| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 714
King's Cross Railways Bill
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session ; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with ;
That the Bill shall be presented to this House not later than the seventh day after this day ;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Session ;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of this House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of this House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) ;
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the Session 1988-89 which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session ;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within Session 1988-89 or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business ;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)' were omitted ;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session-- [The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
7 pm
Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley) : The motion before the House is straightforward. It seeks to revive the King's Cross Railways Bill in the same form as it was last debated in the House. It may be helpful if I summarise briefly the principal purposes of the legislation. First, the Bill provides for a new passenger concourse to serve both King's Cross and St. Pancras stations, replacing the present temporary structure for which planning permission expires in 1995. It will also provide greatly improved facilities for passengers using the two stations. Secondly, it provides for a new link between the east coast main line and St. Pancras station, so that the spare capacity at the latter can relieve the present limitations on capacity at King's Cross. Thirdly, it expands the capacity of the Underground station to reduce congestion and improve interchange between the Underground and British Rail. Fourthly, it will connect the east coast main line to Thameslink so that through-Network SouthEast services can operate from Cambridgeshire and west Norfolk to Gatwick airport, Sussex and Kent. Fifthly, it allows for the construction of a low-level station for Thameslink and for international services running from London and the north of England and Scotland via the channel tunnel to Paris and Brussels. The House strongly endorsed the Bill's Second Reading last May by 211 votes to 41 and it has been exhaustively examined by a Committee under the distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). The Committee sat in public for a record 51 days, as Committee members will vividly recall, spread over a year, and it made several amendments which were
Column 715
fully accepted by the promoters. The House will, of course, have an opportunity to reflect on those when the Bill is considered, and on Third Reading, before it moves to another place.In giving attention to this revival motion, some hon. Members may be concerned at the continuing delay and uncertainty surrounding the future of the rail link between Folkestone and London. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), then Secretary of State for Transport, announced the safeguarding of the eastern end of the route between Folkestone and the Medway in September this year and British Rail is currently studying route options between there and King's Cross. It is considering not only its own proposed routes through south-east London, but also proposals from other interested parties involving an approach through east London. However, it is worth recalling that whatever route is chosen, both British Rail and Ove Arup have endorsed the need for it to run to King's Cross. On 14 June my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Transport said :
"There seems to be general agreement that any service will need to terminate at King's Cross. In our view, nothing in this statement invalidates the benefits to British Rail of the House proceeding with the King's Cross Bill."--[ Official Report, 14 June 1990 ; Vol. 174, c. 483.]
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : As far as my constituents in the north-west are concerned, this is an extremely important Bill. Will my hon. Friend use his undoubted influence with British Rail to impress on the company the fact that it appears to have seriously underestimated the number of passenger journeys and the amount of freight that is likely to use the line? Will he ask British Rail whether it would be good enough to up its ideas to other forecasts and provide more trains as that would be of enormous assistance to my area in the north-west?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. When the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) responds to that intervention, I am sure that he and all hon. Members will bear in mind that we are considering a revival motion, so the debate is on a procedural point. I appreciate that to make out an argument for or against the motion there must be some reference to the Bill's merits, but that should be somewhat restricted.
