UK Parliament / Open data

London Underground

Proceeding contribution from Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Monday, 10 March 2008. It occurred during Estimates day on London Underground.
I agree that that paragraph is balanced, but I would suggest that any reading of the report—and I have spent most of today reading it—leads to only one conclusion, which is that there is hostility to the concept of the PPP throughout. Paragraph 96 states:"““The circumstances of Metronet's end have shown that the private sector will never wittingly expose itself to substantial risk without ensuring that it is proportionately, if not generously rewarded. It is ultimately the taxpayer who pays the price.””" I am not suggesting that the Committee was wrong to examine some of those matters. Clearly there has been a significant failure that needs to be addressed, and there are lessons to be learned. One of those lessons is that the private sector will naturally seek to minimise risk and to maximise profit. Of course it will: that is what it is there for. But it is the job of Government to ensure that the rules are set down—the tracks are laid out, if you like—in such a way as to prevent the incurring of disbenefit by the taxpayer, which in this instance the Government have failed to do. That does not mean that they will not be able to do it in future with some other PPP arrangements, but the fact remains that they spectacularly failed to do it on this occasion. The Government's failure to sell Metronet to the private sector following the collapse means that the costs of operating in administration, and the costs of the overspend, will be picked up by the public purse. It is not clear to me, although it may be to others, to what extent that will be a matter for the Treasury and to what extent it will be a matter for Transport for London. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister exactly where the arrangements lie. Pursuant to that question, we also need to know whether Metronet's spectacular failure will lead to a scaling down or a lengthening of the process by which the improvements to London Underground were planned. Will work that was to be undertaken in, say, 2012 be delayed until 2016 or 2017? What are the consequences of the failure for the planned works? I think that people in London would like to know the answer to that question.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
473 c89 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top