division_name: Tube Investment
motion: <p>[Relevant documents: Seventh Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1997-98, on London Underground (HC 715-I) and the Government's response thereto (Cm 4093);   Ninth Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1998-99, on the Integrated Transport White Paper (HC 32-I) and the Government's response thereto (HC 708).] 
  <p>
   I beg to move,
  <p> 
   
    That this House regrets the Government's failure to raise private investment for the London Underground; condemns the cuts in investment in the Underground since they took office and the way their failure has squeezed other parts of the transport budget; recommends dropping the failed public private partnership, seeking more private money in another way; and calls on the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to take the necessary action now to expand all types of British transport capacity, including the Tube, so people are able to travel more easily and businesses can move their goods around efficiently; condemns the Secretary of State's failure to make crucial decisions to expand the mainline railway; regrets his decision to make the motorist a whipping boy for his own failure; urges him to follow planning policies which lessen the North South divide rather than worsen it, and which will encourage more people to live near town centres and their points of access to trains and buses rather than on greenfield developments; and concludes that the experiment in so-called joined-up Government between environment, transport and the regions has under this Secretary of State comprehensively failed.
  <p>
   I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  <p> 
   
    "welcomes the Government's approach for an Integrated Transport Strategy; deplores the previous Government's record of under-investment in transport, fragmentation of bus and rail services and encouragement of ill-planned out-of-town development; in particular condemns their erratic investment in London Underground, which left a &#163;1.2 billion backlog; welcomes the Government's long-term strategy to secure over &#163;8 billion investment for upgrading London Underground over the next 15 years; deplores the official Opposition's plans to privatise London Underground; and welcomes the Government's commitment to an extra &#163;1.8 billion for public transport and local transport plans, improving road maintenance, reducing pollution, and encouraging the major investment needed to widen transport choice.".
  <p>The Economist  also knows what it is talking about. It said:
  <p>
  That is not very specific. Labour has the third way and the Tories have another way.
  <p>
  That was just another part of the great Labour lie to satisfy the green lobby. If the Deputy Prime Minister really wanted to do something positive to slow down traffic growth, he would stop new housing developments sprawling across the green fields of England and concentrate development near, and within, towns where people can choose to use public transport, cycle or walk instead of taking the car. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn).
  <p>Question , That the Question be now put,  put and agreed to. 
  <p>Question put accordingly,  That the original words stand part of the Question:--
  <p>The House divided:  Ayes 144, Noes 369.
   