Mr. Waller : I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman) that this is an important measure, and she will agree that it is vital that the revival motion be accepted so that she and others have opportunities to make their points. I agree that King's Cross is, in a sense, the hub of links between the north of England and London. It is important that British Rail should bear in mind the need to provide sufficient services to cater for the many people wishing to travel by rail between the north and south.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) : Can the hon. Gentleman throw any light on last week's news that there will be a substantial delay in the running of through trains from continental Europe to the north-east of England via King's Cross? Does that delay arise from these
Column 716
proceedings, or is there some other reason for it? The answer to that would help us to know whether we should support or oppose this revival motion.Mr. Waller : The hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that there appears to be a delay in the delivery of the international trains capable of running between the continent and the north of England and Scotland. British Rail is committed to providing those trains as soon as possible, and tenders will be sought within a month. Only one consortium--GEC Alsthorn--is capable of building those trains, and unfortunately it cannot deliver them before June 1993. However, money is not a problem. In the interim, trains will run from the north of England and Scotland to Waterloo to connect with trains from London to Paris and Brussels. As the hon. Gentleman said, there will be a delay and the trains will not be available before 1993, but that in no way reduces BR's commitment to provide those trains. The Bill is necessary to ensure that an expanded King's Cross will be available--at a later date than the international trains. It will probably take six years to construct the low-level station and its associated facilities once the preliminary legislation and other planning requirements are in place.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : I realise that the hon. Gentleman has picked up the baton from his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who has gone on to greater things. Perhaps that is a harbinger for the career prospects of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). However, the hon. Gentleman said that King's Cross was the only location that British Rail was willing to consider for the new station. I take it that the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to read the report of the Select Committee which considered the King's Cross Railways Bill and which clearly stated that "it regretted that it was not in its remit to hear detailed evidence about the suitability of Stratford" in my constituency as an alternative. That is a failing in the Bill, and also in this whole procedure, and that is why I shall oppose the revival motion.
Mr. Waller : It is interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), like my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), who originally took over responsibility for sponsoring the Bill through the House, has been promoted to the Whips Office.
With only one exception, all those who have suggested that an alternative route should be provided from Folkestone to link up with London and go on to the north of England and Scotland have agreed that a central London interchange is required and that it should be at King's Cross. That certainly goes for Ove Arup.
Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras) : The hon. Gentleman talked about the number of trains which might go to the north-east or to Scotland. When the Bill was last before the House British Rail talked of three trains a day. Has that number increased or decreased?
Mr. Waller : I am conscious of Mr. Deputy Speaker's injunction, but as yet British Rail has made no change in its plans. It has stated clearly on numerous occasions that it will monitor the demand for services and will respond speedily to that demand.
Column 717
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : In relation to consideration of the revival motion, it might be pertinent for hon. Members to know when British Rail expects to make its announcement about the continued route from the channel tunnel beyond the boundary between Kent and Greater London. I have informal indications, but if the hon. Gentleman were able to give the House a clearer and more express indication--I am not trying to put him on the spot as he may not be able to do so--it would be helpful. Some hon. Members think that what happens at King's Cross is entirely or highly related to the line from the channel tunnel and to alternative stations for the terminus for traffic from the channel tunnel port, and whether King's Cross or Stratford should be bigger or smaller relates to a timetable which, as yet, is formally secret. Can the hon. Gentleman help us?Mr. Waller : British Rail clearly maintains that, regardless of any future plans about the link--I am sorry that I am not able to enlighten the hon. Gentleman any further about the possible date for a future announcement--the requirement for an expanded King's Cross station, or King's Cross and St. Pancras station with a new concourse serving both, will still exist. The requirement for that improvement in station facilities arises not only from new international services, which will certainly come into existence before any new link is constructed, but from Thameslink services and the existing link between King's Cross and the north of England and Scotland. The need for the revival motion to be passed exists regardless of any future announcement which may or may not be made about the link from King's Cross to Folkestone.
Mr. Gerald Bowden (Dulwich) : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Waller : I am reluctant to give way at this stage. My hon. Friends will have opportunities to make their own points later. If my hon. Friends will forgive me, I should like to proceed with my speech, which may enlighten them or at least set the scene for the debate. I stress again that, even in the interim period before the rail link is built, international trains could reach King's Cross via an upgraded Thameslink route which crosses the river at Blackfriars. Again, I stress the importance of the Bill to domestic rail and Underground services.
The other major announcement since the House last considered the Bill was that made by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), relating to crossrail--the new underground line between Paddington and Liverpool street, linking Network SouthEast services in London. Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), may consider that that strengthens the claim of Stratford to be reconsidered as an international terminal, and when crossrail is completed it will certainly offer better access to central London from Stratford than exists at present on the overcrowded Central line, but Stratford can never offer the substantial advantages available at King's Cross, which is well served by other BR and underground lines and is easily accessible from central London by bus and taxi. Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent) indicated dissent.
Column 718
Mr. Waller : King's Cross will be better served by bus and taxi when the Bill is passed and the new facilities are in operation. As well as accommodating through trains
Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Waller : I am reluctant to give way again, but I will give way one last time.
Mr. Smith : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on this specific point. The evidence presented to the Select Committee which considered the King's Cross Railways Bill indicated that at peak hours traffic in the King's Cross area would increase by 75 per cent. How can bus and taxi access to King's Cross possibly be improved as a result of a Bill which will generate that much increased traffic?
Mr. Waller : There has been some debate on the matter. King's Cross has such a wide range of InterCity, Network SouthEast, and London Underground services that relatively few international passengers would use private cars and taxis for access to and from the terminal. British Rail's road traffic consultants have advised that the additional vehicles generated by the international station can be accommodated by the local main road network, allowing for growth caused by the King's Cross railways land development. British Rail is also in discussion with the Department of Transport and local boroughs on possible trunk road alterations, coupled with measures to improve the environment in side streets.
As well as accommodating through trains from Paris and Brussels to the north of England and Scotland, King's Cross will provide excellent interchange for international passengers, with InterCity services to the east midlands, Yorkshire, the north-east and Scotland, and with Network SouthEast trains to the north of London, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire.
In a separate Bill, the promoters are seeking powers for a short connecting line to link the west coast main line with King's Cross so as to allow international trains to run via the new station to the west midlands and the north-west. That will be welcome information for my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster.
Mr. Dobson : The hon. Gentleman has said that one of the promoters, British Rail, is introducing a separate Bill allegedly to meet its promise, which this Bill does not, to assist in respect of through services to the north-west. Will the hon. Gentleman make any reference to the King's Cross Bill being promoted by London Underground, which is one of the joint promoters of the Bill, or will he leave the House in ignorance of the fact that it is promoting a Bill which is directly related to this Bill and which includes a clause identical to clause 19 of this Bill which the Committee unanimously rejected and threw out?
Mr. Waller : It is well known that London Underground is a joint promoter. In a separate Bill, which was deposited last month, London Regional Transport is seeking powers for new subway links at King's Cross. Those powers are being sought in a separate Bill because of the urgent need to carry out the works to meet the recommendations of the Fennell report. Other changes in
Column 719
the Underground station--for instance, a new and larger ticket hall and better connections to main line stations--remain part of this Bill.The principles of the Bill were firmly endorsed on Second Reading and the project had a thorough and detailed examination in Committee. At the end of last Session, there was not time to pass a motion to carry the Bill over. The motion seeks only that the Bill should be revived in this Session so that those deliberations can be properly concluded.
7.19 pm
Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury) : I begin by expressing my considerable concern, because I understand that Conservative Members are on a two-line Whip. This is a private Bill, which is being promoted by British Rail. Therefore, the motion should be left to the free decision of hon. Members of all parties. If Conservative Members are indeed on a two-line Whip for any votes that may come later, it behoves the House to ask the Government whether they are now proposing and promoting the Bill and whether it is now Government policy, because if it is--
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman) : The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to let pass this opportunity to correct his misapprehension. This is private business and there is no Government Whip on any votes that may take place on this business.
Mr. Smith : I have to accept in good faith what the Minister says. However, several of the Minister's hon. Friends appear to be under the impression that that was the case. If the Government are actively backing the Bill, my constituents will want to be very clear that that is happening.
A further technical point needs to be raised at the outset. The Select Committee, which considered the Bill and placed its report before the House on 26 June--the report has yet to be debated as have any amendments arising from it--will have to meet again to consider the amendments that the Committee itself has said that it wishes to table together with those amendments that it is requiring British Rail to make. Four hon. Members served on the Select Committee and did a sterling job in listening to many hours of debate and discussion. Although I demur from its central conclusion that the Bill should proceed, the Committee's report nonetheless made a number of extremely valuable and trenchant points, especially about British Rail's conduct throughout this saga. I understand that two of those Back-Bench Members have now received positions of some importance in Government ranks. Is it therefore possible that the original Committee that considered the Bill might have to change its membership further to consider the Bill if we give the carry-over motion the go-ahead tonight?
