| Previous Section | Home Page |
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman) : On the face of it, this is a procedural motion ; as such, it has the Government's support. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) appeared to be lending support to the passage of the motion, which would allow the Bill to continue to be considered. If so, I agree with him. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) so ably explained, strictly speaking, the question before us is whether the House should continue to consider the granting of planning permission for the measures in the King's Cross Railways Bill. To that question, the Government's reply is an unreserved yes. I understand why several of my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members wish to kill the Bill at this stage. They do not agree with the concept of an international passenger terminal at King's Cross, notwithstanding the advantages that will accrue to commuter services to London from the north and from Kent.
Let me remind the House of two matters concerning the proposals for the redevelopment of King's Cross. First, no investment proposal has been put to the Department of Transport and no approval has therefore yet been given. The matter is enormously complicated, but there are precedents for the seeking of planning permission for major railway projects before investment approval is given. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will be aware that his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench have given a warm welcome to a recently deposited Bill which would extend the docklands light railway to Lewisham and Greenwich. No investment approval has been sought in respect of that Bill and such approval is not appropriate because it is a project for private finance. In respect of several light rail schemes, the permission of the House has been sought long before investment approval
Column 742
has been granted. It is by no means a break with precedent for the House to consider the granting of planning permission before investment approval has been given.Secondly--and perhaps more important--I can assure the House that the Bill does not prejudge the line of route of any high-speed rail link from Folkestone to London. I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that the Stratford option is not inconsistent with the Bill. A railway line for passengers coming into central London could pass through Stratford --indeed, two of the options on the table envisage such a possibility and one of them at least specifically envisages passengers being carried on to King's Cross. The question of where freight should move north of Stratford is a separate matter, but the Bill does not prejudice British Rail's review of the appropriate route from Folkestone to King's Cross.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East asked me specifically about Ashford. I repeat the assurance, which I have given in public, that the Government remain committed to an international passenger station at Ashford, and such a project is not inconsistent with any of the three major options that British Rail is considering. All the routes would pass through Ashford ; their paths would diverge thereafter.
Mr. Rowe : I think that eventually all three options will make that transition, but a number of us are worried that we should have no clear idea about the financing of the schemes. The House will have spent hours and hours on the Bill and there is a danger that, as a result of all that investment of time and effort, we shall feel bound to accept the financial package, however inadequate or unsatisfactory it may be. We could end up with a project that is inferior to one of the other schemes simply because we have been ground down into accepting it, even if the financial package proves inferior to another in the end.
Mr. Freeman : I must make the obvious point that any high-speed rail link from Folkestone, whether or not it passes through Stratford, would require planning permission and, given the present rules, would require the approval of the House. The Government are still considering representations in response to our consultation paper about reforming the planning procedure for rail and port schemes, but the present rules require any such proposal for a link to come before the House. The House can therefore express a clear opinion about the line in principle or its specific route.
British Rail has promoted the Bill because it is a complicated set of proposals involving commuter services, international services and the underground service. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, the revival motion refers to the Bill's provisions for part of the necessary work for the underground, in particular the expansion of the ticketing hall, and not to works required by the Fennell report, which are urgent. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that he would support the Fennell works if such proposals appeared in a Bill that could be considered more quickly.
Mr. Chris Smith : The Minister is under a slight misapprehension. The King's Cross Railways Bill originally contained two sets of underground work. One set related to the Fennell requirements for safety and the other related to the provision of interchange facilities below ground specifically in connection with the
Column 743
construction of the new international British Rail station. The first set of works has been lifted from the Bill and is being proposed in separate legislation. The other works, which relate specifically to BR's proposals, are still contained in the present Bill.Mr. Freeman : I understand that perfectly and I apologise if I did not make myself clear. The work connected with the proposed new international station includes improvement to the ticketing hall and facilities. I understand the hon. Gentleman's position.
Mr. Dobson : Before the Minister leaves the matter of financing the project, does he accept the statement in the report from the Select Committee to the effect that the failure of the promoters to convince the House
"that they could afford to complete their proposed works has on several previous occasions been regarded as grounds for finding the Preamble of a Bill not proved"
which led to the Bill being thrown out? Does he also accept the Select Committee's view that the Bill should not be enacted "in the absence of clear assurances to Parliament on the various issues which currently remain uncertain"?
Further uncertainties have been introduced tonight. When will the House receive the assurances for which the Select Committee called?
Mr. Freeman : I am mindful of the fact that I represent the Government, not the Bill's sponsor. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley will have heard the hon. Gentleman. As other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, I shall deal briefly with some of the issues that have been raised for which the Government have specific responsibility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) referred to the need for British Rail to continue to update traffic forecasts. I assure her that its section 40 plans will be updated by British Rail periodically and that it will certainly take into account improved and changed forecasts for passengers and freight. The hon. Member for Berwick- upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to trains north of London and that is clearly relevant to the Bill. We are dealing with seven trains to provide the service north of London. The issue is complicated. Although the contract has not been let, that is not for the want of resources. We are dealing with an international consortium that is designing and building the trains. The companies involved in the United Kingdom have no direct control over their international partners in the consortium and specifically over the Belgians who have been involved in building the body shell for the inter-capital trains. Therefore, the Department of Transport, British Rail and the United Kingdom parties are, to some extent, at their mercy. I hope that the international consortium will soon be able to put an attractive proposition and be able to sign a contract.
Another aspect involves the technical problems of running trains north of London. They have to split and that involves some technology, because passengers must be able to move the entire length of the train under the tunnel--that is a safety requirement. Therefore, they must pass through the portion of the train that will split at appropriate stations north of London. Also, one must make sure that signalling on British Rail is not affected by
Column 744
the new technology on a train. That is by no means certain at the moment. British Rail will seek to make as rapid progress as possible. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) laughs, but we are dealing with a third rail south of London and overhead electric power north of London.The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked about the timetable for establishing a new route between Folkestone and London. That matter is directly relevant to the revival motion. I confirm that British Rail hopes by the spring to reach a conclusion on the route from Folkestone into London. W. S. Atkins has been appointed to review the procedure by which a decision is reached. It will then be for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to decide on any propositions put to him by British Rail and when to make an announcement to the House. The only firm part of the timetable about which I can tell the House is that for concluding the work on reviewing options.
The hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Kingston upon Hull, East asked about the financing of any high-speed rail link--a perfectly appropriate and relevant point in relation to the revival motion. There is no change in the Government's policy on financing. We have said that the Government will not seek to amend section 42, which prevents subsidy to any high-speed line for international passenger traffic. We have not ruled out the financing of the investment by British Rail in the conventional way, similar, for example, to the electrification of the east coast main line when British Rail financed the investment--in this case it would clearly be on a substantial scale--by means of Government loans from the national loans fund, from public service obligation grant, which is paid to British Rail, and from its own internal resources, including the sale of assets.
In the case of such a major project as this, Government loan financing would have to play a significant role. We have not ruled out that option ; nor have we ruled out a capital contribution on behalf of Network SouthEast for any improvement in services for commuters in south-east England.
Mr. Prescott : Nothing has changed.
Mr. Freeman : Nothing has changed--that is right. I hope that my clarification has cleared up some hon. Members' confusion about subsidy and financing.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East specifically asked me about through trains from King's Cross. Of course, through trains will be able to run to King's Cross--that is one of the main purposes of the Bill-- including, for example, through trains down the east coast main line and the west coast main line.
Mr. Freeman : That depends on the volume of traffic whenever a high- speed rail link is constructed. Of course, if under the Bill the King's Cross terminal is built in advance of any high-speed rail link which, by then, would obviously be coming, trains would be able to run straight through King's Cross, through the Thameslink tunnel to the Southern region, instead of going around the west of London. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury selectively quoted from the Select Committee's report. However, he did not quote paragraph 38 of that report.
Column 745
The Committee concluded that it approved the principle of the Bill. By definition, the Select Committee recommended further consideration of the Bill and the Government therefore support the revival motion. I note that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East also supports it.Mr. Prescott : So that the record is clear, I said that I would not vote against the revival motion, but I still need to be satisfied. That information is not yet before the House, as the Committee made clear.
9.19 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth) : I shall support the motion, but not because I am impressed by the Minister's argument, not because I am happy and satisfied by British Rail and not because I am in favour of the preposterous procedures that affect the issue. However, if passed, the motion will allow us to maintain the arguments for investment and sensible railway decisions that will serve the interests and concerns of my own area, which are now urgent and serious. I shall certainly not commend British Rail. It has had a difficult time in recent years because its masters have been foolish, dogmatic and unreasonable. British Rail does not deserve our sympathy. I recall expressing deep regret a few years ago because, although British Rail had used red station seats on all its platforms on the north-eastern line, it had felt it appropriate to use a blue seat at Grantham. When I raised the matter in the House at Question Time and asked why on earth a blue seat had been used at Grantham, the then Minister said that his right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)--the then Prime Minister--had told him that she had enjoyed her journey on the train. That was probably the only train journey that she ever made.
Mr. Prescott : The seat is yellow at Huntingdon.
Mr. Hardy : My hon. Friend is extremely observant, but that seat will probably change colour--at the same speed as the new methods of signalling to which he referred a moment ago.
However, my concern is related not only to my constituency where economic need is now vital and where we are bemused by the delay and incompetence that have surrounded the matter. I am also concerned to reflect the position in Europe. Until recently I acted as chairman of the Council of Europe Environment Committee, which takes an interest in transport. I have watched with great interest the speed at which French decisions and French investment have proceeded. The other day I flew from Paris to the City of London airport at fairly low altitude. The weather was reasonably good and one could actually see the evidence of the competence and investment in France, where the channel tunnel is already seen as something to be achieved and where it has already been the focus of investment and, years ago, was the subject of decision making--
Mr. Tony Banks rose --
Mr. Hardy : I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. I am sure that he will like my next point.
The state of affairs in Britain will be so appallingly unreasonable that I suspect that the first French passengers to reach the United Kingdom when the trains start running under the tunnel will feel impelled to report the United Kingdom to either the European convention
Column 746
against torture or the Court of Human Rights. Those passengers will take the view that it is unreasonable of Britain to see passengers travelling cheaply and comfortably on French trains, which run on smooth and permanent tracks, while our foreign visitors have to suffer the experiences that the constituents of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and those of some of his hon. Friends have had to tolerate during the lifetime of this Government. The position is clearly unsatisfactory.Mr. Tony Banks : My hon. Friend is an observant Member of the House- -even at 15,000 ft when flying across France. However, I must pick him up on one point. He described the airport to which he flew as the "City of London airport". It might only be a name, but it is actually called City airport. Although many people in the London borough of Newham, where City airport is located, bitterly oppose the airport, it gets right up our noses that we are not allowed to call it "Newham international airport". As I said, it is called City airport, not City of London airport. My hon. Friend should get it right.
Mr. Hardy : I apologise to my hon. Friend and to his constituents for my error. My hon. Friend knows that I have some regard for that airport, perhaps because using it means that I am not dependent on London Underground, which costs a fantastic amount of money and is not always terribly pleasant, but can travel to his area on the Riverbus instead, which is the most historic and perhaps the most pleasant form of transport in London. The airport has many advantages, including the fact that aeroplanes fly at a sufficiently low altitude so that one can watch the physical progress being made in France, where there is an entirely different approach. Perhaps because the French Government have not been so dogmatic as the British Government in the past decade, they have ensured that the Pas de Calais, the most impoverished region of France, will receive all the advantages that the improved communication will provide. It seems years since the House debated the channel tunnel. Some of us made the point then that in France the region where the tunnel terminal is located is the most impoverished while the tunnel reaches the wealthiest region of Britain. We said then--and, as a Yorkshire Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is well aware of the arguments--that if the tunnel was to serve the national interest, early and intelligent decisions would have to be made to ensure that the industrial areas of the north of England were properly served. Yet we have suffered years of appalling and stupid parliamentary procedures, which may have been relevant at the time when a Foreign Secretary was run over by a train early in the 19th century--[ Hon. Members-- : "The President of the Board of Trade."] Yes, it was the President of the Board of Trade. One could think of several Ministers who might benefit from a similar experience.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, following the unfortunate demise of that gentleman, the train was claimed as a deodand, which, of course, is now out of date?
