I congratulate my hon. Friend for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) on raising such an important subject in this Adjournment debate. Alas, when he found out that he had obtained the Adjournment debate, he did not know the weather conditions that the country would be suffering. I echo his praise for the local authority workers from Bexley in his constituency to whom he paid tribute for all that they did over the weekend to ensure that people could go about their business. I also pay tribute—although perhaps today is not a good day to do so—to the many manual workers and ordinary workers of British Rail who worked in the most horrendous conditions in an attempt to ensure that a service was operated. That is perhaps a slightly different point from my hon. Friend's operational point about the men who were out trying to sort out the chaotic conditions at the weekend.

As my hon. Friend is aware, Network SouthEast was badly affected last week by frozen trains and rails, which severely restricted the service that it could offer. Over the weekend, I understand that it was able to run a half-hourly service on all three routes from Charing Cross and Cannon street via Dartford. This morning, the picture was worse, with a shortage of rolling stock due to frozen electrics and blown fuses. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made clear comments on that point today during questions.

I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford for giving me this opportunity to say something about the Government's approach to transport in London and respond to some of his specific points. Unavoidably, I shall give him some statistics, although he says that he does not want them. If the statistics were not as they are and if we had not taken some of the action to which I shall refer, the position would be a great deal worse.

It matters very much to the Government that London should have a good transport service. It is partly a question of ensuring that London maintains its position as a pre-eminent centre of business and finance; but we also want to make London a better place in which to live and work. Good transport to, from and within London is vital to securing both those objectives.

My hon. Friend referred to the improvements to the road network. One of our priorities is to provide good alternative routes for traffic which does not need to go through London. Since 1983, the number of heavy goods vehicles entering London has fallen by 25 per cent., and the number entering central London has nearly halved. My hon. Friend's constituency will have shared in those benefits. To reinforce that welcome trend, we are widening the M25 to increase its capacity. The £86 million partly privately-financed bridge to relieve traffic congestion at the Dartford tunnel is due to open later this year. Remarkable progress is being made with that exciting engineering project. Recently, we published an action plan with proposals for improving the traffic flow on the M25 as a whole.

We have a £1·9 billion programme for improving trunk roads within London over the next 10 years or so. It is not part of our policy to make it easier for commuters to drive into central London. Our priorities are to relieve the worst bottlenecks and accident black spots and to ensure that London is properly linked with the national road network.

A key scheme in the programme is the east London river crossing, to which my hon. Friend referred. The crossing will greatly improve access to east London and we are giving a high priority to its early construction. As my hon. Friend will know, orders have already been made authorising the construction of the new trunk road. Subject to the satisfactory completion of the remaining statutory procedures, we hope that construction can start in 1992 and that the new road will open in 1996.

Public inquiries into the design of the Thames bridge have recently closed, and we are awaiting the inspector's report. I hope that my hon. Friend will therefore appreciate that, in the circumstances, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of the Department's proposed bridge design or of any alternative design suggested to the inquiries.

Perhaps I can now turn to public transport. My hon. Friend has made some criticisms of London Transport's route tendering system as it has affected south-east London. It may be helpful if I comment briefly on the background to the system.

An important step towards introducing more competition to London was taken by London Buses Ltd., with our active encouragement. when it created 12 subsidiary companies which actually carry on the day-to-day business of operating bus services. The new units, each with a small number of garages, operate more like local bus companies. They are smaller, and they are closer to the local community. Their management are better placed to assess the transport needs of the area and to respond quickly to changes in those needs. Decisions on key issues, such as pay and bus routes, are increasingly being taken at the local level, which is where they should be taken. We intend to privatise those subsidiaries when bus services in London are fully deregulated.

The second step that London Transport is taking to promote competition in the London bus market in advance of deregulation and privatisation is the introduction of route tendering. Under the London Regional Transport Act 1984, LT has a statutory duty to invite tenders for the provision of appropriate services and to accept them where that would be more efficient.

Since tendering began in 1985, it has brought a range of benefits to LT, to LBL and, most of all, to passengers themselves. At present, about 35 per cent. of LT's bus mileage is now contracted out, and the rate of tenders is set to continue at around 5 per cent. per annum. It is worth noting that the performance of the LBL subsidiaries improves when they start operating on tendered routes. That shows that the pressure put on them to perform well and to maintain the high level of service required is forcing LBL companies to raise their standards.

Therefore, tendering provides a valuable driving force for change, by making LBL, enter the real world of market forces. Its unit costs are also falling towards that of its competitors: LBL unit costs have reduced by 19 per cent. since 1985–86, and routes on the tendered services operate at a lower cost per mile than the remaining LBL services. Passengers are getting more and better services for less public money, which can only benefit the taxpayer and passenger alike.