That is an important point, because a Select Committee that examines a private Bill must be composed of Back-Bench Members who have no direct involvement in the matters under discussion. It would be useful for the House to know from the Government, the promoters or, in due course, from yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the exact constitutional position in the House if a Select Committee on a private Bill has to reconvene but two of
Column 720
its members have a different standing in the House from what they had when the Bill was originally considered by them.I have never made any secret of my strong opposition to the Bill and to the manner in which British Rail has promoted it. The King's Cross terminus will destroy homes, jobs and businesses in my constituency. It will create traffic chaos and congestion. It will not sensibly serve the north, the north-west and Scotland, despite the claims which British Rail has consistently and erroneously made to the contrary. Furthermore, the Bill is still being actively promoted before any firm decisions about the high- speed link have been taken. I remain very much of that basic view about the Bill's inadequacies.
There are also a number of specific reasons why I believe that the Bill should not be carried over for further consideration this Session. First, British Rail is currently undertaking what is supposedly an independent review of all the various options both for the link from the channel to London and on the choice of King's Cross as the proposed location for the second international terminus. That investigation is being carried out by the Rail Link Project. We must question how a proper assessment of the options for the high-speed link and for the London terminus for channel tunnel traffic can be carried out if the outcome of that assessment is effectively predetermined by this Bill continuing to progress. That is exactly what will happen. If the Bill progresses--if the Government put their backing behind it, and if it is clear that King's Cross is the choice for the location--the work that is being conducted by the Rail Link Project will not be worth the paper that it is written on. I suspect that it would be revealed for the charade that it really is--a sop to try to dampen the criticism--and not a real consideration of the alternative proposals for either the location of the station or the route to it from the channel.
I have so far received many papers from the Rail Link Project, relating especially to the work being carried out by PIEDA--the Planning, Industrial and Economic Advisers--on the socio-economic and development impacts of the different route options. One section entitled "Station Area Studies" states :
"Each of the areas around proposed stations"--
presumably that must include King's Cross--
"will have different characteristics : for example, in the labour market and housing market, in the planning and development context, and in the opportunities which the Rail Link might create." That is indeed the case, because one argument about this issue is the way in which King's Cross would suffer rather than benefit from the terminus being located there, whereas an alternative location, such as Stratford, might well benefit economically and socially from the station being located there.
Those are important issues and I cannot see how they can be properly and independently considered without prejudice by the consultants appointed by British Rail if the Bill ploughs on at exactly the same speed as previously by means of this carry-over motion.
My second point is linked to the first. There is still no decision on the high-speed link or its funding. We do not know where it is to go or how it will be paid for. There have been some reports in the press in the past few days that the Government may be revising their view. The former Secretary of State for Transport said that, although there would be no public money for the high-speed link,
Column 721
there might be some for commuter services, but even that was not stated firmly. However, we now read that the Government may be having second thoughts and that there may be some money for the high-speed link. It would be useful to know from the Minister whether that is the case and whether the Government are having a rethink. While there is still confusion about the Government's policy, we do not know how the high-speed link will be paid for or where it will run. Until those questions are answered, it is an absurdity to press ahead with a Bill which identifies a specific location for the end point of a rail link which itself is indeterminate. It is not good enough for the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) to suggest that there is no need to know anything about the high-speed link before we make the decision about locating the station at King's Cross. To locate the station at King's Cross would predetermine an enormous amount about the location of the high-speed link. To attempt to divorce the two, as the hon. Gentleman did and as British Rail has consistently done throughout the passage of the Bill, is disingenuous in the extreme.Mr. Simon Hughes : I understand that it may be possible to make a decision on the high-speed link in three months. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in that case we should defer the revival of the Bill by voting against the motion tonight? We would then have just the information that the hon. Gentleman, I and others would wish to have, even taking into account the points made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). That would give us an opportunity to decide on the substance of the Bill with all the facts at our disposal. Would not that be a better way forward?
