division_name: London Underground (Public-Private Partnership)
motion: <p>[Relevant Documents:   the Seventh Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1997-98 on London Underground, HC715-I, and the Government's response thereto, Cm4093; and   the Fourteenth Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1999-2000, on the Funding of London Underground, HC411, and the Government's Response thereto, Cm4877.] 
  <p>
   I beg to move,
  <p> 
   
    That this House notes the widespread concern about the viability of the Government's public private partnership proposed for London Underground; further notes that the Government has established Transport for London, which is answerable to Londoners, and whose Director, Mr. Robert Kiley, has a proven track record of modernising the New York subway system and who will take on responsibility for London Underground in due course; deplores the failure of Ministers to include Mr. Kiley and Transport for London in any meaningful consultations about the contracts under negotiation; condemns the Government's lack of openness with Londoners and their representatives about the bidding process; and urges the Government to work with Mr. Kiley and Transport for London with an open mind about what is best for London Underground and for Londoners.
  <p>The PPP is the only realistic way in which the long-term investment that the Tube requires can be levered in quickly and efficiently.
  <p>I am constantly available to discuss such matters either in statements or other debates . . . There are many matters that I am prepared to debate, and I commonly come to the House.--[ Official Report , 24 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 150.]
  <p>
  Where is the right hon. Gentleman commonly now? That simpering protestation says it all. The Deputy Prime Minister has lost his grip on the policy issues; he has lost his nerve, and it will only be a matter of time before he loses his office, his salary, his grace-and-favour houses, his red boxes and his chauffeur-driven Jaguar.
    <p>It became clearer to us while gathering and assessing evidence that much of the anticipated efficiency gains are just that: probable rather than certain expectations . . . The issue is whether this initial step-change in improvement is value for money . . . We think there are good reasons to believe that the PPP, as currently structured, overly favours the Infracos--
  <p>in terms of the distribution of risk and reward . . . The Infracos have an incentive to "hold up" important investment until they get paid more . . . The PPP proponents claim that they have designed contracts to take into account all these problems, which can be surmounted if there is genuine partnership. But that is to ignore the lessons of both theory and practice.
  <p>The Government needs to rethink its strategy. If it does not, it will never be able to persuade taxpayers that PPP represents best value for money . . . we have published figures suggesting that the additional cost of PPP (as compared to purchasing the assets directly) is equivalent to a 30 per cent. hike in fares.
  <p>
  Why is the Secretary of State not here to debate that point?
  <p>The range of possibilities in theory extends from wholesale privatisation of LUL under a regulator to retention of the Underground in public ownership as an integrated system but offering it an autonomous capacity to finance itself by issuing its own bonds.
  <p>Government's manifesto commitment to retain a publicly owned and publicly accountable Underground system.
  <p>There are two alternatives to PPP. One is to simply keep the tube under the direct control of central government. This could have been accepted without more ado from the beginning. A much more sensible alternative would be to pass it to the mayor and leave him to decide how to pay for investment.
  <p>It could prove a physical or human impossibility on a system that is a much more intensive operation than a national railway, with trains every 90 seconds.
  <p>a "growing concern" about safety in the partly sold-off tube system that the Deputy Prime Minister wants to bring in next spring.
  <p>particular problems thrown up during the shadow running of the PPP.
  <p>invite all interested parties to submit their specific concerns about the PPP's safety regimes. These concerns should form part of the HSE's assessment criteria of the safety regime.
  <p>It will be the London government which will be ultimately responsible for any system failures, accidents and financial shortfalls--even though it did not negotiate the contracts or initiate the new structure.
  <p>no sooner does Mr. Kiley arrive in his office than he is stripped of responsibility for stations, track, signals, carriages, tunnels and escalators. All he can do is sell tickets and drive trains . . . This is quite unlike Mr. Kiley's experience in Boston or New York.
  <p>I have been trying to figure it out for about five weeks now and still haven't managed it. I have a rule that anything that takes that long to understand is not going to work.
  <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 implementation of its manifesto commitment to create a Public Private Partnership for London Underground which will bring in &#163;8 billion of new investment and up to &#163;5 billion worth of maintenance over the next fifteen years-leading to faster, more reliable journeys and a safer, more attractive Underground of the kind Londoners deserve; supports the doubling of the resources available to the Mayor for transport in London over the next three years; condemns the previous Government's record of under-investment in transport and in particular their erratic investment in London Underground, which left it with a &#163;1.2 billion backlog; and deplores the Official Opposition's plans to privatise London Underground, which will fundamentally undermine public accountability."
  <p>Labour plans a new public/private partnership to improve the Underground, safeguard its commitment to the public interest and guarantee value for money to taxpayers and passengers.
  <p>The Review does not subscribe to the argument that the PPP structure is inherently unsafe and it recognises the special effort made by Government in ensuring that safety is managed centrally and rests ultimately in public sector hands.
  <p>These are important concerns, and arise directly from the new structure and the multiplicity of companies who will be working on the Underground.
  <p>HSE is content with the details of the proposed new structure. In particular, HSE believes that Opsco
  <p>and the Infracos will be incentivised to seek improvements in health and safety as well as maintaining current standards.
  <p>we were considering whether we could apply the success of railway privatisation to London Underground.--[ Official Report , 13 January 1997; Vol. 288, c. 10.]
  <p>We did not do enough for the tube--I would be the first to acknowledge that.--[ Official Report , 27 January 1999; Vol. 324, c. 436.]
  <p>I say that the PPP will not proceed unless and until the HSE has taken an independent view and has stated that it is satisfied with the revised safety case.
  <p>London Transport and its advisers have been devising a public sector comparator against which the bids for the PPP will be judged.
  <p>would bring its scrutiny of the comparator forward.
  <p>incompetent privatisation of the railways which left the network fragmented.
  <p>represent "poor value for money" and could put . . . safety at risk.--[ Official Report , 6 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 112.]
  <p>the number of regular users who see the Tube as poor value for money has doubled in a year, from 32 per cent. in 1999 to 65 per cent.
  <p>I have been trying to figure it out for about five weeks now and still haven't managed it. I have a rule that anything that takes that long to understand is not going to work.
  <p>
  The Minister said earlier that the Government had given information to Mr. Kiley. However, the hon. Member for Brent, East questioned that and said that Mr. Kiley had not been given the most up-to-date contract information. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify what information has been given to Mr. Kiley. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, it is interesting that the person who knows how to run such networks is being shut out by the Deputy Prime Minister, who has not had any experience of running such networks.
  <p>The Economist  has described the PPP as
  <p>half baked and either naive or dishonest,
  <p>Question put,  That the original words stand part of the Question:--
  <p>The House divided:  Ayes 180, Noes 287.
  