The Jubilee Line (Hansard, 2 November 1992)

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness)
My Lords, discussions are taking place with the administrators of Canary Wharf about the financing of the Jubilee Line extension.

§ Lord Sefton of Garston
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very brief reply. I am not quite certain that he has read my Question. It is not about Canary Wharf but refers to possible discussions which have taken place with the Government or London Underground. It seems to me that the Minister is aware that London Transport anticipates reducing by about £230 million the amount expected by the Government from developers. Does the Minister know that London Transport has spent £150 million in preparatory work? As regards relocating Marsham Street staff to Canary Wharf, can the Minister say when the first decision was taken to relocate the staff and therefore to pull down the building? Has any agreement been reached between British Gas and London Underground as regards payment by developers? Has that been made? Were the Government aware that London Transport has decided to move 2,000 staff to Canary Wharf or were they not told?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, as regards one of the many questions which the noble Lord asked me, he will recall that I provided him with a Written Answer on 27th October, which is not so long ago, confirming 1309 that over £140 million has so far been spent on the preparatory work in connection with the Jubilee Line extension. As regards the movement of some civil servants to Docklands, such movement would be on the basis only of the best value for money for the taxpayer.

§ Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm the reports which suggest that 12,000 jobs will be created if the Jubilee Line extension goes ahead?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I do not know the answer to that question, but there certainly will be a number of jobs.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, the Minister will understand that we are in a hopeless position concerning this extension. We read in the press that one day the Government say "yes"; the next day they say "no". Can we have a definite answer? It is a very disturbing situation. Does the Minister understand that the London Docklands Development Corporation has no future unless this extension is granted?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, we all have great respect for the noble Lord. However, perhaps he should not pay so much attention to what he reads in the press. I have read it too. The information tends to vary. The truth of the situation is exactly the same as that spelt out by my noble friend Lord Parkinson when he had responsibility for the job. He said: As we have already made clear the line would only be built if sufficient contributions are forthcoming from property developers and other landowners who would benefit".—[Official Report, Commons 26/7/89; col.729.] That is the situation at the moment.

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, although the Jubilee Line extension would be of great benefit to Canary Wharf and Docklands, it would also open up large areas of south London which hitherto have not been served by an underground railway? Does he further agree that that would be of great benefit to them? Does he also agree that, if we are looking for infrastructure projects to start in the near future if we are to get the construction industry moving, the Jubilee Line extension is one which is ready to go the day after approval is given?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend who has a great deal of experience in this particular area. Of course it would open up large parts of London which have not been opened up so far. It is a scheme which has been well prepared. We have given London Underground Limited the money to continue the preparatory work in order that the scheme can go ahead if and when a decision is taken.

§ Lord John-Mackie
My Lords, does the Minister agree that far too many big projects have not been fully thought out as to what they require in terms of roads, bridges and so forth? For example, the M.25 was built and everyone forgot about the Dartford Tunnel. As regards the Channel Tunnel, we still do not 1310 have a road linking it. Does the Minister agree that these projects should be fully planned and not dealt with piecemeal?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, as I understand it, this project has been very carefully thought out.

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords. is it not foolish to allow a piece of important infrastructure such as the Jubilee Line to rely entirely on the whims of market forces?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, it is not a question of the whims of market forces, but of a partnership between those who will benefit and who should make a contribution, as with other projects, and the large amount of taxpayers' money which the Government would put into it.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, will the Government say yes or no?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, as I said, discussions are progressing. We will let the House know as soon as possible.

§ Lord Desai
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, with the depth of the recession and the seriousness of the unemployment problem, the one single gesture which the Government could make to restore confidence would be to say unequivocally and unilaterally that the Jubilee Line extension will be built as of tomorrow?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, there is certainly no doubt about the desirability of the Jubilee Line. I am sure that the noble Lord, wearing his particular financial hat, would wish to see an agreement first.

§ Lord Annan
My Lords, the Minister said a moment ago that the contributions would have to come from people who will benefit from the scheme. Is he including the working class population of the Isle of Dogs? Is he expecting them to make a contribution comparable to that made by industry on the analogy of the poll tax?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the noble Lord misunderstood precisely what I said. What has been made clear on a number of occasions—and I have made it clear from this Dispatch Box before—is that there are certain contributions from landowners about which we need to seek agreement before we can proceed.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, does the Minister realise that it is an absurd proposition to infer that this project, which is so critical to London and the United Kingdom, is somehow or other linked only to the parochial interests of Canary Wharf? Does he not realise that that is an absurd proposition for the Government to advance? When are they going to put the infrastructure of London on a par with that of other European capitals where very much more has been invested, even taking into account the projected investment here, which the Government have permitted?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I do not believe that I said that the Jubilee Line is entirely dependent 1311 on Canary Wharf. I believe that the noble Lord is totally wrong on that. We have said—and I repeat it to the noble Lord—that there is great desirability for this project. It benefits a lot of people besides those in Docklands. But of course an agreement has to be reached first.

§ Lord Sefton of Garston
My Lords, is the Minister aware that Canary Wharf and the Jubilee Line extension is not priority number one with London Transport? Is he aware that there are several other things which that body considers more urgent? Does he agree that if the Jubilee Line project goes ahead, the probability will be that some parts of London which need investment will be starved of it? Does the Minister further agree that if these overweight developments continue in London, the regions themselves will be starved?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, it is interesting to note the difference between the noble Lords, Lord Desai, and Lord Sefton, as to the desirability of the Jubilee Line.