Mr. Hardy : I am sure that the House is greatly obliged to the hon. Lady for that information.
Column 747
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Perhaps the hon. Lady was present.Mr. Hardy : My hon. Friend is being rather ungallant. The hon. Lady may be foolish enough to support the nonsense and incompetence that the Government have demonstrated over the past decade. The whole sorry saga of the tunnel is an illustration of the sad decline of our country caused by the dogma and incompetence of a Government who would rather see service of private interest to the sacrifice of public good than create any opportunity for Britain to secure the national advance that we need.
The ability of the French to provide an adequate, efficient and inexpensive train service should have been obvious to us a long time ago. In case Conservative Members, including perhaps the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) who has had much connection with Europe, need an illustration, I recently made two train journeys in France. One was between Paris and Strasbourg and the other was between Paris and Brest. I compared them with my journey from King's Cross to my home in Yorkshire the other night. I arrived at King's Cross station to catch the 11.15 pm train only to find that it was not running. I arrived home at 5 am, having caught one train from King's Cross to Stevenage, one bus from Stevenage to Hitchin, one train from Hitchin to Peterborough and, after an hour on Peterborough platform, another train from Peterborough to Doncaster.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose --
Mr. Hardy : The journey was long enough without adding the hon. Lady's observations to it, but I give way to her.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problems that he has just outlined are an excellent reason for denationalising British Rail?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We seem to be moving some way from the revival motion.
Mr. Hardy : I regret giving way to the hon. Lady because I did not want that argument to be made. The French political system is very different from ours, but so are its railways.
On the journeys that I have made in France, the trains have been both on time--as they invariably are--and on permanent way, which is smooth. I have paid fares for more comfortable rolling stock which were little more than two thirds the level of the fares in Britain. Yet after 11 years of this Government we have an unsatisfactory train system, which does not compare with that of our competitors, and areas such as mine, which are in appalling environmental and economic need, cannot look forward to the future.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will be aware, only the other day we had a televised announcement that a terminal was to be built in Yorkshire. I regret, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) does not, that the site of the terminal is on the west Yorkshire rather than the south Yorkshire side, which I should have preferred. However, at least it will be in Yorkshire. My hon. Friend will share my confidence that we shall have the Yorkshire terminal
Column 748
ready, operating and efficient before there is anything to link it to in London or Kent. We should be paying serious attention to those matters.Mr. Cryer : I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge immediately that British Rail is short of funds because the Government have deliberately starved it of moneys. They have even counted investment that has been generated by British Rail as investment authorised by the Government as if it were some form of largesse. Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that the ordinary work people of British Rail use their best endeavours to provide a decent service in spite of those difficulties and in spite of a sometimes indifferent management and a Government who are completely hostile to the railways?
Mr. Hardy : Yes, I acknowledge that. I would--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will link his remarks to the revival motion that is before the House in responding to the intervention of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
Mr. Hardy : My hon. Friend was leading me to the final part of my brief remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the other reason why I shall support the Bill. It has been made clear that the senior management of British Rail has deserved all the criticism that has been offered. At the same time, we need to send a message to those who work for British Rail that we understand and appreciate that they have had to put up with an enormous amount during the past 11 years. They have had to put up with the permanent criticism of a group of people in the Government who wanted them to fail. They have had to put up with grossly inadequate investment and an obligation to work with a level of return on that investment that our neighbours in France and Germany regard as ridiculous.
