House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Dec 1990

Column 221

crossrail, with some trains stopping at intermediate stations. In the longer term, the possibilities for extensions and additions are wide, and the promoters' strategy is to ensure that none of those possibilities are precluded. An example would be for a west-facing link which could be added in a number of ways, such that, if the western region mainline is electrified, trains could operate into Heathrow from the west.

Mr. Adley : The western region main line is due to be electrified from Reading as part of crossrail. If my hon. Friend--I do not say this unkindly--reads the railway press avidly, as I am sure he does, he will know that his comment a moment ago about being linked to the main-line system of BR would be regarded as somewhat cynical, when in fact it is only linked to westbound trains coming out of Paddington. In response to my first intervention, my hon. Friend said that those things would be looked at. Will he give me an assurance that, during the Bill's passage, there will be a full cost-benefit analysis and a further evaluation by British Rail, as a partner in the project, of the advantages to people from the west country, south Wales, Birmingham and so on, of a west-facing link?

Does my hon. Friend understand that, if he is seeking, as he must be doing, to maximise revenue for the Bill's sponsors, there must be some evaluation of how much extra traffic could be brought into Heathrow by rail if people from, say, Bristol, did not have to whiz past the junction, go into Paddington, get off with all their luggage, transfer to another platform and then go back along the route that they had just travelled? Will he please give an assurance that, before the Bill finishes its passage through the House, we shall be presented with a proper evaluation of that?

Mr. Thorne : I do not read the railway press as avidly as my hon. Friend, but I read it quite closely. I am sure that he will be aware that the traffic which comes from other areas to Heathrow airport is relatively small and that that is why such a link is not as attractive as it might otherwise be. For example, I believe that only 1.5 per cent., 2 per cent. at the most, of the traffic using Heathrow comes from Wales.

Mr. Adley : Because there is no railway.

Mr. Thorne : But they have their own airports, and I am anxious that not all passengers should come to London, because that is what makes roads so difficult. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) complained about the amount of road traffic going through his constituency. We must have a balance in these matters. The matter has been evaluated, and the promoters find that it is not cost-effective at the moment. When the network is electrified into Wales, there is no earthly reason why such a scheme should not be taken up at that time.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : Will my hon. Friend seek to ensure that, so far as possible during the Bill's passage, he engenders a favourable climate for the laying down of not only the link to the west but the one to the south, and the rail infrastructure to make possible a fifth terminal? That is the long-term potential of the airport, which will be nullified unless proper rail links are put in in advance.

Mr. Jessel : Rubbish.

Column 222

Mr. Thorne : My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) will see that there is some resistance to his suggestion. The question of a fifth terminal is not one that we are here to discuss tonight, so I shall quickly pass on.

Mr. Snape : I think that I speak on behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that we are aware of the difficulties the hon. Gentleman faces in introducing this legislation, which he is doing in such an able way.

The hon. Gentleman said earlier that it was not cost-effective for the promoters to accept a west-facing link at this time. Of course it is not, because the promoters' only interest is in ferrying as many people as possible from Paddington to Heathrow airport. But will he accept it from me that about 5 million people currently use the coach links from Reading and Woking, and it is joining up Reading and Woking with a line through Heathrow that we are about in the instruction which, sadly, for understandable reasons, has not been accepted? Is not 5 million a substantial number, bearing in mind that it will inevitably grow in the 1990s?

Mr. Thorne : I assure the hon. Gentleman that the promoters will look carefully at the link. There is no question of their ruling it out.

Mr. Snape : Are the Government?

Mr. Thorne : If the Government should decide to come forward with some funds to help the promoters on some future occasion, that is a different matter. Tonight, we are discussing the Heathrow Express Railway Bill. I hope that all hon. Members will welcome such a measure as a first step. We should not pull the idea down, because that would remove the opportunity for expansion into a number of other areas which many other people want. We must leave the options open and speed the passage of this Bill--

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : This procedure clarifies matters. Part of the difficulty is the lack of a coherent Government policy for railways. If only there were a double Y junction at Harlington and another one at Feltham, all would be clear : people could go from Reading to Heathrow, Croydon and perhaps on to Brighton.

As for crossrail, does the hon. Gentleman agree that a single terminal at Paddington has a disadvantage? Would it not be possible to run suburban trains through to Stratford and possibly Stansted, and to provide an extended dedicated service, to be run on the Gatwick principle, a little further into London, so as to have an alternative destination with all sorts of advantages over the proposal for a single terminal?

Mr. Thorne : It would not be possible to do that under the present proposal. It is an excellent idea to provide the public with a good, efficient, fast and reliable service. It would be unfortunate to spread out that service by sending it to different locations at this stage, but this is only a step in the right direction. In the 21st century, many more facilities will be required.

I am sure that opportunities for crossrail and approaches from the south will materialise. The question is how and when, but I am afraid that we are not here to discuss that tonight. It would be quite wrong to divert our

Column 223

attention from this essential measure if we are to maintain our position as an international air centre, which is the objective of the Bill. The strategy is one of flexible response, but it must be made clear that, until the initial link is provided, no additions, extensions or long-term strategy are possible.

I began by referring to Heathrow's competitors, which want to steal its valuable position and which are therefore developing new mainline rail links to their airports. In many ways, they are just catching up on our lead. In so doing, they will employ the latest designs and operating techniques to make the links as effective as possible. Arguably, London has already waited too long for a fast rail link to its principal airport. If the House agrees, it will be possible for the first train to run in 1995, 10 years after the planning process started. The Heathrow express project will then allow Heathrow to maintain its lead and even increase it by ensuring that passengers have the widest choice of flights and services and the widest choice of transport opportunities. I urge the House to support the Bill.

7.43 pm

Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West) rose --

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) made a good point. It was remiss of me not to inform the House earlier that Mr. Speaker has not selected the instruction, but the topic of it can be commented on in the course of the debate.

Mr. Morgan : There is little point in repeating material already covered in depth in the carry-over debate, but it is worth repeating one fundamental point that emerged from it a month ago. Since the former Secretary of State for Transport, who has now departed to a thousand hurrahs, made his great announcement on 9 October about the London crossrail link from Paddington to Liverpool Street--it had greater significance in its backwash effect, as it included the announcement of the first 40 miles of the Great Western main line between Paddington and Reading--it has become clear that this Bill should be withdrawn and studied again by the promoters and then re-presented to the House taking into account that momentous announcement at the Conservative party conference. Ninety per cent. of the length of the line in this Bill is on the Great Western main line, but when it was originally planned and presented the Government had made no commitment to electrifying the south Wales main line beyond the point at which it passes just north of Heathrow airport. Now that there is such a commitment, we are in a different ball game.

The promoters could have gone away for four months and realised that, as the Government are committed to electrification through to Reading, they had a different set of options and modalities for integrating the different power modes, different junctions and different expenditures--because the Government will carry out part of the job, by means of the usual British Rail external financing limit, which the promoters had thought they would have to carry out on their own. Now the Government are committed to crossrail, taking electrification from Reading to Paddington, linking through to

Column 224

Liverpool Street and connecting with services to the eastern region of British Rail straight through to Paddington--

Mr. Spearing : Not connected all the way.

Mr. Morgan : Not completely, but the potential for such connection has been brought much nearer.

In this context, the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) becomes even more important. Since the announcement of the crossrail approval by the Government, Paddington has become a far more critical station. Traditionally it has been a friendly home from home for people from south Wales, Bristol and central southern England, and the home of commuter services to the western part of the home counties. All of a sudden the station has acquired the additional function of providing, as the promoters would have it, the main link for high-speed transport from central London to Heathrow. Paddington will become the hub, the most important railway station in Britain and one of the half dozen most important stations in western Europe.

So the promoters will have to take into account the much greater pressure on Paddington that will result from crossrail being added to the Heathrow connection, on top of the traditional role that the station has played since the days of Isambard Kingdom Brunel and the early connections to Bristol and south Wales a century and more ago. Members of Parliament have a duty to rub our brain cells together and not just to give the Bill a free passage. We must try to imagine how the connections are supposed to work together. We must ask ourselves what the total impact on the planning of Paddington station will be, with crossrail, the Heathrow express and the traditional services. This is not merely a selfish concern of hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and myself about longer queues for taxis at Paddington when we are rushing to get to Welsh Question Time on a Monday afternoon. Paddington has the potential to become the most important and best-planned station in western Europe--or to become the most important and worst-planned, if the project is carried out piecemeal.

The promoters suggest that when crossrail comes along it will be separate, and that Paddington's traditional links to south Wales are different, too. These are not separate aspects : all these services will pass through Paddington. The station cannot expand sideways into densely packed Paddington--that is out of the question--so how will all the traffic fit together?

