between to fill up the space. The left-hand well only contained half an old coat, torn down the middle of the back. This having been discovered, the box and the material were sent to be examined by Colonel Majendie. I have seen it myself to-day. The tin box was about 6 or 8 inches square. It was a small japanned tin box. It appears it contained a clock—one of the ordinary small clocks that are to be seen in the shops—of American manufacture. It had arranged behind it a small pistol, which was so arranged that by the clock-work it should explode a cap. In proximity to this was placed a cake of a species of dynamite which is unknown in this country, and which is not used here, nor manufactured here, called Atlas Powder. In that cake of dynamite were six of the detonators for exploding dynamite, and loosely arranged round the box, in the portmanteau, were 40 of these cakes, amounting to about 20 lb. weight of dynamite. It appeared that the clock-work had let off the pistol, but the cap had missed fire, in the midst of this dynamite. It is a remarkable circumstance that Colonel Majendie has discovered, at the Victoria Station, in a state of semi-fusion, but quite sufficient to identify it, a mainspring of an exactly similar clock, so there cannot be smallest doubt that the two attempts were made identically in the same way. This dynamite was deposited at the Charing Cross Station on the same night as the explosion at Victoria Station, and the ticket on the portmanteau shows that it was deposited between 7 and 9 on Monday the 25th instant.

    Since I came to the House I received the following Report from the police:— Mr. Hart, of the Great Western Railway, has just called on me to say that a portmanteau has been found at their station, containing what appears to be similar cakes of dynamite to that found at Charing Cross, and a clock-work arrangement, which, from the description, appears to be the same as that at Charing Cross. So that there are clearly three deposits of this character, all evidently of the same sorts, and olearly with the same object. The most significant part of the matter, as I have already stated, is that the explosive used is one which is not known, or manufactured, or used in commerce in this country. It is one with which, unfortunately, I am very familiar, because it has been discovered many times in connection with attempted explosions—some of which succeeded, and some did not—at Glasgow, at Liverpool, and in London. It is a ligneous composition of dynamite. Is is manufactured, as we know, in America, and, as far as Colonel Majendie knows, it has never been seen here except in connection with these explosions in this country.

  • Kit Malthouse – 2022 Comments on Travel Disruption

    Kit Malthouse – 2022 Comments on Travel Disruption

    The comments made by Kit Malthouse, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 29 July 2022.

    I know that travel disruption can affect all of us, whether you need to commute to work, travel to visit your friends, family or loved ones, get away on your well earned Summer break or even attend an event like our fantastic Commonwealth Games. I am working with ministers and officials right across government, as well as our partners and industry, to assess and mitigate any disruption, including any knock on effects from the rail strikes.

    We have already taken action, and continue to work with the Port of Dover, Eurotunnel, and the French Government, National Highways, local police and the Kent Resilience Forum on minimising traffic disruption, and also with our airport operators to avoid last minute cancellations, and we will continue to take all the necessary steps to help people travel easily.

  • Andrew MacKinlay – 1994 Speech on Fenchurch Street Station

    Andrew MacKinlay – 1994 Speech on Fenchurch Street Station

    The speech made by Andrew MacKinlay, the Labour MP for Thurrock, in the House of Commons on 17 March 1994. The speech was made at 05:15.

    I begin the debate which I have initiated on the impact on the commuters of the closure of Fenchurch Street station and Limehouse station for seven weeks this summer by apologising to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House, its servants and its officers for detaining them at this unearthly hour. I extend that apology to the Minister and to his colleague, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), who, on a personal level, are always courteous. Nevertheless, I shall not hesitate to criticise the Government and their stewardship of our railway network as it affects east London and Essex, despite the fact that the Minister has always been courteous and helpful to me about constituency matters.

    The fact that Back-Benchers have to raise important issues at ridiculous hours of the day and night reflects the imbalance of the way in which we do things in this House. Before I depart from the House, my ambition is that the balance between Government business and BackBenchers’ debates will have been altered. Government business should be held in the middle of the night and Back-Benchers’ initiatives should be held during the day. I have already been in the Palace for 21 hours, working on parliamentary business. It is absurd that we hold these debate so late when the Minister, like me, has a full diary for the day ahead.

