| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In his usual succinct way, he has put his finger on the key issues that will be of concern to Londoners between now and May.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): May I ask a question of fact? What figures does the Department of Transport have for the repair of all the aging Victorian tunnels--many of which are suffering deterioration--at the same time? There are those who are expert in stone who say that such structures do not last for ever, and that difficulties in tunnel maintenance will come together on a major scale. What figures are available to the Department of Transport?
Sir George Young: The principal figures available to my Department are those that have been supplied by London Underground, whose best estimate of the extent of the current backlog is £1.2 billion.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key consideration for my constituents who use the London underground regularly is the future quality and frequency of service? My right hon. Friend will have noted that the undertakings that he has given should be backed up when the privatisations
take place. Is it not the case that any alternative must be demonstrated to have money behind it? If the Government still have their hands on the assets, private business men will not want to go near any investment programme, as they know what will happen halfway down the line when the Government pull out, as the Opposition would do if they were in power?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. I gave guarantees on service levels. I made it clear that the private sector will be required to provide a guaranteed level of service, broadly safeguarding the existing level of provision, and that there will be an independent regulatory authority supervising the privatised underground, independent of the train operators, which will agree to changes in service levels only after carefully considering the benefits for passengers. That is a wholly new safeguard.
Mr. Keith Hill (Streatham): May I remind the Secretary of State that it was the Labour Government who opened Hatton Cross station, the three Heathrow stations and also the Jubilee line, which was the last major programme of underground construction in London? Which of the uneconomic services--I think I quote him correctly--does he expect to be cut under privatisation?
Sir George Young: I made no reference to any uneconomic services being cut; on the contrary, I made it clear that there would be guarantees based broadly on the current level of provision. I am interested in more provision. That is why we are investing in the Jubilee line extension--some £2 billion. That is why we are investing in the Croydon tramlink. That is why we are investing in Thameslink 2000. That is why we are building the channel tunnel rail link through Stratford into St. Pancras. That is why I welcome the Heathrow express. There has not been such a commitment to investment in the public sector transport network in London for many, many years.
Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton): My right hon. Friend will recall that London Underground asks the Government for £700 million every year, which is the sum that it needs to produce a truly modern metro. It is obvious that his solution is the only one that will work properly. Given the financial demands of health, education and law and order, there is no way in which taxpayers could be expected to produce £700 million for the London underground. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party's analysis of service needs is totally hollow? No private sector investor would produce money for collapsing embankments and tunnels when there was no cash stream.
Sir George Young: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's first point. I hope that London Underground, London First and other organisations that advocate more Government investment in the underground will welcome the initiative that I have outlined today. I also agree with my hon. Friend's second point.
Mr. John Fraser (Norwood): Despite what the Secretary of State said in his opening statement, is he aware that a brand new Victoria line was constructed to Brixton in my constituency under a Labour Government in the 1960s? That line, which would never have been constructed by a profit-motivated privatised institution,
now forms an indispensable part of London's transport system. Is it significant that the Secretary of State's 10 points contain nothing about the construction of new underground lines and concentrate entirely on shoring up existing structures? Where will new structures for the underground come from?
Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Jubilee line extension is being built. It is a £2 billion investment, and will be opened next year. I mentioned a number of other major investments in public transport in London in response to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill)--such as the Croydon tramlink, which is not far from the constituency of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser).
At the beginning of my statement, I explained that our approach to railway privatisation proved that it was possible to construct new lines with a privatised industry. That is how the channel tunnel rail link is being built. The new lines that the hon. Gentleman and I want to see will be more likely to progress if we can move the industry into the private sector.
Sir Michael Grylls (North-West Surrey):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best hope for a first-class underground system that will benefit all Londoners lies with moving it into the private sector and away from political control? Private capital--without limit, if that is viable--would benefit everyone. It is obvious that there is nothing new about new Labour: it is still old Labour, which lives for nationalisation and opposes anything to do with the private sector.
Sir George Young:
My hon. Friend has summarised my views exactly, both on the right approach to the future of London Underground and on the Opposition's attitude to my policy. It is only a matter of time before they amend their views.
Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith):
There is a whiff of creative accountancy about the Secretary of State's statement which must be explained. If the travelcard is to stay the same and be interchangeable between the various companies that the Secretary of State must envisage, if the concessionary fare system is to remain, if services are to be broadly as they are today, and if prices are to be cut, where will the competition come from--unless it is based on a very cheap sale which, by its nature, must be short-lived?
Sir George Young:
If we went down the franchising route, there would be an opportunity for competition among potential franchisees--as we have seen with British Rail. If we opted for privatising the organisation as a whole, there would an opportunity for bodies to bid in competition for it. If we opted for share flotation, there would be an opportunity to fix a price that maximised the value to taxpayers. There are many ways of introducing competition. I ask the hon. Gentleman: what sort of competition is there at present?
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North):
Does my right hon. Friend recall that the GLC not only cut London Underground's services savagely in the early 1980s, but doubled the fares in a single year? We do not need any lessons on underground service provision and fares from
Sir George Young:
The largest single increase that I have been able to find took place between 1975 and 1976--an increase of some 25 per cent. in real terms. The House will remember that, when we approached the privatisation of British Telecom, there were many forecasts that telephone kiosks either would not work or would be closed. We have heard a similar propaganda campaign today. It was not true then. It is not true today.
Miss Kate Hoey (Vauxhall):
Will the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance that, between now and the general election, not one single penny of Government money will be spent on advisers, consultants, and all the trappings of even starting to look at the scheme? Does he agree that the voters of London should be given a choice in this matter, and that that will happen on general election day?
Sir George Young:
Certainly not. I made it clear in my statement that I propose to consult a large number of organisations that have an interest in this policy. I see no reason why the potential benefits to Londoners should be delayed for a single day.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that he has announced today an enormous opportunity for London as a vibrant and successful city, and an opportunity for a much better rail service for all our constituents who use it regularly? Was not he right to say that the hysterical reaction from the Labour party spokesman is entirely in line with everything that the Labour party has said about every single privatisation, not just rail privatisation? Labour told us that British Telecom would have to close all its telephone boxes, and that British Airways would not be able to fly to regional airports. They have been wrong every time, and Londoners simply will not believe them this time.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |