---

Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet): May I turn the question back to the hon. Gentleman? Is the reason why the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) does not lead debates for the Opposition on railway-related matters that, as a non-executive director of Railtrack from the day that it was privatised until the past 12 months, he is culpable for most of the disasters on the railways?

Mr. Jenkin: That type of desperate intervention does more to discredit the Government's position than anything else.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): The Deputy Prime Minister's failure to turn up shows a wider failure of the Government, in that at business questions, I asked the Leader of the House to tell the right hon. Gentleman how imperative it was that he should exercise his responsibility as Secretary of State by attending the House for this debate. The right hon. Lady is in dereliction of her duty by not ensuring that the House is addressed by the appropriate Minister.

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right. That point shows that the Government--and especially the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions--are constantly running for cover.

I shall deal with the key elements of our motion, as I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will address the motion rather than the Prime Minister's amendment, which is a distraction from the issues that we want to raise.

There are widespread concerns about the public-private partnership--first, over value for money. The Industrial Society has produced a report, under the executive chairmanship of Will Hutton. He is no great friend of the Conservative party--rather, he is a new Labour guru--nor does he appear to be a friend of the PPP. Yet on value for money, the report states:

It became clearer to us while gathering and assessing evidence that much of the anticipated efficiency gains are just that: probable rather than certain expectations . . . The issue is whether this initial step-change in improvement is value for money . . . We think there are good reasons to believe that the PPP, as currently structured, overly favours the Infracos--

that is, the infrastructure companies--

in terms of the distribution of risk and reward . . . The Infracos have an incentive to "hold up" important investment until they get paid more . . . The PPP proponents claim that they have designed contracts to take into account all these problems, which can be surmounted if there is genuine partnership. But that is to ignore the lessons of both theory and practice.

What about the value-for-money aspects raised by Chantrey Vellacot DFK? Maurice Fitzpatrick, its head of economics, concludes:

The Government needs to rethink its strategy. If it does not, it will never be able to persuade taxpayers that PPP represents best value for money . . . we have published figures suggesting that the additional cost of PPP (as compared to purchasing the assets directly) is equivalent to a 30 per cent. hike in fares.

13 Nov 2000 : Column 651

Why is the Secretary of State not here to debate that point?

There has also been a failure to assess alternatives to the PPP. We are constantly given the refrain from a previous era that there is no alternative--an unlikely phrase from a member of the present Government. However, the Hutton report points out:

The range of possibilities in theory extends from wholesale privatisation of LUL under a regulator to retention of the Underground in public ownership as an integrated system but offering it an autonomous capacity to finance itself by issuing its own bonds.

There are many options and the report adds that the only constraint on them is the

Government's manifesto commitment to retain a publicly owned and publicly accountable Underground system.

Professor Stephen Glaister points out that alternatives exist even given that constraint, which we reject. He has written:

There are two alternatives to PPP. One is to simply keep the tube under the direct control of central government. This could have been accepted without more ado from the beginning. A much more sensible alternative would be to pass it to the mayor and leave him to decide how to pay for investment.

There are plenty of alternatives that the Government have failed to assess.

Complexity and fragmentation have already caused concern.

Mr. Geraint Davies rose--

Mr. Jenkin: I shall finally give way to the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that he has much original to say, but it will be fun to listen to it.

Mr. Davies: In running through the apparently logical options for management and corporate governance that are available to the Government, the hon. Gentleman has not once mentioned privatisation as a conceivable option. Is that the level of conviction that Conservative Members now have about privatisation? Because of the failure of privatisation, he does not even mention it.

Mr. Jenkin: The Government whom the hon. Gentleman supports have gone in for a fair amount of privatisation, and the PPP is a form of botched privatisation. We have assessed every case for privatisation on its merits and against all the alternatives, and we have not rejected it in this instance. We keep an open mind. It is the Government's failure to keep an open mind on their PPP that is forcing them into terrible mistakes.

Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle): Does the hon. Gentleman think that the privatisation of Railtrack has been a success?

Mr. Jenkin: I am sorely tempted to embark on a debate about the privatisation of Railtrack--but you, Mr. Speaker, might suggest that that is not a subject for today's debate. However, if the hon. Gentleman can persuade the Government's business managers to hold a debate about the railways, we shall be delighted, because we think that this Government have a rotten record.