Mr. Smith : The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which is extremely important for several constituencies in south London. The route that the high-speed link takes from the London boundary towards King's Cross will be extremely important and controversial. If the House deferred the Bill tonight, at least we should know what British Rail was proposing when we considered the Bill further.
The third reason why the Bill should not be carried over is that the London Underground (King's Cross) Bill has been deposited in the House. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Keighley made so little of it. It is an extremely important Bill. It lifts large sections of proposed work out of the King's Cross Railways Bill and proposes them as a separate Bill. It is promoted by London Underground. It provides for the work required by the Fennell report into the tragic fire at King's Cross--in which several of my constituents sadly lost their lives--to be carried out. That work is undoubtedly needed.
Clearly, London Underground has realised the state of play on the King's Cross Railways Bill, read the report of the Select Committee, examined the amendments that the Committee required and taken into account the time that the House of Lords will take to consider it and decided that it is not a game of soldiers that it wants to continue to be involved in. Therefore, it has decided to bring forward the essential Fennell works in a separate Bill ahead of time. British Rail previously used the argument that it had to go ahead with the King's Cross Railways Bill in order to carry out the Fennell works in the underground station.
Column 722
That argument has now been completely shot away because the works are included in the London Underground (King's Cross) Bill. I must trespass briefly on your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by noting that clause 19 in the King's Cross Railways Bill, which sought to remove listed building consent powers from English Heritage and the relevant planning authorities, and which the Select Committee roundly condemned and required to be deleted, resurfaces in the London Underground (King's Cross) Bill as clause 20. I am sure that several hon. Members will have more to say on that when the Bill comes before the House. The separately promoted London Underground (King's Cross) Bill contains precisely the same clause and provision that was so strongly condemned by the Select Committee on the King's Cross Railways Bill.Mr. Beith : I am disturbed by what the hon. Gentleman says. If that outrageous clause reappears, a great deal of time and energy will have been wasted. Can the hon. Gentleman recall whether any undertaking was given by the promoters of this Bill that the clause would not be proceeded with? What value does he place on that undertaking? I shall seek to show later that undertakings given by British Rail are not reliable. I am extremely disturbed to find that the clause reappears in the new Bill.
Mr. Smith : I am tempted to agree with the hon. Gentleman about undertakings given by British Rail. He should remember that the new Bill is promoted by London Underground, not British Rail, but London Underground is a joint promoter of the Bill before us.
The Select Committee required that clause 19 be deleted. It was a strong and clear requirement in the Select Committee's report. Eventually British Rail grudgingly said that it would comply with that requirement, but the provision has cropped up again in relation to the London Underground works.
Mr. Waller : It is clear from the reactions of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and other hon. Members that they imagine that clause 19 is being re-enacted to apply to the works proposed in the London Underground (King's Cross) Bill, which is promoted by London Underground. Clearly, the Select Committee which considers that Bill will want to consider the clause in the context of the Fennell recommendations.
Mr. Smith : I made clear to the House what I specifically referred to. As the provision in clause 19 was the subject of such a strong recommendation by the Select Committee, it seems odd that it should reappear in a further Bill. Paragraph 50 of the Select Committee's report says :
"The second reason for our rejection of clause 19 is that in our view it would set a deplorable precedent."