By supporting the motion, preposterous though it may be, we shall be giving a message to the employees of British Rail that we believe that British Rail is important, that the railway industry is vital and that we deplore the incompetence with which it has been managed at senior level and guided by the Government.
Mr. Dobson : My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and I share my hon. Friend's view that we need good links between the channel tunnel, the midlands, the north, Scotland and Wales. It was for that reason that we proposed a direction that would have required British Rail to guarantee that with this project there would be a fast, frequent and reliable service to the midlands, the north and Scotland. British Rail had so little faith in that proposition that it refused to accept the direction.
I urge my hon. Friend to consider carefully the prospects of getting a fast, frequent and reliable service to Yorkshire through an underground station that will have only one track in from the south and one track out from the south. The station will purport to serve eight platforms, when the current King's Cross station is limited on Fridays because it cannot get enough trains out and there is not enough space. If we add to the congestion, there is every danger that the service to Yorkshire will be reduced.
Column 749
Mr. Hardy : I should hate to see the current service to Yorkshire reduced any further. I accept, however, that there is a risk. We need to maintain our argument, and that is why I shall support the Bill. I have another reason for supporting the Bill. I have enjoyed some of the speeches that I have heard tonight ; we have had the opportunity to hear my hon. Friends the Members for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). We shall hear my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who will be talking from a different viewpoint. We have suffered enormous delay and incompetence. The arguments that have been advanced by my hon. Friends have much merit. I shall support the motion to try to ensure that no one may accuse south Yorkshire Members of not seeking sensible decisions that should have been taken a long time ago.
9.34 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) : If I had not intended to oppose the revival motion, I have now heard sufficient to cause me to do so.
The Minister kindly sought to address some of the anxieties that have been expressed about the broken promises of British Rail. However, he was unable to do so except by recourse to arguments that produced laughter on the Opposition Benches. The very idea that the technology employed by British Rail is, for example, incapable of coping with splitting a train through the length of which it was possible to walk prior to its being split is laughable. Southern region runs such trains through most of its main line stations every day of the week and has done so for decades. The arguments to which the Minister has had to turn have been supplied to him by British Rail and they do not stand up.
I have an overall anxiety about the Government's longstanding hands-off attitude to the rail link. The idea of having to revive this Bill in the absence of the sort of positive lead provided in France is depressing. The French were determined that their industry and passengers should take full advantage of the tunnel. Therefore, their Government took the lead to ensure that a dedicated link was available. Our Government, however, have come to this debate to give lukewarm support to a revival motion for a Bill which does not provide such a dedicated link facility.
I have sufficient reason on the Government's attitude alone not to support the motion, but one should also take into account the attitude of the promoters, British Rail, whose record is so strewn with broken promises in connection with King's Cross and railway lines out of that station that it is impossible for my hon. Friends and me to support the motion.
We have also been told that the recently announced delay in providing through services from the north to the continent is due not to the failure of the Bill to make rapid progress, but to international arrangements for building trains. It is alleged that the Belgians are holding us to ransom. We are also told that British Rail is unable to provide the necessary technology to split trains that must go to more than one destination in the north of England. Such arguments do not stand up and they belong to a series of broken promises.
During the passage of the Bill, British Rail has obtained the support of a number of hon. Members who represent
Column 750
the north of England. During earlier stages of the Bill, I, too, supported British Rail, in common with other colleagues, because British Rail argued that services would be provided from the beginning to ensure that the north was not put at a competitive disadvantage with the south-east. That is what this is all about. None of us would want the channel tunnel unless it was directly linked with transport routes to the north of England ; otherwise the sole effect would be to provide a competitive advantage for industry and commerce in the south-east, which would increase the relative disadvantage of the north.Mr. Simon Hughes : My hon. Friend's view is shared by those of us who represent the south-east. We are aware that we are over-congested and that the planning bias has led to more people and more development in a part of the country where, to be honest, we need less development. Such linked transport routes are entirely compatible with providing proper regional strategic economic planning, not just general transport planning.