As my hon. Friend has said, a large number of bus services in south-east London are now run by independent operators under contract to LT. In particular, the bus network in the Bexley area has recently been re-tendered, and a number of routes, previously operated on a tendered basis by the local LBL subsidiary, have been awarded to independent operators. Although there are often teething problems when a new operator begins running recently won tendered routes, I understand from LT that the routes are now operated using newer vehicles than under LBL and that the disruption to services during the transitional period has been kept to a minimum. The quality of service as monitored by LT's tendered bus unit is satisfactory.

Where a loss of routes results in job losses, it will obviously be traumatic to individuals, but LBL does its utmost to absorb extra capacity within its organisation. I understand that all staff at Bexleybus have been reallocated following the recent tender losses. In some cases, moreover, cost savings arrived at through tendering allow LT to increase operated mileage, which requires more staff and creates extra jobs.

In addition to those measures covering all London bus services, LT can and does monitor closely performance against contract specifications on all its tendered routes. It takes firm action over poor performance. For example, if a contractor operates at less than the specified performance level, he incurs contract penalties. There is no incentive for contractors to cut corners. The ultimate sanction is to take the contract away and replace the contractor with a different operator. That has happened in the past. There is no question of LT allowing tendering to lead to a decline in performance levels. In practical tern-is, therefore, I think it seems clear that passengers on the L,T tendered routes stand a good chance of getting an excellent level of service. The number of contracts to be put out for tender was the subject of a document given to LT under the direction of the previous Secretary of State for Transport.

As LT continues to extend its tendering programme, we have high hopes that the overall level of bus service provision throughout London will continue to improve. I therefore conclude that the bus market in south-east London is now in a more exciting and competitive mode than it has been before. Restructuring and tendering have together led to more flexible and reliable services, which are also responsive to passenger demand.

My hon. Friend also referred to the possible extension of the docklands light railway and the Jubilee line to Thamesmead. As he will know, the process of regeneration of docklands began with the construction of the docklands light railway, which was then seen simply as a catalyst. The scale of development that this stimulated has in turn justified upgrading the railway and extending it to the City. The push further eastwards is being taken forward by the Beckton extension, which will open up the royal docks. The unprecedented scale and pace of development which has been taking place in docklands has so far exceeded all early expectations.

Employment on the Isle of Dogs alone is forecast to rise to at least 90,000, and possibly as much as 150,000, by the end of the century. Docklands will therefore need much greater accessibility to the London commuter market than can be secured via the existing road and public transport network—already under great pressure, as my hon. Friend pointed out—and the docklands light railway. That is why the Government accepted the conclusions of the east London rail study and approved the deposit of the Bill for the Jubilee line extension. It will open up the docklands to a wide catchment area, including Kent and south-east London on British Rail lines into London Bridge; and the east and north-east on lines into Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street via Stratford and West Ham.

As well as supporting the rapid growth in docklands, the new line will also significantly improve accessibility in areas poorly served by public transport south of the Thames, and in the east end in Tower hamlets, Newham and Greenwich. It will satisfy a necessary precondition for the timely and effective regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula. The Government believe that the development of the Greenwich peninsula—primarily for housing—is of considerable strategic importance, as it will help both to ensure the balanced development of east Thames-side and to prevent avoidable use of green belt land to meet forecast housing needs in London as a whole.

In addition to the Jubilee line extension, we have recently approved the deposit of a private Bill to allow the private sector to extend the docklands light railway to Greenwich and Lewisham and thus provide another much-needed river crossing and allow regeneration to spread to Greenwich and Lewisham.

The Government have therefore presided over an unprecedented expansion of public transport into south-east London. Of course I appreciate my hon. Friend's particular concerns on behalf of his constituents in Thamesmead, and I therefore realise that he would like me to go further. The east London rail study included an evaluation of a further extension of the Jubilee line through the royal docks to Woolwich and possibly Thamesmead. It concluded, however, that this would not, at the present time—I stress that—be justified, as the additional costs substantially exceeded benefits.

However, mindful of our experience that success builds on success, we have ensured that such a further extension of the line is not ruled out. Accordingly, an underground junction will be incorporated into the Jubilee line extension, south of Canning Town, to safeguard the possibility of a future extension to Woolwich and Thamesmead without disrupting the existing railway. Furthermore, the London Docklands development corporation and London Transport are currently embarking on a further study into the ways of improving transport into the royal docks and beyond. I am sure that my hon. Friend will therefore appreciate that his concerns have not only been recognised but anticipated.

Finally, my hon. Friend raised the question of rail services to his constituency. If I do not have enough time to answer my hon. Friend, I shall write to him. I said earlier that it was no part of our policy to encourage car commuting to central London. That is why the Government are supporting record levels of investment in Network SouthEast, as well as in London Transport. Network SouthEast plans to invest £1·3 billion over the next three years. That is an increase of 10 per cent. in real terms over the already high level of investment in the past three years. Having said that, I am very much aware that there are problems at times with the rail services which serve south-east London and north Kent. However, I can assure my hon. Friend—

The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half past Ten o'clock.