I am particularly delighted that Mr. Speaker has allowed me to hold this brief debate on a matter of considerable concern to my constituents. This is in fact the second time that I have been fortunate enough to debate this issue on the Adjournment of the House, but as the first time was some 14 years ago and I was sitting on the other side of the Chamber, I am sure that people will not accuse me of being obsessive about it.

The tube system in south London, and certainly in south-east London, has been a joke for many years—largely because it does not exist. In the latter days of the 19th century, the system was run by a cartel. The Southern Electric Company and the Metropolitan Railway, as they then were, decided that they would not encroach on each other's territory, which is one reason why the tube system never came very far south of the Thames. Elaborate hoaxes were devised. Reference was made to saturated sand that made tunnelling impossible, and God knows what else, but it was the commercial interests of the railway companies that largely dictated the layout of the London underground as it exists today. Fortunately, in more enlightened times we have adopted a more progressive view of improving transport in and around the capital.

When I was growing up in the '50s and '60s, there was a scheme to extend the Bakerloo line from the Elephant and Castle through Walworth, Camberwell, Peckham and Forest Hill and on to Catford and Bromley, but it was never more than a pipe-dream. The costs were always prohibitive, even then, and although the scheme existed on paper, it never existed in fact.

The extension of the East London line therefore became a much more realistic proposition, particularly in my part of south-east London. Only relatively minor engineering work at New Cross Gate is required to allow it to share the infrastructure with Network Rail that is necessary to produce a service that—when I started campaigning for such an extension in the early '70s, on being elected to Lewisham council—was designed to go to East Croydon. As the proposed extension of the East London line both north and south was discussed—the House will understand if I do not go into detail about the northern extension, important though that is—the ideas were refined. The decision was taken that it would be better to extend the line to West Croydon, which serves the centre of Croydon more readily than does East Croydon. Extending to East Croydon would have had the advantage of a link with Gatwick airport, but such a service would have been of limited value to commuters.

The idea was hatched to introduce the scheme, which lacked a substantial backer for many years and was little more than a hope or aspiration, rather than an achievable objective. Fortunately, that has changed over time, and we very much welcome the fact that the East London line's southern and northern extensions will proceed apace over the next few years.

The London borough of Lewisham has the highest proportion of residents who work outside the borough, so its public transport links are crucial to the well-being of the area and its citizens. We have seen many improvements in recent years. The Docklands light railway extension was eventually continued across the river, from a rather strange terminus at Mudchute on the Isle of Dogs, largely because of the innovative and imaginative approach of the London borough of Lewisham. Modesty almost forbids me from saying that I was the chair of finance at the time. We identified a capital investment that we could make in concert with the Docklands light railway to bring it, via Greenwich and Deptford, to Lewisham. That was achieved a few years ago, improving the transport links considerably.

We have also seen a substantial improvement in bus services since the advent of the Greater London authority, under the Mayor, Ken Livingstone, and the active intervention of Transport for London. The improvements in transport in London alone more than justify the creation of the GLA and Transport for London. My thanks go to the Mayor and the GLA for their determination to develop the East London line from what is at the moment—little more than a cross-river shuttle east of Tower Bridge—to a much more comprehensive service for south and east London, as part of the more ambitious and beneficial project that will become known as the London overground, stretching from Watford in the north-west to Croydon in the south-east.

In the near future, my part of London will also benefit from the moving of the Eurostar channel tunnel rail link services from Waterloo to St. Pancras, because that will free up slots on another local rail line and will result in more services to Sydenham Hill and Penge East stations. Although those stations are not actually in my constituency, they are close enough to the boundary to be used by many of my constituents, so that will be a considerable benefit.

The proposed extension of the East London line to my constituency and the London borough of Lewisham more broadly—and to places further south—is welcomed almost unreservedly, but I have requested this debate because I have to use the word "almost". The extension has implications that are not as desirable as the extension itself. As we have some of the most congested commuter lines in the whole country, hon. Members will understand the concerns of my constituents.

We also look forward to the as yet unannounced transfer of responsibility—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm it at some point, if not today—for the stations along the route of the extension from the train operating company, Southern, to Transport for London, with a subsequent programme of investment and improvement. In my constituency, that will involve Honor Oak, Forest Hill and Sydenham stations and, just outside it, Penge West, Anerley and Crystal Palace. We look forward to the improved standards of service and security for commuters that TFL provides for its stations, compared to the current operator.

The increased choice and services for commuters are completely desirable, and my constituents look forward to enjoying them. The expansion of the Oyster card system, which is more convenient and cheaper for people travelling around London, will also be welcome, and it will be extended to the over-ground Network Rail services into London Bridge. The extension of the East London line will also mean that many people will be able to avoid using zone 1, as they will be able to travel around the centre of London, instead of having to go through it. That will produce savings not only of time but also of cost for many people. My journey to the Palace of Westminster takes me from Forest Hill station to London Bridge, where I change to the Jubilee line and travel to Westminster underground station. At a meeting with London Rail last Monday, I pointed out that when the new line is operating I will be able to take the East London line to the Canada Water interchange on the Jubilee line and travel through London Bridge to Westminster. London Rail confirmed that the cost would be the same for either journey, so that will be of benefit to people travelling from my constituency and around London more generally.

The reason I asked for the debate relates to a question I tabled to the Secretary of State for Transport to ask

"what assessment has he made of the effect on the Network Rail services into London Bridge of the extension of the East London Line in 2010."

The answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend Mr. Harris, stated:

"The Department has worked closely with the East London Line (ELL) project team and with Network Rail to ensure that it will be possible to deliver satisfactory levels of service from south London to both London Bridge and to ELL destinations when ELL commences operations.

The direct journey opportunities offered by the extended ELL services are expected to enable significant numbers of passengers to avoid the need to travel from south to east London via London Bridge, thus easing congestion at that busy station."—[ Hansard, 13 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 1065-66W.]

I accept the last part of my hon. Friend's answer, but unfortunately there was a degree of ambiguity about the rest of it, which is why I asked for the debate—I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for allowing it. There is substantial concern that services to London Bridge on the Southern franchise and north-bound services from London Bridge to Victoria on the loop line will be cut after, or even before, the East London line commences re-operation in 2010, because the Southern franchise expires in 2009 and specifications will have to be made before it is renewed either by Southern or another operator.

My constituents are also concerned about some of the notions emanating from London Rail—the TFL body responsible for the London overground project and hence the East London line—in statements such as the following:

"TFL is working in collaboration with Network Rail to develop the best possible solution for passengers using the rail network in South London. The plans...currently being assessed as part of Network Rail's South London Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS), which is due to go for public consultation in summer 2007. Therefore, the service patterns and details of the train services may be modified as a result of the RUS study."

However, the document continues:

"To enable the ELR services to operate, the current service frequency on the south London suburban network needs to be adapted. TfL, with Network Rail, have undertaken some timetabling work, which suggests that the best way to accommodate the ELR services is to reduce the current morning peak 8 trains per hour on the Sydenham route to London Bridge (via Forest Hill and Brockley) to 6 trains per hour in 2009...Passengers wishing to go to London Bridge, from West Croydon or Crystal Palace, will be able to change from the ELR on to the Jubilee Line at Canada Water station (with trains departing every 2-5 minutes towards Stratford in the east, and Stanmore in the west)."

That last suggestion particularly concerns my constituents, because at present they have a direct service to London Bridge, which is, as I said, one of the busiest commuter routes in the country, so they do not regard the option of having to change to reach the same destination as a benefit.

The current East London line will close at the end of this year for about two and a half years for the necessary works to be undertaken to facilitate the southern extension to Crystal Palace and West Croydon, utilising the existing Network Rail infrastructure. That will result in our part of south-east London appearing on the tube map for the first time. Hallelujah, say we all. However, there is widespread concern that when the new service commences in 2010, with eight trains an hour—four each to Crystal Palace and West Croydon—it will result in a reduction to the peak-hour services to London Bridge from Forest Hill and Sydenham stations, both of which are in my constituency. They are already extremely busy. Even boarding some of trains—let alone any hope of getting a seat—is difficult, if not impossible. I can attest to that, because I started commuting on the line way back in 1963. Although it is accepted that the East London line services will provide greater choice for passengers, the principal demand is for the Southern train services to London Bridge, and that will remain the case for the foreseeable future.

I have spoken to Network Rail's utilisation strategy team, Southern trains, Transport for London and London Rail, but doubt still remains over the level of service post-2010. There is in existence something called a proving timetable, which was used to demonstrate the case for the East London line extension, but which would seem to indicate reductions in frequency during peak times. I understand fully that the final decisions are some way off and that there are a number of variables still to be resolved, but it is the strong feeling locally—I share it—that if the introduction of eight trains an hour on the East London line service causes any reduction in the current services to and from London Bridge via New Cross Gate, or the southbound service from London Bridge to Victoria, it would be far preferable for the East London line frequency to be reduced, at least initially. I fully understand that people's travel patterns may change when they have different choices, but, at the outset, the travel patterns that we have in our part of the world are set and people will not welcome a reduction in those services to facilitate a new service that, as yet, is of no direct benefit to them.

I have been advised by some of those involved that it should be possible to accommodate all the existing services and the extension of the East London line, although London Rail appears to be resisting that. I hope that my hon. Friend can clarify the matter and make it plain that we welcome the arrival of the extended East London line, provided that it is in addition to the existing services and not at the expense of some of them.

In conclusion, I congratulate the Sydenham Society, the Forest Hill Society, the Tewkesbury Lodge Estate residents' association and other community groups that have put a lot of work into trying to analyse precisely what we can expect in our part of the world after 2010. I hope that my hon. Friend can provide reassurance that the immense benefit of the new East London line will not be diluted by reductions to other services.