Mr. Beith : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that this is not a north-south battle. There is a shared interest between the northern region and the congested parts of the south-east to ensure that communications are linked directly to the areas that can most readily accommodate industrial and commercial expansion. British Rail has broken its promise on that important point.
The delay on the provision of through services has not been occasioned by the proceedings on the Bill ; nor will it be shortened if we pass the motion. A positive decision on the motion would not remove the various technical difficulties that British Rail finds so insuperable when it comes to providing direct trains.
Within living memory we have managed to have direct trains running out of London on ships to and through France to Paris and Brussels. British Rail could not even keep those trains going. Some of us remember travelling on the night ferry train to the continent. The very idea that, with a tunnel at its disposal, British Rail cannot run through trains from the north to the continental centres of Europe seems ludicrous. That is one fundamental broken promise. The second promise to be broken was made in the same context as the Bill, but was spelt out in detail in the British Railways (No. 2) Bill in a previous Session and also relates to King's Cross. It was the promise that sleeper services and overnight services to Teesside, Tyneside, Northumberland and the Borders would be resumed when electrification had been carried out, if a survey to be conducted by British Rail in conjunction with the local authorities could not demonstrate conclusive reasons for not doing so.
We now find that British Rail does not intend to carry out that undertaking which was given to the House. That casts doubt on the undertakings British Rail has given in relation to the motion. The excuses given by British Rail when it withdrew overnight services to King's Cross were various. I shall leave out some of the more absurd ones and relate two on which BR concentrated.
First, British Rail said that it had a shortage of class 47 locomotives and so could not manage the diesel traction required, but that electrification would solve that problem. Secondly, it said that platforms at King's Cross were too short to accommodate full-length sleeper trains and that
Column 751
that problem would be overcome when the King's Cross Railways Bill had been passed and the works associated with it were completed. Now we discover that those two excuses are no longer the reasons why British Rail is not prepared to reintroduce overnight services. British Rail's latest reason is that it is no longer acceptable to stop sleeper services en route because it wakes up some passengers. In addition, it says that it is no longer acceptable to drop from or add coaches to sleeper trains in the course of the route. We have just been discussing British Rail's own plans to split continental trains, which British Rail is taking a little time to work out, so that argument does not stand up very well. In any case, both those practices are currently in use in order to provide sleeper services to Carlisle, Bournemouth and Poole, to which I suspect the rolling stock was taken when British Rail withdrew the services from the east coast main line. That is another broken British Rail promise that relates directly to King's Cross and the King's Cross Railways Bill. As a result of those experiences, I have no faith in any assurances given by British Rail relating to the Bill or the motion. For that reason, I shall vote against the motion.9.43 pm
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : I am truly delighted to see you, Mr. Speaker, back in the Chair as we move towards the end of the consideration of the procedural motion. I am delighted because there is much discontent--
Mr. Cryer : Stop grovelling and get on with it.
Mr. Banks : My hon. Friend seems to think that I am grovelling, but I have always thought that a little judicious crawling never does any harm, so I shall persist in my present style.
We are discussing a procedural matter and you, Mr. Speaker, will know--and thus be able to use your good offices to impress on the Government--that it is about time that we got away from the lunacy of the private Bill procedure. I sat as a member of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure--a joint House of Commons and House of Lords Committee. We reported in July 1988 and made about 52 recommendations to avoid Parliament facing problems such as those before us now. We have had the Government's response to our recommendations and I am delighted to say that they have accepted most of them. To get round the problems of private Bill procedure, we need primary legislation initiated by the Government.
