| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
London Underground
8. Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding proposed investment in London Underground for the next and subsequent financial years.[8778]
Sir George Young: From time to time, I receive representations from a range of organisations and individuals about investment in London's underground rail network.
Mr. Gerrard: I am sure that the representations that the Secretary of State has received lately will have told him that, in the Budget, he and his colleagues produced an investment programme for London Underground for the next few years that will mean that, shortly, we will have the lowest investment for 20 years. Is it not true that there will be nearly £400 million-worth of cuts in essential renewal and maintenance programmes on existing lines? What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say to people in London who, because of his cuts, will get worse services, while their fares go up by as much as 20 per cent.
Sir George Young: Next year's grant to London Transport has been protected--there has been no reduction. That should allow investment of about £1.1 billion over three years from Government grant. If we then include all the resources available to London Underground from private finance and elsewhere, that should allow a total of £2.2 billion of investment in London Transport over the three years, including completion of the Jubilee line extension. Far from being low, the investment level in the core network will, on average, be 50 per cent. above the 1980s level and twice the 1970s level, so the gloomy scenario that hon. Gentleman paints is simply not true.
Mr. Wilkinson: May I urge my right hon. Friend to shift his focus from investment in London Underground--on which, as his figures show, the Government have an excellent record--to its future under private enterprise, which would give an opportunity for the higher-quality service that the travelling public so urgently need?
Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend will know, back in October my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said
13 Jan 1997 : Column 10
that we were considering whether we could apply the success of railway privatisation to London Underground. That exercise is now under way and I am heartened by my hon. Friend's support for it.
Mr. Andrew Smith: Is not the experience of passengers and businesses alike that the Government's record on London Underground is a disgrace to London and damaging to the economy? Does it not show how Conservative Members lurch from one extreme to the other when, after slashing maintenance and investment in the tube, all they can now offer for a nightmare Tory fifth term is the extreme of privatisation?
Does the Minister accept that, because of the effects of the overspend on the Jubilee line extension, the estimate he just gave was not a true reflection of what is actually happening on the underground and that, because of the budget that he has imposed on London Underground, there will be damaging and dangerous cuts in investment and maintenance? Is it not time that we had the public-private partnership that is necessary for investment in a first-rate tube and an integrated public transport system that is worthy of the nation's capital?
Sir George Young:
The difference between the Opposition and the Government on this subject could not be clearer: Opposition Members allege that we are under-investing, but they are not able to commit themselves to spending one penny more than the Government currently spend. We are investing at double the rate of the 1970s and, in addition, we are prepared to consider privatisation as a means of improving on that record. Londoners will draw their own conclusion as to which of those two approaches is the most constructive.
9. Mr. John Marshall:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new trains London Transport has received for the Northern line; and how many are planned to be delivered in 1997.[8777]
Mr. Bowis:
I understand that GEC Alsthom delivered the first new Northern line train to London Underground last month and plans to deliver 23 more trains during 1997. The first trains are expected to enter passenger service from the middle of this year.
Mr. Marshall:
As one who has been at the controls of the first new Northern line train, I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that, because those trains come under the private finance initiative, they are immune from any public spending decisions taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor? Will he also confirm that the PFI can be used to finance further developments on the Northern line and that, whenever privatisation has taken place, it has led to strict price controls and increased investment by the private sector?
Mr. Bowis:
My hon. Friend puts it succinctly and brilliantly, and I am delighted to learn that he has personally tested the trains and knows the quality of the additional service that has been brought forward by the private sector in support of London's underground. He is right to say that the £400 million that is coming from the private finance initiative in support of those trains means
13 Jan 1997 : Column 11
Ms Glenda Jackson:
How can the House attach any credibility to the Minister's reply, when the Government propose to threaten not only the introduction of new rolling stock on the Northern line but the entire underground network with the abyss of privatisation? Does not the sudden advocacy of the extreme right-wing views of the right hon. Members for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) show the Government's desire to placate the enemy within rather than to create a modern and properly integrated public transport system for London?