    Having got that point off my chest, I state clearly that I do not question the urgent need for the resignalling works on the line that goes from Fenchurch Street to Southend, via my constituency of Thurrock and the constituency of Basildon; nor do I minimise the urgent need for Fenchurch Street station and other stations along that line to be refurbished and for the track to be renewed. Indeed, that work is long overdue, but I question whether, to complete those works, it is necessary to close Fenchurch Street and Limehouse stations for seven weeks from 22 July. Had the Government and managers of Network SouthEast been alive to the decay of the London-Tilbury-Southend and Great Eastern lines and their stations, those closures would not have been necessary. They are a direct consequence of years of neglect and indifference by the Secretary of State and his predecessors under this Administration.

    My constituents will suffer enormous additional delay and inconvenience as a result of that neglect. The impact will be quite awful for the thousands of commuters who travel from East Tilbury, Tilbury, Grays and, to a lesser extent, South Ockendon stations. They would wish me to place on record their considerable irritation at the inconvenience that they face this summer. The problem is not exclusive to my constituency but will affect thousands of commuters from Essex and east London, Southend, Shoeburyness, Basildon, Pitsea, Upminster, Dagenham Dock and particularly Barking. Some 19,000 commuters a day use Barking station and there is already considerable congestion and problems for commuters interlining from that station on their way to work in London.

    When Fenchurch Street and Limehouse stations close this summer, Network SouthEast intends that the bulk of commuters travelling from Essex will disembark at Barking and join the already heavily used, if not overloaded, District and Metropolitan underground lines from Barking. Commuters who normally interline with the docklands light railway at Limehouse station will have an additional problem to get to their place of work in the new docklands development area.

    The closures will affect not only travellers to Barking but commuters living in Barking. Had my late colleague Jo Richardson still been with us, I am sure that she would have participated in this debate because of the enormous impact that the closure of Fenchurch Street station will have on the Barking and Dagenham constituents. I regret that no other hon. Members whose constituents will be affected by the closures are in the Chamber. In fairness, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) is indisposed. He takes a keen interest in transport matters, having been a former Transport Secretary, and is also my chairman on the Transport Select Committee. I am sure that, had it been possible, he would have been here tonight. The inescapable fact remains, however, that there are Essex Conservative Members who should have been here tonight to speak up for their commuters, who will be greatly disadvantaged by the closures.

    I have been a consistent and unashamed critic, not just of the Government and their transport policy, but of the managers of Network SouthEast, who do not respond as they should to the interests of commuters. They make cosmetic efforts to recognise those interests, but I am not satisfied that they properly champion consumers’ interests in their dealings with the Government. Were they to fulfil the spirit of their duties as line managers they would join me in criticising the Government for their chronic underfunding of the lines, which in turn has led to the chaos of one of London’s oldest mainline stations being closed for seven weeks in the summer.

    The managers make some attempt to acknowledge the interests of commuters. Just this morning, they issued commuters with a glossy brochure entitled, “LTS Newsline: Customer Newsletter”. The banner headline reads: Station to shut for seven weeks”. The second page of the document is headed: LTS moves towards shadow franchise”. It goes on: The senior management team headed by Chris KinchinSmith, divisional director of LTS, has already expressed its initial willingness to mount a bid for the line, providing the terms of the franchise are acceptable. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that during the tortuous debates on rail privatisation, in the House and in the Select Committee, we were assured both by the Minister and by the chairman of British Rail that line managers who might be contemplating putting in a bid for a franchise should keep that interest separate from their operational role. Mr. Kinchin-Smith and his colleagues, in a document paid for by commuters through their fares, are flagging up an interest in bidding for a franchise—that clearly runs contrary to the spirit of those undertakings. I hope that the Minister will accept that, and that his Department will tick off people who are mixing up their responsibilities in this way.

    Another sign that the legitimate interests of commuters are being ignored is the lack of facilities for the travelling public. The document also tells commuters that no toilets will be available for their use at Barking station, the main inter-line station, which is due to accommodate a great many more travellers this summer. That is symptomatic of the decay of the line and its understaffing by Network SouthEast and it is wholly unacceptable. It is not unreasonable to say that the line and its passengers must be properly looked after. It is a very bad state of affairs if they cannot provide WCs for commuters.

    I move to the central issue of the debate—the closure of the Fenchurch Street main line station. Mr. Chris Kinchin-Smith says: We know this work will cause severe disruption for many of our customers”. My word, he can say that again; it is the understatement of the year. He then argues that the temporary closure of Fenchurch Street station is essential.