In business questions last Thursday, I asked the Leader of the House whether, despite there being nothing in the Queen's Speech relating to the subject, we would have the opportunity to consider legislation from the Government to implement the Joint Committee's recommendations, as we seemed to have plenty of time on our hands. The Leader of the House said that, unfortunately, he did not think there would be an opportunity to do that, and I believe that there will probably be a general election before British Rail gets its act together and makes a decision on the fast rail link. Be that as it may, however, we need to pressure the Government into bringing forward legislation which will avoid the necessity to debate arcane matters of the kind that have come before the House today.
Column 752
I missed only a few minutes of the debate, at around 7 o'clock when I left the Chamber to give an interview in my role as Mr. Angry of east London for my regular Monday night slot on LBC. I was asked what a revival motion was, as it sounded like something akin to spiritualism. I said that it probably was, in a way, as the House was trying to revive something which in my opinion should have been long dead and buried--the proposal to locate the second London channel rail link station at King's Cross.Those of us who sat on the relevant Committee and who studied the Select Committee report believe that this is not the way to take that decision. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) made the same telling point raised by other hon. Members, though not of his stature and seniority in our party--that this is not the way for a major strategic decision to be taken. As my hon. Friend emphasised, this is probably the single most important transport decision of this century, and perhaps for decades to come. My hon. Friend contrasted the approach taken by the French to our own piecemeal, shoddy, hit-and-miss approach. It is not acceptable for Britain in the 1990s to take such an important decision in that way, using a private Bill procedure which dates back to the 19th century and requires anyone laying any track, be it British Rail or an urban transport system, to seek Parliament's approval. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East made it clear that the Government should take a strategic overview. It is absurd for them to walk away from their responsibilities, and for Ministers to sit with their hands under their bottoms saying, "This is not for us to decide--let British Rail get itself out of the mess that it has clearly got itself into."
Among the many hats that I wear in this place--as you, Mr. Speaker, kindly pointed out the other day, in calling me last during Question Time--is that of chair of the London group of Labour Members of Parliament, whose members have a close interest in the Bill. The Secretary of State for Transport before last--they change so rapidly that it is difficult to remember them, but I believe that it was the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon)--came to a meeting of that group of London Members, and when asked who was responsible for the strategic overview in respect of King's Cross, the fast link, and the location of the second station, replied, "Not me--I am not the strategic authority for transport in London and the south-east." So we put the same question to British Rail, who replied, "Not us--we are a transport undertaking ; it is our considered belief that people will want to travel into King's Cross, and that we shall make the most money from that location, which is what we are required to do as a transport undertaking, but we are not the strategic transport authority for London".
There seems to be an enormous vacuum. Every sensible right hon. and hon. Member--there are still a couple left on the Government Benches--knows that such a decision should not be subject to the procedural approach that has been adopted, nor should it be left to British Rail and developers to decide the matter. It is outrageous that the Government have walked away from contributing to such a major decision. I hope that those points will be taken on board by the Minister, and that he will speak urgently to his Cabinet colleagues so as to ensure that we do not need to resort to revival motions in the future. The matter has been dragging on for so long and we all know that this is not the way to deal with it.
Column 753
The Minister said that the Government had not imposed a Whip tonight--we shall test that shortly, but I already detect a certain buzz in the Chamber and I know that it has nothing to do with my speech. Everyone is expecting a Division at 10 o'clock, and will be hurrying back from places of excitement to be here to vote. It is scandalous that the Government are hiding behind British Rail and letting it make a decision on a matter which is important not only to London but to the south-east and to the whole country for decades to come.Also, it is scandalous that British Rail should be using the private Bill procedure, which has effectively been brought into disrepute by the way the Government have maltreated it. All the private Bills passed recently have been highly controversial, affecting broad areas of the country and a number of political interests. The Government have their payroll vote standing by--Members who have not been here to listen to the arguments, but who come through in droves at 10 o'clock to do the Government's bidding. I oppose the revival motion on all the grounds that I have mentioned so far, and on others which I am about to mention. The Minister says that British Rail has stated that it is on target to make an announcement by next Easter about a route for the link. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, it seems crazy that we are deciding about the location of a station when we have not yet decided the route of the rail line.