Mr. Bowis:
Well, well! The hon. Lady refers not once to the massive investment in London's underground in recent years, or to the programme of future investment. She describes privatisation as a great threat and ignores the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we are carefully considering whether the principles of privatisation could apply to London Underground and whether they could do so to the benefit of the London travelling public. If that review finds that privatisation would benefit Londoners, and if the best route to achieve that can be found, Londoners will be pleased and I suspect that, within a few months of its implementation, the Labour party will claim parentage for the privatisation of London Underground.
The Labour party's policy is not a penny more and no new lines for London Underground. As Capital Transport--not a magazine that I normally quote in support--has said:
Mr. Bowis:
Yes, like my hon. Friend I recall those days, when the underground was a very poor service and investment was at a minimum. Investment is going into the lines. We have just spoken about investment in the Northern line. About £800 million of modernisation is now being completed on the Central line. Train refurbishments have taken place on the Bakerloo, Circle, Hammersmith and City and Victoria lines and are in hand for the Metropolitan and Piccadilly lines.
Under the Government, underground services are improving. The core is being protected and the expansion of the service means new and exciting prospects for travellers in London in future.
13 Jan 1997 : Column 12
10. Mr. Corbyn:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ensure the continuing improvement of rail services on the North London line over the franchise period.[8776]
Mr. Bowis:
The improvements to the railway infrastructure on the North London line carried out by Railtrack during the past two years and the commencement in spring 1997 of heavy overhauls of the rolling stock used on the route will provide a solid foundation on which the North London Railways franchisee will build throughout the franchise term.
I also announced on 16 December a further transport policies and programmes grant towards the upgrading of stations on the Gospel Oak to Barking section of that line.
Mr. Corbyn:
Will the Minister comment on why the franchise documents that have been dispatched to encourage people to take over the North London line include nothing about new stations, improvements of services, increased train frequency or station safety and pay no regard to the unanimous views expressed by local government and train users of the current appalling state of the line?
The Minister knows the state of the line; two of his ministerial colleagues travelled along it. On the stations, they all gave nice answers to questions about how terrible it was and how it would be improved, but there is nothing in the documents to suggest that there will be any improvement in the appalling service that passengers have to suffer on that line.
Mr. Bowis:
I beg leave to differ with the hon. Gentleman. In our previous exchange on the subject, he challenged me to travel unannounced on that line. I did so and experienced the service, and I became aware of where improvements were needed. The reliability and punctuality of the service have greatly improved in the past year or two, but obviously the service needs the investment that will come from privatisation.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the franchising director requires that replacement trains be provided on the Gospel Oak to Barking section of the line by 2000. That could not be a more self-evident improvement in the line. As he knows, we have put money into station improvements three times, first at Haringey Green Lanes, then at Leytonstone High Road, and now Waltham Forest, as the lead borough, will consider where the next tranche of money should go. As he must also know, Railtrack is assessing the scope for further development of that line for freight and passengers. I think that the future looks quite promising.
Mr. Ian Bruce:
Could my hon. Friend find a simpler way of answering the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and the fears that he expresses? Similar fears were expressed by all political parties when we were franchising Network SouthWest and the line from Weymouth to Waterloo. Would not a cheap awayday ticket--
13 Jan 1997 : Column 13
Mr. Bruce:
Not a single ticket as we want him to come back to London. Would not an awayday ticket allow the hon. Gentleman to see exactly what is happening--improved services, stations, frequency and punctuality, and reduced fares--which is what my constituents want?
Mr. Bowis:
My hon. Friend is right to point to the benefits of privatisation. He highlighted the benefits that have come on lines in his area and asked me to act as post box to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) to go on an awayday down the south-west line. With our present majority, I am happy to invite him to go on an awayday any day.
"The lack of clarity surrounding the position of the other main parties should not be tolerated any longer."
Mr. Harry Greenway:
Does my hon. Friend recall how poorly run the Northern line and other underground services were under the unlamented Greater London council, run by the Labour party? Will he ensure that steps are taken and proposals made to maintain improvements that have been made since the GLC abandoned that task and all others, and ensure a better future for the London traveller, who jolly well deserves it?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |