Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340
- 352)
MONDAY 17 APRIL 2000
RT HON
JOHN PRESCOTT
MP, RT HON
LORD MACDONALD
OF TRADESTON,
MR MIKE
FUHR AND
MR PAUL
DAVIES
340. Mr Fuhr, you are saying they understand
the difference between severe, very severe and catastrophic?
(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston) If I may add—
341. Do please elucidate.
(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston)—your understandable
concern about the risks involved in tunnelling would not apply
here because the PPP does not cover new developments of that kind.
342. We are now quite clear that the PPP does
not allow for extra capacity or new lines or new expansion?
(Mr Prescott) It allows for extra capacity, not new
lines.
343. Depending on ones definition of high capacity?
(Mr Prescott) Yes, I agree. I thought we had agreed
that if you could get trains going faster, the signalling, and
the points which you made, which Mr Tunnicliffe estimated on behalf
of London Transport it could be as much as a fifteen per cent
increase.
Mr Bennett
344. It not quite as simple as driving a new
tunnel.
(Mr Prescott) My experience is they are not simple.
345. Almost all of the work that is done on
improving and speeding the system up and putting in new signalling,
does it not run the risk of water getting into the system?
(Mr Prescott) Yes, there is a considerable amount
of water in the system now. The cost carried by the Underground
is a great concern to them, as well as re-equipping the whole
pumping system. Indeed they have great difficulty because we have
not taken the long-term investment necessary to equip them with
the new pumps and deal with water. Water is an inevitable part
of working in this particular area. What we tried to do is to
limit in the case of the catastrophic case but also, to that extent,
try to negotiate, that, I think, was the problem with Limehouse.
All too often public contracts are given and then they find a
fault halfway through or you have made a change and that is why
we pay so much. Hopefully this time we are learning those lessons.
There is some arbitration in those areas where there might be
given doubt about it once the contract has been concluded.
346. Than is what surprised me. Mr Tunnicliffe
very firmly said that London Transport was going to keep that
risk to do with the ground water levels, and you think that is
a good idea?
(Mr Prescott) In a way we are describing, between
these extremities, if you like, there are ranges and orders of
it. How do you define it? It is easy to do the Thames Barrier
because that is straight forward. The levels of water that we
have at the moment is more difficult, that was a cost that any
private company would have to carry. because it is being carried
by them. If it was something greater than that you are into negotiating
and edging against what those responsibilities would be. That
is a matter for negotiation. In the grey areas we are right to
say that there is an arbitration allowed where there is fundamental
disagreement about it.
Chairman
347. Who would be the arbitrator in those circumstances?
The Treasury!
(Mr Prescott) No, no. There is some talk of somebody
like a regulator or an expert in this. We have not appointed a
regulator.
(Mr Davies) There is a dispute resolution procedure
for interpretation of the contracts.
348. I understand that. That would presumably
have to be decided by somebody.
(Mr Davies) You would appoint— In a dispute
resolution procedure—
349. Who would appoint it?
(Mr Davies) It would normally be a joint appointment
of some expert in whatever field is needed to resolve the dispute.
350. I have good idea, why do you not refer
it to this Select Committee, we would be delighted. I am sure
we might come up with a sensible answer too.
(Mr Prescott) You will certainly get it.
351. Yes. We might come up with more sense than
some of the solutions that we have heard. Mr Deputy Prime Minister,
nowhere this morning has anybody mentioned safety. Are you quite
confident there are sufficient safeguards in place to prevent
safety standards from falling under the PPP?
(Mr Prescott) I think this is a very important point.
I think we have largely solved it. That is why we did not burden
you any more in my opening introductory statement. The Health
and Safety Executive has now cleared the division which caused
some concern as to whether that was weakening safety. I think
the essential point is that it remains with the public sector.
That is what this Committee has always been strong about, that
the safety responsibility and the safety case should not be a
case for the private company, hence it is on the recommendations
which you made in other areas, which we have accepted, and this
clearly remains with the public sector, they are responsible for
the safety case. The people who operate on the lines they have
to go directly to the public sector.
352. Deputy Prime Minister you have been very
kind and thank you very much for your attendance this morning.
(Mr Prescott) Thank you.
| 
