| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gale: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I take points of order after statements.
Mr. Gale: The statement has been made.
Madam Speaker: A statement is a continuation of Question Time. It has always been the tradition that we take points of order after questions.
Mr. Gale: My point of order is relevant to the statement.
Madam Speaker: In that case, perhaps it could be put in the form of a question to the Secretary of State--if the hon. Gentleman catches my eye. There may be a glint in it already, but he must wait.
Mr. Andrew Smith (Oxford, East): Is not this statement the ultimate Tory abdication of responsibility for transport in London, neither equipping London for the future nor making good the mistakes of the past? Is it not totally half-baked when the Secretary of State cannot tell us whether privatisation will be sale as a job lot, line by line, or as a track company and franchises? What makes him think that it will work, when he cannot even tell us how it will be done?
The Secretary of State referred to a guaranteed level of Government support. How much will that be? Is not there confusion at the very heart of Government when the Secretary of State tries to have us believe that the proceeds will go into the tube but the Chancellor tells a news conference this morning that he is relying on the money to balance his Budget? Does not that show that, having neglected the tube for years, with so much decay and disrepair, all the Tories have left is the dogma of run it down and sell it off, regardless of passengers' interests?
What confidence can the public have in the Secretary of State's list of commitments when in one breath he tells us that he is considering selling off the lines separately and in the next that there is no question of breaking up the network? Does he recall his words in the leaked letter of earlier this month? He said:
The Secretary of State extolled the benefits of rail privatisation. Is not the truth that under the Tories London would be threatened with the same chaos on the tube as we have just witnessed on South West Trains?
What notice has the Secretary of State taken of the warning from the chairman of London Transport, who said that privatising the tube was like putting a house on the market when the walls were falling down? What valuation has he made of the assets? Has he changed the estimate in his previous leaked memo that the sale could raise less than a tenth of the £13 billion reported value?
As with all the other privatisation excesses, would not this mean more fortunes for a few and misery for the many? Will the Secretary of State confirm what he said in that leaked letter: that it could cost more in subsidy to privatise the underground than the Government get back in sale proceeds?
How can privatisation some time in the next century raise the investment that is needed now? Would it not be far better to get moving straight away with public-private partnerships as Labour has proposed? Is not privatisation a desperate move by a Government bankrupt of ideas? Does not their dithering show that they know the dangers involved, and does the Secretary of State still agree with the Chief Secretary's assessment that the underground will be
Sir George Young:
I am disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition, who asked several questions about the privatisation of London Underground, did not stay to hear the statement.
The House and, indeed, Londoners will be deeply disappointed by the response of the shadow Secretary of State for Transport, which offered no hope and no commitment. Old Labour will not let him privatise; new Labour will not let him spend more. He is a shadow Transport Minister with nowhere to go. We have a coherent strategy. We have identified the funding and the commitments. We believe that it is an attractive proposition for Londoners.
The confusion on privatisation comes from Opposition Members, as we saw at the weekend over the Tote. One day they were to privatise it, the next they were not, and on the third day, they discovered that it was not theirs to privatise. The same will happen with this privatisation as has happened with every other privatisation: they will oppose it before we do it and afterwards say that it was perhaps a good idea after all.
On the hon. Gentleman's specific question, we shall require the private sector to modernise the underground's infrastructure as soon as possible. That will entail a given amount of Government subsidy, the amount to be tested in the market. That subsidy will be recycled from the privatisation proceeds that we receive. If, as we expect, there are proceeds left over, the majority will go to additional investment in London Underground or for other transport investment. The message to Londoners is this: mind the gap between what we offer for their underground and what the Labour party does not offer.
Mr. Peter Brooke (City of London and Westminster, South):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who oppose the privatisation of London Underground must explain why it should be an exception from a philosophy that has been such a success not only in this country but throughout the world? Does he further agree that those who in the final days of the Greater London council poured public money into fares subsidy rather than investment will find it difficult to make that case?
Sir George Young:
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. It is true that, in the 1970s, resources did not go into catching up with the backlog but into keeping fares down. It is that backlog that we are trying to deal with. We have got it down from £2 billion to £1.2 billion over the past 10 years. I want to make faster progress with clearing that backlog. I believe that privatisation in the way that I have outlined is the key to that. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support.
Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh):
Does the Secretary of State recall that his predecessor, at the beginning of rail privatisation, told the House that there would be no hiatus in investment? We have had four years of virtually no investment in our railways. [Hon. Members: "What?] Up to now. The Secretary of State said that he expected the shortfall in investment to be made good over five years. If we take British Rail as an example, London Underground could be short of essential investment up to the millennium. That could leave the system in a state of disrepair, with services being cancelled and safety compromised.
Surely he understands that the huge asset value of London Underground means that there are other options for raising the money necessary to bring it up to a decent modern metro standard. Surely he sees the sense of allowing it to use its assets as a resource to borrow money and get the investment that it desperately needs now to give Londoners an underground system in which they can again take pride.
Sir George Young:
If the hon. Gentleman wants to outline a conventional approach of increasing public expenditure funded by increased borrowing or higher taxation, he should come into the open and do so. He is wrong about investment. In real terms, investment is 50 per cent. above the level of the 1980s, and twice the level of the 1970s. On top of that, the Jubilee line extension is due to be completed in March next year. On current investment, this year's settlement left provision for the LT core business in 1997-98 unchanged. With private finance investment, total investment in the core business over the next three years should total around £1.5 billion. That compares with London Underground's estimate that £350 million needs to be spent each year on average to prevent the tube's backlog from getting larger. That puts the matter into better perspective.
Dame Angela Rumbold (Mitcham and Morden):
May I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement? After many years of trying to improve London Underground, those of us who live in London and use it all the time will welcome the opportunity for investment in London Underground continuing year on year rather than having to be considered annually. That has been one reason why it has been so difficult to plan and improve investment in London Underground. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that users of the Northern line, which culminates in my constituency, can look forward at long last to a programme that will improve both the stations and the running of that line so that they can get to and from their work comfortably, on time and at ease with the whole programme?
Sir George Young:
My right hon. Friend is right. London Underground wants stability and confidence of funding for its long-term programme so that it can have a strategic approach. So long as it remains in the public sector, under whatever Government, it will be subject to the annual bids and counter-bids of the public expenditure round. Putting it outside the public sector guarantees it continuity of funding.
"I do not want to set existing service patterns in stone--some services may well be uneconomic".
Was not his statement so qualified as to leave the way open for services to be cut and stations closed?
"a unique and very difficult privatisation to sell to the public"?
Is not this privatisation bad for London, bad for passengers and bad for taxpayers, because the Secretary of State can give no definitive guarantees about services or investment levels and cannot even tell us how much of the money raised he would use for investment? This is a privatisation that the British people will throw out at the ballot box, along with the Government who dreamed it up.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |