I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise a number of issues concerning transport in south-east London.

Given the dreadful weather that we have experienced in the past few days, I think it appropriate to begin by praising London Regional Transport for its work to keep services running in Greater London, and the local authorities—particularly my borough of Bexley—for their sterling work in clearing and gritting London's roads. However, British Rail services in south-east London last Friday were mixed, and some were very poor. Many local people spent hours waiting for a train and more hours on the train in their endeavours to travel to work and home. Even today, the service was very poor, and the statement by British Rail's director of operations that the problem was caused by the "wrong type of snow" is quite laughable.

The issues that I wish to discuss, however, relate to the local transport network as it affects my constituents—and, of course, those of my colleagues in neighbouring constituencies. I do not intend to criticise the Government or to embarrass my hon. Friend the Minister who, together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues, is trying to establish an up-to-date and coherent policy for transport in London. Many of my constituents—including me—regret the fact that such a policy is so long overdue.

I intend to highlight a number of the problems caused by the inadequate and poorly co-ordinated transport system that serves Erith and Crayford—problems that cause my constituents frustration and annoyance. They include bus, road, rail and tube services—or, rather, the lack of tube services, given the failure to extend the London underground or the docklands light railway network to our part of London.

I believe that south-east London is the worst served area of Greater London. The fact that it is the only part of London not connected to the underground network reinforces the generally held view that other parts of the capital are far better served. That complaint is frequently made by my constituents. I shall return to the lack of tube services later in my speech.

Of the complaints that I receive from constituents about public transport, most relate to the rail services provided by British Rail's Network SouthEast. I use that service regularly. However, I can neither recommend nor praise it. Many of my constituents are commuters who use the three Dartford-London lines via Greenwich, Bexleyheath and Sidcup. On all three lines there are persistent complaints of unreliable services, frequent cancellations or late running and dirty and overcrowded trains. The ancient rolling stock has single compartments in which many travellers, particularly women, are, quite rightly, unwilling to travel, especially outside the rush hour. There has been the promise of new Networker rolling stock, but to date that is all it seems to be—merely a promise. The new stock should have been operational two years ago. If it had been, the problems of last Friday and today would have been lessened.

I personally count myself lucky. Of the three lines, the one that serves Crayford, the station nearest to my home, is the least troublesome. It is not as good or as bad as lines in other parts of London; it is average to mediocre. However, those of my constituents who live in Erith, Belvedere or Slade Green are not so lucky. Those who use Barnehurst and Bexleyheath stations suffer far more. One constituent told me recently that when he tells people who do not live in the area that he lives in Barnehurst they usually comment, "Oh, I know the place—where the trains never run from." Cancellations on that line are so frequent that people hear about them on the radio every day. Apart from the latest pop tunes on Capital Radio, Barnehurst must be the most well-known name in London.

I appreciate that the Minister is not responsible for operational matters relating to rail services. They are quite properly left to British Rail. However, his Department is ultimately responsible. It is essential, therefore, that he be made aware of just what is going on in our part of London. That is what I am endeavouring to do by means of the debate.

I should like to be able to say that local bus services are in much better shape than rail services, but I can only describe the bus services in my area as poor. In all fairness, the tendering process in my area a couple of years ago was partly successful. Most of the routes transferred to Maidstone Boroline are efficiently operated by a company that uses a well-maintained and modern fleet of buses. However, the same cannot be said for the services run by Bexleybus. That is not an independent operator, as many local residents are led to believe by the change of livery. It is one of the endless string of London Transport subsidiaries.

The changes made by Bexleybus and LRT got off to a poor start a few years ago and never improved. New routes were introduced that were not supported by local people, either as passengers or residents. Users of established routes found that journeys previously completed on one bus now involved at least one change. Residents' views were ignored as quiet residential roads were taken over as bus routes. The problems did not end there. A fleet of ancient, poorly maintained buses, belching fumes and constantly breaking down, staff shortages and other operating problems have all led to the provision of an extremely poor service in our area. It is true that Bexleybus services have improved of late. The number of complaints that I receive is down on the number that were made to me a year ago. However, there is still much to be done. I understand that Bexleybus will give way to another operator for some of the routes.

The tendering exercise caused endless problems, not least because painting the buses a different colour led constituents to believe that the bus services had been privatised. In my view, it would have been far better if they had been privatised, provided that LRT was responsible only for awarding contracts and was not connected with any of the route operators. If that had been the case, LRT would have withdrawn routes from Bexleybus. As it is, my constituents have had the worst of both worlds.

On the roads there is at least some cheer, although the seemingly endless carriageway repairs and alterations on the A2 trunk road make life far from perfect for motorists. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn)—my friend and neighbour—will raise the issue in an Adjournment debate later this week. I am certain that he will cover the salient issues in greater detail.

There is one point relating to the A2 on which I wish to comment. In recent years, the Falconwood-Kidbrooke section of the A2 was completed, vastly improving communications with central London and with the M25. However, travel from my constituency to anywhere north of the Thames other than through central London involves using the Blackwall or Dartford tunnels, which are plagued by frequent closures, lane restrictions and tailbacks, all of which have a detrimental effect on businesses that have located in my area, encouraged by the prospect of good road communications. Those businesses, particularly warehousing and distribution companies located in Belvedere and Thamesmead, were attracted by the proximity of the channel ports and the M25 and the promise of a new local road network linked to an improved Dartford crossing and to the east London river crossing, giving access to the midlands and the north.

Obviously, the new Dartford bridge is nearly completed and will bring welcome relief for users of the M25, although I am concerned about the prospect of the Dartford tunnel's being closed for repairs almost as soon as the bridge opens. However, the delay in proceeding with the east London river crossing is causing most concern among local business men and the business community in my area. There seems to have been an endless string of delays on that long overdue and much-needed scheme—not caused by the Department of Transport, I hasten to add in deference to my hon. Friend the Minister. However, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will make a speedy decision on the bridge design. I hope that he will support the Calatrava design, which would make a worthy and fitting landmark. At any rate, we must have the bridge, and we want the construction to be completed with all possible speed.

Another issue that has caused widespread disappointment, particularly among my constituents in Thamesmead, is the failure to extend either the underground network or the docklands light railway to our side of the river into Thamesmead. As my hon. Friend will know, it was originally intended that the Jubilee line would run to Thamesmead and many people, myself included, are dismayed that that proposal or a realistic alternative has not been implemented.

Thamesmead is a growing community, which is managed by the local people via its own company, Thamesmead Town. It is a unique concept, with a board of directors elected by local residents making all decisions and supported by a first-class team of professionals under the control of the chief executive, Philip Glascoe. Under the company's control, Thamesmead has been transformed into a real town in the making, with sites for business, a new town centre and the construction of homes for sale and rent.

As a community, Thamesmead is poorly served by public transport, particularly in north Thamesmead, where commuters face a long walk or a lengthy wait for a bus to or from Abbey Wood, a British Rail station, to get to or from central London. Thamesmead also has no direct road links to the A2 and M25 or north across the river, and further development of north Thamesmead will be hampered unless transport facilities are improved. It is therefore vital that Thamesmead is linked to the underground or the docklands light railway, and it seems ludicrous that both services will be terminiated just across the river. I urge my hon. Friend carefully to consider those issues.

Transport in the 1990s is a major issue, and there is little point in dwelling upon the wider economic issues such as comparative levels of investment in the past or the need for the country to create wealth to have funds to invest unless the action that is required is made clear. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last Saturday, we need good public sector services. We need also to look forward. Commuters, shoppers, students, the elderly—all sections of the community—have differing travel needs, but they have a common complaint in my area, they are dissatisfied with the service provided on public transport in south-east London. Excuses and apologies are simply not enough. Hard-pressed commuters returning home after being at work all day do not need the added stress and problems created by late, overcrowded rail services.

For people without a car, shopping by bus in Bexleyheath, Erith market or Crayford should not be a major expedition. But buses, which run on mainly congested local roads, are endlessly late, or short of staff and, therefore, do not run. My constituents want action. They do not expect it overnight, but they expect my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of Transport, including the Secretary of State, to give a commitment that action is being and will be taken. They want a commitment that my hon. Friend the Minister and the Department understand and appreciate the transport problems in the area.

It is no good trotting out figures on investment and passenger numbers or giving British Rail statistics. To be blunt, my constituents are not interested in whether more people are using the M4 or whether billions are being spent on rail schemes in west London or the rest of the country. They do not want palliatives from the Minister or the Department on what may happen in 1995 and beyond.

My constituents are suffering at the sharp end now and want to know what will be done to improve the transport system in south-east London. Headlines such as the one in the Evening Standard tonight, which said "BR warning as it blames the wrong type of snow", are disgraceful and should never be allowed in a public service.

My constituents expect the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the services for which the Department is responsible to be efficiently and effectively run, that the east London river crossing is executed with all possible speed, that the extension of the underground or the docklands light railway to Thamesmead is carefully reconsidered, and that money provided by taxpayers and the travelling public is used by the public sector transport authorities—especially British Rail—to provide better services.

I stress that action is vital. My constituents, especially the thousands of captive commuters who have no alternative but to commute by rail, expect action. If that action is not forthcoming, they will feel, justifiably, that the Government have failed them. We must not let them down for they, together with local business and industry, are the wealth creators of Britain. They need good communications to function and function effectively. At present, transport in south-east London is insufficient and ineffective. We look to the Government for action.