London Underground (Hansard, 13 January 1997)

§ 8. Mr. Gerrard
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding proposed investment in London Underground for the next and subsequent financial years. [8778]

§ Sir George Young
From time to time, I receive representations from a range of organisations and individuals about investment in London's underground rail network.

§ Mr. Gerrard
I am sure that the representations that the Secretary of State has received lately will have told him that, in the Budget, he and his colleagues produced an investment programme for London Underground for the next few years that will mean that, shortly, we will have the lowest investment for 20 years. Is it not true that there will be nearly £400 million-worth of cuts in essential renewal and maintenance programmes on existing lines? What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say to people in London who, because of his cuts, will get worse services, while their fares go up by as much as 20 per cent.

§ Sir George Young
Next year's grant to London Transport has been protected—there has been no reduction. That should allow investment of about £1.1 billion over three years from Government grant. If we then include all the resources available to London Underground from private finance and elsewhere, that should allow a total of £2.2 billion of investment in London Transport over the three years, including completion of the Jubilee line extension. Far from being low, the investment level in the core network will, on average, be 50 per cent. above the 1980s level and twice the 1970s level, so the gloomy scenario that hon. Gentleman paints is simply not true.

§ Mr. Wilkinson
May I urge my right hon. Friend to shift his focus from investment in London Underground—on which, as his figures show, the Government have an excellent record—to its future under private enterprise, which would give an opportunity for the higher-quality service that the travelling public so urgently need?

§ Sir George Young
As my hon. Friend will know, back in October my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said 10 that we were considering whether we could apply the success of railway privatisation to London Underground. That exercise is now under way and I am heartened by my hon. Friend's support for it.

§ Mr. Andrew Smith
Is not the experience of passengers and businesses alike that the Government's record on London Underground is a disgrace to London and damaging to the economy? Does it not show how Conservative Members lurch from one extreme to the other when, after slashing maintenance and investment in the tube, all they can now offer for a nightmare Tory fifth term is the extreme of privatisation?
Does the Minister accept that, because of the effects of the overspend on the Jubilee line extension, the estimate he just gave was not a true reflection of what is actually happening on the underground and that, because of the budget that he has imposed on London Underground, there will be damaging and dangerous cuts in investment and maintenance? Is it not time that we had the public-private partnership that is necessary for investment in a first-rate tube and an integrated public transport system that is worthy of the nation's capital?

§ Sir George Young
The difference between the Opposition and the Government on this subject could not be clearer: Opposition Members allege that we are under-investing, but they are not able to commit themselves to spending one penny more than the Government currently spend. We are investing at double the rate of the 1970s and, in addition, we are prepared to consider privatisation as a means of improving on that record. Londoners will draw their own conclusion as to which of those two approaches is the most constructive.