Mr. Spearing : We are talking not about connections to Liverpool Street but about through services of any sort of combination from Liverpool Street on to Stratford, Cambridge or Ipswich--including possibly to Stratford international. What my hon. Friend said about Paddington's expansion was, happily for him, incorrect. Is he aware that British Rail has a huge site north of Paddington which is empty and which may well be disposed of for some form of development? As regards overall planning, would it not be wise at least to ensure that space is made available for additional extensions to Paddington if they become necessary for the reasons that my hon. Friend has just advanced?

Column 225

Mr. Morgan : I defer to my hon. Friend's detailed knowledge of London and its railway system. I was pointing out that there are two schools of thought on the Bill. There are supporters of the enclave principle of railway connection, and supporters of the connection school of railway development. The enclave school of thought is represented by the sponsor and the promoters of the Bill. They think that we should consider the link as an isolated piece of development, serving central London and Heathrow. The link will run on the western region main line for 10 of its 12 or 13 miles, but nevertheless they think of it as if it were on an island, not connected to the national railway system. They think that it is entirely accidental that it has anything to do with the western region main line.

The other school of thought is that, as it will run on the western region main line, hon. Members should consider the national dimension of the Bill. That line does not merely go to Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea but proceeds on to Fishguard and the Irish ferries, so it is an international line. Through the link from Didcot to Oxford, Banbury and Birmingham, the line connects with the rest of the midlands, the north and Scotland and offers an alternative route, instead of the better-known route from Euston.

It will not come as any surprise that I favour utilising the desire of the British Airports Authority and British Rail to co-operate in spending several hundred millions of pounds to provide a high-speed connection between central London and Heathrow. I want to see whether we can use the potential that it offers to open up Heathrow so that it will perform its proper function, as Great Britain's number one international airport.

Heathrow is not merely central London's international airport. It has been pointed out that we have an airport in south Wales. So we do--I live about six miles from it, and it is a nice regional airport, but in no sense of the word can it be considered a competitor for Heathrow. It does not have any regular, year-round international, transatlantic or intercontinental connections but merely a modest four international destinations, served by scheduled flights on a regular basis, and another four within the United Kingdom. That is not competition for Heathrow.

People from south Wales, Bristol, Oxford, Swindon or anywhere else in south -west and central England who want to fly to Nicaragua or to Thailand have to go to Heathrow. People will always have to use Heathrow for intercontinental destinations, and that is what people who live outside central London resent most. Heathrow is regarded as the private concern of people who live in central London. The House is regarded as a club for people who occupy positions of influence in central London.

When hon. Members request that the promoters of such Bills consider the interests of six sevenths of the population who do not live in central London, we are thought to be obstructing the people of importance who live there. That is nonsense. We are the Parliament of Great Britain. The only opportunity for the vast majority of people who do not live in central London to make Bills more relevant to them is to utilise the procedures of the House, and to table amendments for consideration by the promoters which, if viable, will be added to the Bill.

I am surprised that the sponsor has not mentioned the publication of the National Economic Development Council report, which has taken place since the carry-over motion. I have a pre-publication copy here. It is called,

Column 226

"On the Right Track to Heathrow Airport" and was released to the press on 10 December. It was widely referred to in the press last week. The National Economic Development Council was seeking to look after the long-term interests of Heathrow, as our most important airport--it is also, although not in freight terms, the most important international airport in western Europe. In the report, the NEDC makes it clear--the NEDC is one of those tripartite bodies of which the Government do not approve, as it brings in the unions and the employers

Mr. Snape : They do now ; it is the new image.

Mr. Morgan : Sorry, I had forgotten about the classless society. Perhaps the NEDC is coming back into favour now.

The report also makes a reference to the work of an hon. Member who is present tonight--the famous pamphlet, "Tunnel Vision, Rail Routes to the Channel Tunnel"--so it is obviously an excellent publication. The report referred to the development of Heathrow as being dependent on a rolling programme of improvement. Stage 1 would be the approval of the Bill tonight. Stage 2 would be the construction of a westward-facing link, which would bring the connection from Heathrow to the south Wales main line somewhere near Slough, thereby providing a link to the airport for the people who live in the catchment area of Reading, Didcot, Oxford, Swindon, Bristol, Newport, Cardiff and Swansea--the population in that area is exactly the same as the population of London, about 6 million or 7 million people. Almost everyone, except the promoters of the Bill, understands the connection between the Bill and the westward-facing link, which would be the logical next step. Therefore, I find it odd that the sponsor has so far been unable to say that the promoters have made any undertaking showing that they are willing to consider how to connect the link provided for by the Bill with the logical next step of integrating Heathrow with the national railway system. The aim of the express railway is not merely to carry passengers from Heathrow airport into London, via Paddington.

7.57 pm

Sir John Wheeler (Westminster, North) : I offer my warmest congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on the way in which he has managed the Bill through the House, and especially on his typical thoroughness and courtesy in responding to the inquiries and concerns of his parliamentary colleagues.

My constituents in the City of Westminster certainly warmly welcome the principle of the new rail link to central London. I have no doubt that many of my constituents will greatly benefit from the new link when it comes into operation.

However, I must say a few words about the environmental and traffic problems that will arise because of this proposal. The impact of the link on central London is just as important as its impact at Heathrow airport and the concerns about traffic problems there which other hon. Members have mentioned.

City of Westminster council is concerned about the environmental impact of the new route and its impact on traffic in the Paddington area, given the expected growth in traffic on roads in that area arising from improvements to the A40, the M40 extensions, the predicted growth in

Column 227

general traffic and rail patronage to Paddington, and significant developments already planned for the locality. Extra traffic at Paddington will have a knock-on effect on congestion on roads and the public transport network throughout the centre of London, and needs to be considered and planned for.

Many of my constituents, especially those living near Paddington station, consider that the promoters have underestimated the potential usage of the railway. The promoters' current estimates--6 million passengers per annum, of whom some 47 per cent. would use cars or taxis at Paddington--are considered cautious, even given the current throughput of Heathrow airport. Moreover, they do not take into account the construction of terminal 5, which would increase usage by at least 31 per cent.

The city council is attempting to secure the development of the Paddington area--which spans the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) as well as mine--in a balanced manner. Our residential population wants the council to implement policies to establish the area as one of mixed use, while protecting and enhancing the amenity of the existing residential area, which house a considerable number of people. The council has emphasised the importance of traffic-related issues, and the need to plan comprehensively for the long term when considering the four major planning applications relating to the immediate Paddington area. As a result, considerable changes have been made to the applications which reduce their traffic impact. For example, one developer has cut the proposed car parking from 2,500 to 431 spaces, and is proposing to pay for a wide range of highway improvements in the vicinity of the station, including direct access to it off Bishops Bridge road.

Unfortunately, the negotiations between my local authority and the promoters have suggested--at least until tonight--that there is little evidence of long-term planning for Paddington station. That is a matter of great concern to my council and to local residents. For instance, the retention of the sub-standard ramp off Bishops Bridge road, which requires cars to stop and then proceed at about 4 mph, makes the movement of traffic very difficult. If the British Rail access scheme were part of a private development, my local authority simply would not approve it.

Alternative access from the north of the station, via Bishops Bridge road, would be superior in terms of traffic, safety, parking and environment. The city council has been pressing BR to adopt a scheme providing such access for some time. The council still feels that such a scheme could be fully integrated with crossrail, including the through running of Heathrow trains. I was glad to learn tonight from my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South that the crossrail development could involve that ; I assure him that my authority and its residents would welcome it.

I know that my hon. Friend will convey my messages to the promoters. Let me emphasise the importance of thorough consideration and implementation of the traffic management aspects of the new route. Because of other major planning developments, the stress imposed on the

Column 228

immediate area is such that the control of traffic will be a crucial issue for the residential community for many years to come. The problem of access to the station must be resolved, and soon, so that my local authority, which has to approve the applications, has time to reassure the public, who have an interest in planning applications, as well as ensuring that their environmental and residential objectives are met. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the keen interest that he has displayed in these matters--at least until this moment.

8.4 pm

Mr. Patrick Ground (Feltham and Heston) : I, too, welcome the Bill ; but I find it extraordinary that, over 40 years, Heathrow has developed into a major international airport without having the benefit of a rail link. BAA plc is to be congratulated on having enabled itself to promote the Bill and also fund the new railway. I have a constituency interest, in that I am concerned for both the continued success of Heathrow airport-- which employs many of my constituents--and the relief of the traffic congestion caused by the airport. I believe that the new railway can contribute to both. As for the quality of the rail link, the Heathrow Express will certainly compare favourably with the rail link connecting with Charles de Gaulle airport : there, it is necessary to board a bus to travel from the terminal to the station.

I hope very much that the new railway will be a success. Nevertheless, we should remember that it will provide a link only with the network to the north of the airport, and that there is a strong case for providing a link with the network to the south. I hope that the Committee will satisfy itself that the proposed works will not prejudice the provision of such a link.

The stations and tunnels that are to be built under the airport could be used--the stations certainly, and the tunnels as part--to provide that southern link, and I hope that the means will eventually be found. I also hope that the Committee will establish as far as possible that the method of construction will not preclude the provision of the southern link and that, within reason, the door will be kept open for it.

I understand from engineering consultants employed by the London borough of Hounslow that, for an additional £3 million--now--three sections of tunnel could be designed, rather wider than currently planned, so that the tunnels for a southern link could be let in later without the need for the railway to be closed while the work was being done. Letting in the tunnels could enable the northern link stations to be used for the southern link, too.

I realise that £3 million is a lot of money, and that the promoters must look to the potential customers for the financing of the development, at least at present. However, this is a modest sum compared with the £220 million being spent on the Heathrow express, and the £35 million that it would cost to shut the railway and join the tunnels with the southern link once the railway was in operation. We must keep the figures in perspective.

We do not yet know the extent to which, after its current venture, BAA plc will develop a taste for providing railway links with its airports. But whoever is in the

Column 229

business of providing railways in the future will be more attracted to doing so if those modest steps are taken to keep open the possibility of a southern link.

A report by Colin Buchanan and Partners, which was commissioned by the London borough of Hounslow, shows that, in engineering, operational and environmental terms, a southern rail link to the airport is a practical possibility. A further report by Colin Buchanan and Partners for the London boroughs of Hounslow, Richmond, Kingston upon Thames, Merton and Sutton supports the practicality of an orbital rail link in south-west London. Several of my hon. Friends have also referred to the report by the National Economic Development Council, was published on 10 December, which supports those ideas in a much more general framework.

I hope that BAA plc, which has suggested that it will try to keep open as many options as possible, and which has already shown some agreement between the consultants on these matters, will continue to keep that option open. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will look carefully at the desirability of keeping open the option for a southern link and that, within reason, the money will be found for doing so because it will undoubtedly be very much more expensive to provide such as link in the future. Keeping that option open would encourage whoever is responsible for the provision of the railways to provide the further rail link which is very much needed because it would strengthen Heathrow and its surrounding environment. 8.11 pm

Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington) : I sympathise with the points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). We know that the promoters introduced the Bill to try to improve the surface access problems that exist at Heathrow. Those problems existed before terminal 4 was built, and have hardly improved since. The sponsors suggest that 6 million potential passengers will use the link, thus taking a great deal of traffic off the roads between central London and Heathrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has said that the sponsors must bear in mind the implications for terminal 5 and ensure that they get the link correct.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) is sitting quietly on the Front Bench-- from his point of view, I hope that things remain that way--but may I advise him that a great deal of what needs to be done in connection with Heathrow, its surface access problem and the wider implications of the Bill is a matter for the Government, not the sponsors? One cannot expect BAA plc to fund surface access improvements between Heathrow and the Cromwell road. That is a matter for the Government, who should have an integrated transport policy for rail, road and air travel.

My hon. Friend the Minister has now turned to me and has a slight twinkle in his eye. He knows that it is impossible to talk about surface access to Heathrow, the rail link that we should have and the movement of aircraft, without thinking in terms of integration. It is no good the Government having a policy on aircraft movement, the railways and in connection with what the Civil Aviation Authority should be doing, if they do not think about the needs of terminal 5 at Heathrow. There can be no doubt

Column 230

that west-facing access is vital to the people of the west country and south Wales, as is the southern link. Although building the tunnel has some technical implications, in my view that is not the responsibility of BAA plc or British Rail ; it is a matter for the Government.

I was opposed to the Bill from the outset because of the effect that it will have on my constituents, although I accept the principle behind it. I still believe that this is the wrong route and that it should run directly from Southall. However, I pay tribute to the sponsors for the way in which they have listened to the criticisms about the route--some constructive, some not--from people such as myself. The sponsors were criticised at first for their lack of consultation, but the consultation process has improved tremendously during the past year or so. Many of my constituents have been able to see the proposals in model form and there has been a hot line by which they could contact the sponsors to find out exactly what was going on.

As suggested by my local authority, the route has been amended to avoid fragmenting the green belt, at a cost to the promoters of £12 million. I am also grateful that, as a result of pressure--some from myself--the route will be taken under the M4 rather than over it, as was originally suggested. The noise and environmental implications for my constituents as the route comes out of Hayes station and turns left to cross the green belt towards Heathrow were matters of great concern, but I understand that a "green wall" is to be built, which will help to reduce the noise levels experienced by most of the residents who back on to the existing main line. To some extent, the green wall will not make all that much difference to some of those who will suffer extremely badly from noise, but the sponsors have agreed to make a financial contribution towards sound insulation to try to make life that bit more bearable for those people. The disruption to Stockley lakes is important for both ecological and fishing reasons, but it will be minimised by the well thought-out development and management plan. Assurances have been given that the greatest care will be taken to avoid any hazards when dealing with landfill.

I still believe that, in due course, consideration should be given to a different route. However, it bears repeating that the sponsors have at last --I emphasise the words "at last"--responded to the needs of my constituents and to the pressures that I have brought to bear, along with other colleagues, and have made the adjustments and modifications that are necessary to make life bearable for my constituents.

Therefore, although I hope that the Bill receives its Second Reading tonight, I also hope that, in Committee, the sponsors will take on board some of the points that have been made tonight. The most important aspect of all this is that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench should put their heads together and start thinking in terms of integration. Money must be made available to make sure that we get it right, so that the people of south Wales, and those in my home town of Bristol, can have access to Heathrow without this nonsense of passing it by, going into Paddington and having to come out again. I hope that terminal 5 will soon begin the long process of construction, starting in my local authority. We must bear in mind the needs of terminal 5, which, again, is more a matter for the Government than for the sponsors--

Mr. Jessel : Surely my hon. Friend cannot imagine that his local borough council will be expected to decide the

Column 231

planning permission and that any future application for a fifth terminal will not result in a call-in, a public inquiry and a decision by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Dicks : My hon. Friend misunderstands me. I said that the start of the planning process would begin with my local authority. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right, as he is about the musicians in his constituency : it will be a long-term process. I am sure that the matter will be called in and decided elsewhere.

As I have said, I hope that the Bill receives its Second Reading and that all the points that have been made by hon. Members will be taken into consideration by the promoters and by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench.

8.18 pm

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : I should perhaps make my speech short and say that, if the Bill satisfies my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), it satisfies me. His emollient tones bode well for the passage of the Bill. No one would criticise my hon. Friend for not exercising independent and constructive judgment on behalf of his constituents, as he always has and certainly has on this Bill, which is much the better for it. The problem with the development of airports in this country has always been that far too little attention has been paid to the vital aspect of surface access. Lack of surface access, particularly rail access direct to passenger terminals, has caused congestion, with which we are all too familiar, and has damaged the potential development of airports. This is true of Luton, where there is no direct rail link ; it has been so for a long time of Stansted ; it was true until the Gatwick express was created for Gatwick ; and, for far too long, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) pointed out, it has been true of Heathrow. The consequence for passengers and for those living around these airports has been the failure to exploit their economic potential and a degradation of the environment that was quite unnecessary. This modest Bill--in financial terms, it is far from modest--will, I hope, be the precursor of further measures to put in place a fully strategic rail infrastructure for Heathrow and other key airports. I know that my constituents have a double interest in the Bill : first, because anything that is good for Heathrow in international terms--rail access is a vital aspect of that matter--is good for them, as Heathrow is the main source of employment for my constituents, apart from central London ; and, secondly, they ask whether it will improve their access to the airport. With the development of crossrail, this may be so. A station on the crossrail link from Aylesbury and Amersham at Northwood will enable them to travel at high speed through to the Paddington terminal and out to the airport.

More important, the rail link will significantly reduce the grave traffic congestion that bedevils west London, which is caused to a large extent by a lack of proper rail access to the Heathrow terminals.

My hon. Friends who argue for wider examination of the Bill's implications in Committee have logic and sense on their side. As I said, the Bill is a precursor of other measures, and we shall undoubtedly need that connection

Column 232

out to the west, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) so eloquently intervened, and the connection to the south, to which the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston alluded. If we are fully to utilise Heathrow's potential and preserve the local environment, we need to exploit the rail connections much more than is envisaged at present.