13 Nov 2000 : Column 652

Complexity and fragmentation have caused concern, and the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs has already called the PPP a convoluted compromise. Mr. Bob Kiley also has doubts whether the PPP will work. He says:

It could prove a physical or human impossibility on a system that is a much more intensive operation than a national railway, with trains every 90 seconds.

Perhaps Ministers should listen to his argument.

Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whatever the merits of his case, Members will do well to take the debate on the PPP seriously? If the Government call it wrong on the PPP, they will pay the price in the forthcoming general election in a swathe of marginals across London.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. As I run through the issues, the only case that I seek to make is that there is widespread concern about the PPP. I make no more claim than that. The Government have their head in the sand if they think that they have all the answers.

On safety, I refer the Minister to the letter that was leaked from the Health and Safety Executive and reported in The Guardian earlier this year. The headline was "'Safety at risk' in tube sell-off: Leaked memo reveals rail watchdog's concern". The report gave details of safety hazards with potentially serious consequences which had been uncovered in the Deputy Prime Minister's plans partially to privatise the London underground.

Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.

The leaked letter in The Guardian was from the principal rail safety inspector, Stanley Hart, who warned of

a "growing concern" about safety in the partly sold-off tube system that the Deputy Prime Minister wants to bring in next spring.

It is incumbent on the Government to share their views about the safety issues that have been raised, not least with Transport for London and Mr. Bob Kiley.

Safety was also raised in the Hutton report. It referred to the leaked letter and

particular problems thrown up during the shadow running of the PPP.

It recommended that the HSE should

invite all interested parties to submit their specific concerns about the PPP's safety regimes. These concerns should form part of the HSE's assessment criteria of the safety regime.

Has that been done? If so, has it been done in consultation with Transport for London, which will ultimately have responsibility for supervising safety on the privatised London underground? I should add that the Government do, of course, take the advice of the HSE on such matters, as did the previous Government during privatisation of the railways.

The Government have established the London Mayor, the Greater London Assembly and Transport for London to take responsibility for such issues. The real consideration is that whatever the Government choose

13 Nov 2000 : Column 653

to do, they will pass responsibility for the consequences of their decisions on to Transport for London. As the Hutton report said:

It will be the London government which will be ultimately responsible for any system failures, accidents and financial shortfalls--even though it did not negotiate the contracts or initiate the new structure.

How can the Government proceed without consulting London's government in any way?

Then there is Mr. Robert Kiley himself. He has exactly the track record and experience that any Minister should be gasping for. I am reminded of when we brought a controversial gentleman over from an American firm to run British Steel on a high salary. He went on to run British Coal. That is the influx of fresh thinking and expertise--at considerable cost--that the London Mayor is entirely right to entice to this country.

Mr. Kiley is credited with having revived the New York underground system. As chairman of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority, he rebuilt the infrastructure of the New York subway and reorganised its management. Mr. Kiley will principally take on responsibility for the operation of the PPP. As Simon Jenkins pointed out in the Evening Standard,

no sooner does Mr. Kiley arrive in his office than he is stripped of responsibility for stations, track, signals, carriages, tunnels and escalators. All he can do is sell tickets and drive trains . . . This is quite unlike Mr. Kiley's experience in Boston or New York.

Mr. Kiley himself is mystified by the PPP. He told the Evening Standard on 6 November:

I have been trying to figure it out for about five weeks now and still haven't managed it. I have a rule that anything that takes that long to understand is not going to work.

Perhaps that is why Ministers are reluctant to share their secrets with Mr. Kiley: they fear an alternative point of view.

The negotiations are being conducted in an atmosphere of cloak-and-dagger secrecy, for no reason other than the Government's political convenience. The Government are on the defensive. The Deputy Prime Minister is deeply insecure about the strength of his arguments, and his judgment has become severely clouded by political considerations. We know that he has fallen out with the hon. Member for Brent, East. Personal animosities appear to be taking precedence over the interests of Londoners.

Then there is the question of how the Government will go forward. A future Conservative Government would certainly seek to work constructively with Mr. Kiley. We have our own proposals for the London underground--[Interruption.] If the Minister wants to spend this debate discussing our proposals, he would be missing the point that many of his hon. Friends will be seeking to raise with him. The Government have varying proposals; there are plenty of others out there. We will seek a constructive dialogue with Transport for London about the future of the tube because that is the only common-sense option open to any Government now that that body has been established.

This should not be about personalities, playing politics or settling old scores. It should be about what is best for London and Londoners. The motion urges the Government to put London first. I therefore commend it to the House.

13 Nov 2000 : Column 654

3.55 pm

---