Mr. Freeman : If I may correct the hon. Gentleman, I said that British Rail would reach a conclusion about the preferred route by next spring.
Mr. Banks : That does not seem markedly different from what I said. I assume that the announcement will give their conclusions.
Mr. Cryer : Perhaps they are not going to tell us.
Mr. Banks : I am sure that they will--if nothing else has come out of this long, involved and Byzantine procedure, British Rail has reluctantly accepted that it cannot play fast and loose with the House as it has done so far. British Rail is fortunate in having a Government who are sheltering behind it and who will undoubtedly be backing it tonight, but no one in the House will be satisfied with the way in which this has been done, or the way the House has been treated by British Rail.
Mr. Chris Smith : I hope that when British Rail reaches its conclusions on the location of the route for the high-speed link it will give the matter rather more serious consideration at its board meeting than it did when it opted for King's Cross--a decision which was taken by British Rail's board in 40 minutes of discussions.
Mr. Banks : Yes, fast decisions are repented at great length. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said in answer to an intervention, how can the House be expected to treat seriously the calculations that British Rail puts before us? There was to be only one station for London--Waterloo--when the first Channel Tunnel Bill was tabled, but the calculations for potential use of the tunnel were so badly wrong that British Rail has had to go for a second site. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury pointed out, British Rail specifically ruled out King's Cross when it proposed Waterloo. Yet now it has
Column 754
suddenly become British Rail's conch shell, which British Rail intends to stand by as a test of its virility and will not consider any other option seriously. That does not make any sense, and it does not leave us with any confidence in British Rail's calculations. I visited one of the Minister's predecessors at Christmas last year. He gave me a glass of sherry, which was much appreciated at the time as it was much needed. He now has responsibility for the poll tax. I said to that young Minister, "Sir, you should make sure that British Rail give you good advice." I told him that I had the feeling that, judging by the way it was going about the matter, it would give him a "bummer". I am not sure whether that is a parliamentary expression, but I used it then and I told him, "And you are going to be stuck with it". That is exactly what British Rail has done. I warned the Minister that he should not accept what British Rail was doing at face value. I said, "Minister, you must intervene." He said, "Now is not the time to intervene." That is how the Government have played this all the way through.I know that discussions have gone on behind the scenes. I do not know exactly what has been said, but I cannot believe that the Government have completely walked away from the matter. I cannot believe that they have no interest in what British Rail does, or that they cannot see what everyone else can see, including Conservative Members--that these are matters of national significance, and that the decisions cannot be left to British Rail and a bunch of developers who view King's Cross less as a station than as a major office development.
Mr. Cryer : Is not one of the unsatisfactory aspects of the way in which decisions have been blundered into the fact that British Rail cannot be trusted with such decisions? It has given the northern cities no guarantees of through journeys and through running, and it seems that investment in King's Cross could well be pursued at the expense of much- needed investment in provincial railway lines serving cities such as Bradford, Leeds and Huddersfield.
Mr. Banks : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Such are the pitfalls that we encounter when decisions are made on a one-off basis. A whole range of London developments is being proposed, but there is no coherence. If the Government can get a bit of money from a developer, they will go along with that developer's proposals. One of the reasons why Stratford would be a far better location for the tunnel from my point of view--and from the point of view of all the London boroughs, both Tory and Labour--is the number of developments in progress which will involve Stratford, such as the east-west cross-rail and the Jubilee line extension. I do not oppose the latter, as it will bring more transport investment into my part of the east end, which will aid its economic regeneration, but we all know that the Government opted for it not because the Jubilee line was the most important in relation to London's commuter needs but because the developers of Canary Wharf put up some money. That is how decisions are made--not only is there no strategic overview, but there is no interlinking.
Mr. Cryer : Does my hon. Friend agree that if British Rail had not specifically rejected the resolution proposed by the House in relation to the guaranteeing of through services, the basis for discussions about this development would have been entirely different? The northern
| Next Section
| Home Page |