| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, has any thought been given to the irreconcilable responsibilities of the Mayor of London, who wants to run the Underground for 24 hours a day, and the infrastructure companies which need to occupy the Underground for far longer than is now possible in order to put right all the defects in the system? Such irreconcilable objectives were neglected at the time of the privatisation of the "big" railway and we are now paying the price for that. I am sure that we do not want to have to do that again in the case of London Underground.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, deep consideration has been given to such issues, but the nature of the PPPs in relation to London Underground is totally different from the nature of the privatisation undertaken in relation to Railtrack. In particular, London Underground remains responsible for the whole of the Underground service, including safety—unlike Railtrack, which remains responsible only for the track. The PPPs concern the letting out of three contracts to undertake maintenance work. In
response to the specific question put to me, yes, consideration has been given, but the analogy drawn by the noble Lord between Railtrack on the one hand and the PPPs on the other is not accurate.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what is the remit of the Mayor of London in this affair?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Mayor of London is responsible for Transport for London. After the PPP has been put in place, London Underground will be transferred to Transport for London.
Lord Renton: My Lords, to whom is he really responsible?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, to the electorate.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, if the PPP for the London Underground fails in whole or in part to meet the value-for-money test, is an alternative plan being worked on in the department which could possibly involve Transport for London taking over some of the Underground lines?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that I have made it clear that at the moment we are concentrating on the proposals in relation to the PPP. It would be unwise for there not to be contingency plans were the PPP not to go ahead, but we believe that the PPP will go ahead. So far as concerns contingency planning, it must involve Transport for London.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's commitment to publish the Ernst & Young report. No doubt the noble and learned Lord is enormously relieved at the return of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State because he has no doubt had to hold the fort over the Christmas and New Year period as regards transport issues. In welcoming the publication of the report, does the noble and learned Lord agree that, since 1997, average investment in London Underground has been lower than it was during the preceding five years under the Conservative government?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as regards the past four or five years, covering the period of the Labour Government, the noble Viscount will know that almost £1 billion more in grant was provided than was planned by the Tories. That was enough to allow average investment in the core of the Underground network of around £530 million for each year. One must compare that investment with that made during the whole of the Tory period—that is, 1979 to 1997—which amounted to £395 million. The noble Viscount, being an expert in figures, selected a period when the figure happened, as a matter of averages, to be lower. That is not very convincing.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, my noble and learned friend stated that the Mayor is responsible for the
safety of the Tube. How does that affect the PPP infrastructure people who have to maintain a safe infrastructure? Given the problems experienced by Railtrack in maintaining a safe infrastructure, who will pay when it is discovered that the track is worse than it was thought to be and that extra safety costs are applicable to the system?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, obviously London Underground remains responsible for safety and is subject to the views of the HSE. Safety is a paramount concern. The contracts provide for a particular outcome from the PPP contractors. If the PPP contracts go ahead, it will be for the PPP contractors to deliver standards that meet the safety requirements.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, do these exchanges mean that the full contents of the letter written by Ernst & Young on 4th October, a copy of which is in the Library, still stand? It is very important.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not have the whole letter in front of me. I do not want to give an answer that may be inaccurate, so perhaps I may write to the noble Lord. The assurance I have given him is that it focuses on the robustness of the assessment by London Underground and PricewaterhouseCoopers and that it will be published before final decisions are made. I shall write to the noble Lord about the detail of the letter.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, how do you focus on a robustness?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am sure that Ernst & Young will know how to.
Disability Equipment Services
2.52 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they intend to act upon all the recommendations on disability equipment services in the report of the Audit Commission, published in 2000, Fully Equipped: The provision of equipment to older or disabled people by the National Health Service and Social Services in England and Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, from 2001 to 2004, £105 million is being provided to the NHS to modernise community equipment services, along with funding for local authorities to contribute their share. Four million pounds is being invested in prosthetic services and siliconecosmesis. In the next financial year, access to digital hearing aids will be extended. Work to improve
orthotics and wheelchair services will take account of relevant recommendations in the Audit Commission report.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree that this was another excellent report by the Audit Commission on a disablement subject? Does he accept that disabled people, even in this century and even in this country, still experience needless difficulties caused by ignorance or lack of imagination?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, while I am sure that the House will agree with the noble Lord's general sentiments, I do believe that in a number of ways the Government have developed policies and actions to try to overcome some of that ignorance. So far as concerns the Audit Commission report, I agree that it was very helpful. It highlighted achievements and shortcomings in current services. We are making progress and I hope that, over the next few years, disabled people will feel that the services they receive have been radically improved.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, overall, the report was damning? Its main thrust was that matters were carrying on as normal. It was not about resources but about the way the system worked. Can the Minister give an assurance that matters such as allowing young people who need prostheses to have sports limbs will be taken into account, if only on the grounds that the long-term cost savings in regard to their general health will more than compensate for the initial outlay?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government are giving urgent consideration to that matter. As to the noble Lord's general points, I agree that the Audit Commission report raised a number of serious shortcomings in the way that services were provided. I also agree that while resource is important—and we are putting extra resources into these five services—much of the Audit Commission report concerned organisation and the way in which services were being run. We are keen to ensure that the NHS—and, where appropriate, local government—improves the commissioning of future services. We are working with users and the national procurement service within the NHS to develop specifications and contracts which will lead to improvements in the areas identified by the noble Lord.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Audit Commission report not only identified shortcomings but was scathing about the five services which are so vital to disabled people? It recommended that each service should be scrutinised separately. Can my noble friend tell the House whether the progress made so far has been satisfactory or disappointing for each of the five services? Can he also tell the House which target dates have been set for which service?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is right—the Audit Commission was not entirely complimentary about the state of the services it discovered. He is also right to suggest that we need to look at the five services separately, although lessons can be learnt in terms of proper organisation which can apply to most of those services. I do not say that, in the months since the report was published in March 2000, everything has been put right, but we have made steady progress. As I have said, we are putting extra resources into those services and we are involving users in the planning and commissioning of those services for the future. With the national procurement agency working alongside users of services, we will be in a position to produce better specifications in the future and there will be a better integrated approach to commissioning at local level.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page