    As I have said, I have no way of testing whether it is essential or unavoidable now, but it could have been avoided had there been proper funding and planning of the refurbishment and restoration of the line in previous years. The Government and the line management failed to acknowledge that, despite the fact that I and other Labour Members have been drawing attention to the problems of the misery line for a number of years.

    The management’s document says that the station will be closed when many passengers take their holiday. That is very kind of them, but the fact that the work will be carried out in July or August will not greatly reduce the irritation to customers. We are not a town that has a “holiday week”. Thurrock does not close down and nor does Essex. In the south-east of England, in modern times, holidays straddle the summer months. It is of no great consolation to us that the work will be conducted in the summer and it is nonsense to suggest that that is any great concession to the fare-paying customers.

    In their document, the managers of network SouthEast also say: We are working closely with London Underground”. I am not sure that that is so. Dear old London Underground has been told there about the closure of Fenchurch Street and Limehouse station and has to live with it.

    In the past 24 hours, I have corresponded with the senior public affairs executive of London Underground. She replied: The eastern section of the District Line is currently operating the optimum level of service possible and therefore additional trains can not be provided by the line — that is the District line— during the 7 week closure period.”. The management of London Underground are in no position significantly to abate the problems of commuters from Essex; nor can they do anything to affect the impact on the existing underground customers who will also suffer through increased congestion on already overcrowded underground trains.

    I also criticise the management because their glossy and expensive document does not give much time or attention to the problems that will be faced exclusively by my constituents on the Tilbury loop line. The section headed, “Your Questions Answered”, contains hardly any reference to mitigating the problems for my constituents, apart from telling us that present proposals include the Tilbury line and that all stopping services will terminate at Barking with onward travel by tube. It then gives us the good news that LTS tickets will be valid on the underground.

    I have been fighting a continuing battle with Network SouthEast about its penalty fares scheme and how it relates to the closure of Fenchurch Street. I support the principle of the penalty fare scheme, but the management of Network SouthEast on the London-Tilbury-Southend line have been unable to maintain the ticket machines so that honest fare-paying passengers can purchase a ticket and avoid the embarrassment of having to defend their position when an inspector gets on the train. It is a wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs when, night after night on the main concourse of Fenchurch Street station, it is impossible, unless one has the exact fare, to purchase a ticket for use on that line. If Fenchurch Street station is to be refurbished, I hope that the management are able to get their act together. Apparently the machines there are supposed to be self-replenishing in change, but they do not self-replenish and the management seem incapable of arranging for people to empty them and fill them up with change.

    The situation gets worse. If more people have to change at Barking on to London Underground, which is also introducing a penalty fares scheme from the beginning of this financial year, it makes it even more imperative that passengers are able to purchase a ticket or permit to travel at stations in Essex. I hope that the Minister will take that on board and ensure that the management of London Underground and Network SouthEast understand that that is a reasonable expectation and demand by the commuters in view of the penalty fares policy.

    I want to ask the Minister some questions. First, what compensation will commuters who are disadvantaged by the lengthy closure of Fenchurch Street station receive? They do not have a good service at the present time. Despite what the management say, the journeys are still erratic in terms of punctuality. Their problems will be compounded. I guess that the vast majority of commuters from Essex will have each day an additional three quarters of an hour travelling time, at least, to their place of work in London as a result of the closure. That is not fair when one bears in mind that commuters from Southend, if travelling only on the LTS line, pay £1,912 per annum for their season ticket. If they are travelling LTS and Great Eastern, the season ticket costs £2,056 per annum. In my constituency, commuters from Tilbury pay £1,564 per annum. At that price, bearing in mind the problems that they will experience this summer, they are entitled to a rebate. I hope that the Minister will consider that matter and make the appropriate recommendation to the management of Network SouthEast.

    Secondly, is the Minister able to give me an assurance that when the work is complete following the closure of Fenchurch Street and Limehouse stations, there will be no further hiatus for commuters from Essex? I ask that because I have no confidence about the frankness of the management of Network SouthEast. For example, they did not mention the possibility of this closure until it was almost unavoidable. They must have known about it a year or two ago, but they did not tell us. I have a deep suspicion that there will be further closures of stations along the LTS line in the coming months or perhaps the next two years. If I am wrong, I would welcome that correction and reassurance from the Minister.