I hope that the good experience of the Bill and the installation of this rail link will set a necessary example to policy makers in the Department of Transport. Although the sponsors of the Bill--the BAA and the British Railways Board--deserve full credit for the impetus that they have put behind it and for their readiness to modify it, nevertheless it is the responsibility of the Department of Transport to ensure that the premier gateway to this country--Heathrow airport--has the proper rail access to the east, the west and the south which it deserves. I support the Bill.

8.23 pm

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East) : The remarkable aspect of this debate has been the unanimity on not only the desirability of this project but the need to widen and to extend it to take care of the transport needs of passengers from all over the United Kingdom who wish to travel to and from the busiest international airport and the need and desire to see this stretch of railway become a integral part of the British Rail network. As the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) reminded us, the crossrail should extend to the south, to the west and to the east.

Regrettably, the Bill does no such thing. For eminently understandable reasons, the interests of the former British Airports Authority, which is now BAA plc, lie in maximising the number of passengers who use its airports. Quite fairly, it does not see it as its role or responsibility to do more than that. That illustrates the weakness of the Government's transport philosophy--I would not deign to call it a policy, because a policy implies that something exists--which is that the market will provide these things and that it is the best judge of where resources are necessary and when and how they will be financed and implemented.

I was fascinated to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks)--I usually am fascinated to listen to the hon. Gentleman's speeches--who represents the intellectual wing of the Conservative party. He came out tonight as a closet integrator and demanded an integrated transport system. I very much doubt whether it will save him from the wrath of the electors at the next general election. I have a feeling that they will prefer the fervour of the real thing--socialist transport policy--to the fervour of the convert. His conversion, albeit late, is nevertheless welcome. To a certain extent, we have heard a repeat of some of the arguments that were advanced in the debate on the carry-over motion a month ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), with his wit, humour and customary brevity, set out the needs and desires of passengers from Cardiff, the west and south west for a west- facing connection into Heathrow airport, as did

Column 233

my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who spoke in the debate on that motion but is unable to be present this evening.

The reaction of British Rail's management to the proposals put forward by my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members was interesting. I have a letter from the "Director, Projects" of the British Railways Board to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. On the specific question of the west-facing link, the director, Mr. David R. V. Beynon, said :

"You mentioned links for traffic from South Wales. I am sure you will appreciate that any additional stops on the InterCity services will increase the journey times for the vast majority of passengers who will continue to want to travel to or via Central London." Paddington is not in central London--a point which should not escape us in these debates and which was made by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) when he spoke of the disturbance that 6 million passengers will cause the city of Westminster and in and around Paddington station.

The letter continued :

"An interchange at Paddington will mean that every InterCity train connects with a Heathrow Express service which will be waiting in the platform and the passengers can change platforms without having to go up and down steps. South Wales will thus have better access to Heathrow than other regions, passengers from which will have to cross London via the Underground."

There is nothing like BR management for stating the obvious, but it does not appear to be particularly convenient to pass the eventual destination of a good many passengers and to go on to the centre of London, only for those passengers to have to reverse 10 miles along the route over which they have already travelled.

The letter concluded :

"I hope this helps to allay any concerns you may have had over the effect of the Bill on services from South Wales."

It does not allay any concerns. Indeed, when one reads such gobbledegook from rail management, it arouses even more concern among those of us who are worried about the future of that once great industry.

The same gentleman wrote to me about the same topic because, like my hon. Friends, I raised the issue of a west-facing link. In his letter, Mr. Beynon said :

"Thirdly, with regard to a west facing link, it would be wrong to say that BAA and BR do not want it. We have several ideas about how this could be achieved which would not be precluded by the initial link. Again as you pointed out, through services to the west cannot take place until the Western Region Main Line is fully electrified." As far as I am aware, I did not point that out, but no matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West reminded us during the debate on the carry-over motion, the Minister of State said that electrification as far as Reading of an east- west crossrail service was an integral part of the scheme, and we are grateful for that. British Rail's fears about providing a west-facing link without electrification had been eased, if not nullified, by the Minister's statement a month or so ago.

Hon. Members can see no reason why such a west-facing link cannot be provided. I am sure that my hon. Friends from Welsh constituencies, some of whom have spoken on the Bill, will continue to advocate the provision both during and after the Committee stage. I hope that the Under-Secretary will consider the depth of feeling on both sides of the House about this scheme.

Next Section

Home Page