To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has carried out concerning the practicability of privatising London Underground. [13354]

We are examining whether the benefits of privatisation can be extended to London Underground. We shall announce our conclusions once that work has been completed.

Does the Minister agree that there would be a further disbenefit to London from the further disintegration of public passenger transport? Is he not aware that London Transport, the pride of the world's transport systems, was introduced by Herbert Morrison in a Bill in this place? It was initially passed by a Labour Government and passed again by a Conservative Government in 1933. Would not privatisation be disadvantageous to Londoners because, by order, public property would have to be disposed of at a knock-down price? Londoners would also have to continue to pay taxes to subsidise not just the natural subsidy that must be paid, but the profits of the operator. That might conceivably be disadvantageous to the Conservative party at the election.

The hon. Gentleman is selective in his use of history. I think that he will recall that much of the London underground started as projects of private railway companies, which put the necessary Bills through the House—as did those responsible for the main line rail services. As I said in my initial answer, we are looking carefully to see whether the benefits of privatisation could sensibly apply. If they did, all the relevant requirements and guarantees—for example, those on fares, the levels of service, travelcards, concessionary fares and so on—would have to be included in a Bill .

If the hon. Gentleman wants to see the advantages of privatisation, he need look no further than the privatised railway companies where the number of complaints has been falling, passenger numbers are going up, and reliability, punctuality and new investment are improving. That is certainly something of which we need to take note.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if London Transport were to be privatised, a regulator would ensure minimum standards of service, maximum levels for fares and the continuation of the concessionary fares scheme which is so vital to pensioners across London?

Leaving aside the detail of regulators and so on, I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that we would not proceed with a privatisation proposal that did not ensure exactly the reassurances that he and, I think, the Majority of Londoners want. That would be in stark contrast to anything that I have heard so far from the Opposition about their policies, which would give no new investment, no new lines and no new money to London's transport services.

Do the Government intend to make any detailed departmental announcement to the House regarding their impractical and deeply unpopular proposals to privatise London Underground, or will such a statement emanate, as has been reported, from Conservative central office? If it were the latter, would that not constitute a misuse of civil servants by their drafting party political dogma, demonstrating the Government's gross abuse of dedicated public servants whose duty, first and last, is surely to the British people and not to the chairman of the Conservative party and his propaganda machine?

What a load of nonsense. I yield to nobody in my admiration for the public servants who work for the Government of the day and who work to enable them to propose sensible and workable schemes. The hon. Lady is quick to dismiss a proposal that has not even been announced yet; I suggest that she waits, although I can understand her anxiety for it to be introduced quickly. She now recognises—or, if she does not, at least her hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) now recognises—that privatisation has brought benefits in many parts of the transport system and she wants to see whether we have proposals to enable those benefits to be available to London's underground system.

The hon. Lady is impatient for our policy, which is based on a record of investment unequalled since the war. She should be aware that we, too, are impatient—for more details of her policy because they have trickled out, piece by piece by piece. We have had the triple whammy for Londoners of Labour's London transport policy: first, no more money, secondly, no new lines and now a utilities tax on London's buses.