    Thirdly, after significant sums of public money have been spent on refurbishing the LTS line and Fenchurch Street station, will the station be fully used to the advantage of the Essex commuters? Each evening, commuters wanting to get back to Essex are faced with the absurd irritation of having to look at the clock and decide whether to head for Fenchurch Street station or Liverpool Street station. About halfway through the evening, Fenchurch Street is closed and those travelling to Essex must use Liverpool Street.

    Fenchurch Street is a mainline station. It services my constituents on the Tilbury loop, and many others who want to get to towns between London and Southend. I do not think it unreasonable to expect those people to be able to board a train at Fenchurch Street throughout the evening. I hope that, following the expenditure on Fenchurch street, that problem will be remedied and a proper service will be restored.

    Although I have tempered my remarks, I hope that the Minister will understand why I legitimately accuse the Government of neglecting the line. They are, to a large extent, to blame for the problems that will be experienced this summer by my constituents and by people living throughout Essex and in east London. Some of the blame must lie with the management of Network SouthEast but, putting that aside, I hope that the Minister will tell us that he will have a further meeting with the management to establish whether the work can be completed without closing the station.

    I feel that, although it might be inconvenient and involve some additional cost to Network SouthEast, the work could be completed in the middle of the night and over a series of weekends. It might take a good deal longer, but the disadvantage to computers would be a good deal less. I suspect that a seven-week closure of Fenchurch Street station is the easy way out for the management, rather than being truly unavoidable. I hope that the Minister will investigate that.

    I also hope that the Minister will establish whether it will be possible to increase capacity on London Underground during the closure of Fenchurch Street—assuming that it goes ahead—and that he will ensure that passengers can purchase tickets from properly maintained machines, both on that line and throughout the Network SouthEast area. That is not happening now. Finally, I hope that commuters will be told about any other anticipated problems months, if not years, in advance, rather than those problems’ being sprung on them with the minimum notice.

    I expect the Minister to say that Network SouthEast has consulted local Members of Parliament, because that is what Network SouthEast told me today. It is true that Mr. Kinchin-Smith has invited me to meet him, and I look forward to arranging a mutually convenient date. What he has never done, however, is write to me, as a Member of Parliament, saying, “We have a problem: we are going to have to close Fenchurch Street station, which will affect your commuters.” All I got was a press release, some weeks weeks ago—not even a letter. I do not protest about that discourtesy on my own behalf, but I am protesting on behalf of my constituents and other commuters from Essex. It shows the way in which the management of the line treat their customers.

    I hope that we will receive some reassurance from the Minister and that, as a consequence, the enormous chaos will be avoided for commuters this summer.

  • Douglas Hogg – 1989 Parliamentary Answer on Vigilantes on the London Underground

    Douglas Hogg – 1989 Parliamentary Answer on Vigilantes on the London Underground

    The Parliamentary answer given by Douglas Hogg, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, in the House of Commons on 27 January 1989.

    Mr. Atkinson

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has had any discussions with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the independent establishment of vigilante groups on the London Underground; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Douglas Hogg

    No. Policing the London Underground is the responsibility of the British Transport police. About 80 police officers from the Metropolitan and City of London police forces are to be loaned to the British Transport police L Division for the next 12 months. If the Guardian Angels or any other group act unlawfully or engage in conduct likely to provoke a breach of the peace, they cannot expect to be exempt from the ordinary processes of the law. But these would be operational issues for the police to consider.

  • Herbert Morrison – 1929 Parliamentary Answer on Open Doors on the London Underground

    Herbert Morrison – 1929 Parliamentary Answer on Open Doors on the London Underground

    The Parliamentary answer given by Herbert Morrison, the then Minister for Transport, in the House of Commons on 17 July 1929.

    Mr. GOSSLING asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that trains upon the Underground Railway frequently run with the doors open; and if he will take immediate steps to remedy this danger by making it compulsory for the railway company to install guards upon these trains or any other means to safeguard the travelling public?

    Mr. HERBERT MORRISON I believe it occasionally happens that railway carriage doors are left open, but my information is that the railway companies concerned already adopt measures to secure that doors left open are closed as soon as possible. If, however, the hon. Member would give me any specific information he may have of failure in this respect I will look further into the matter. I may say that so far as I have been able to ascertain no accidents from this cause are known to have occurred recently.