That is pretty strong language for a Select Committee and I hope that London Underground will take good note of it and of what has been said tonight by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. If London Underground removes clause 20 from the London Underground (King's Cross) Bill, I for one will have no objection to the Bill proceeding as rapidly as possible on to the statute book. But if it insists on including clause 20--which reflects the previous clause 19 in the King's Cross Railways Bill--in spite of the urgency
Column 723
of the Fennell requirements, the Bill should be opposed on the ground that it ignores the enormously important issue of principle which the Select Committee identified.Mr. Simon Hughes : I hope that London Underground will take heed of that point. It has not only ignored a unanimous view expressed by the Select Committee five months before its new Bill was presented to the House, but included the same clause in other Bills. The same clause appears in the London Underground Bill, which deals with the Jubilee line. The hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) has observed and criticised that, as I have. London Underground should have got the message that the clause is unacceptable in any Bill. I hope that it will excise it from every Bill in which it appears. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill on the Jubilee line should be accepted only if London Underground removes a similar clause from it?
Mr. Smith : The hon. Gentleman is correct. The strong feelings that many of us have about attempts to undermine the heritage provisions of our planning system by means of private Bills is something that experienced promoters, as both British Railways and London Underground are--it is not as if they are naive and new to the job--should take on board.
Mr. Gerald Bowden : I wish to add my word of support, thus making the opposition to clause 20 all party. If it appears in any form in any Bill, it will be opposed strongly by hon. Members on both sides of the House regardless of party-political allegiance.
Mr. Smith : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I know that he has taken a keen interest in that issue and in the Bill that is before us.
The fourth reason why the Bill should not be proceeded with in the new Session is that considerable doubt now exists about the future of the railway lands development at King's Cross. In its report on the proposals for the channel tunnel terminus, the Select Committee drew attention to the important financial links between the proposed office and commercial developments on the railway lands behind King's Cross and St. Pancras stations and the proposal for the new station to go ahead. It identified the proceeds of the sale of the railway lands and the subsequent development as an important element in the financial viability of the station proposals that British Rail was making. The Select Committee set store on the fact that there is a close interlinking between the proposal for the new station and the proposal for office development on the railway lands. The proposal for the office development is still very much in a process of flux, negotiation and doubt. It is subject to planning consideration currently by the planning authority and the London borough of Camden, together with advice and comments from the London borough of Islington. It is subject to a number of local-planning-for-real exercises, in which people are together putting forward proposals that set out what they would like to see built on the railway lands. It will be some time, inevitably, before conclusions on the nature of the railway lands development are reached.
Meanwhile, the property market is uncertain. The economic climate is not good for large-scale developments. The principal partners in the proposed railway lands
Column 724
development are not as financially flush as they were when the proposals were first being made. We must ask whether we can be sure that British Rail will be able to finance the station development that it is proposing, bearing in mind the considerable uncertainty about the commercial and office developments on the railway lands. It is an important consideration. It was referred to by the Select Committee, and the reasons for its doubt and uncertainty about financial viability have been magnified several-fold by the market conditions that have developed since it published its report. In the light of that, we should pause for thought before launching ourselves yet further into the process of the Bill.The fifth reason that I advance to support my argument that the Bill should not be proceeded with is that inadequate consideration has been given to the road traffic implications of what is being proposed in the Bill. The hon. Member for Keighley made brief reference to the advice of Halcrow Fox, the consultant which has been employed by British Rail. Its laughable advice is that the traffic that would be generated by the proposed station could be contained within the existing road system or network. It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman has not read in detail the Select Committee's report or the evidence that was provided to the Select Committee. The Committee referred to the Halcrow Fox proposals. It is worth remembering that Halcrow Fox changed its tune during its assessment of the road traffic implications of the Bill.
The Select Committee said that it had listened to what Halcrow Fox had to say as well as to the Department of Transport. The Department said that in its view the Halcrow Fox figures underestimated the impact on road traffic of the proposed station. That is before we start talking about construction traffic and the work that would have to be done to the railway lines. The Department estimates that instead of the 40 to 50 per cent. increase in road traffic that Halcrow Fox was talking about--that would be bad enough-- the increase would be nearer to 65 to 75 per cent. That would be the increase in traffic at peak hours.
The hon. Member for Keighley made much of the bus links with King's Cross. Anyone who has tried to travel by bus through the King's Cross interchange at peak hours will know that at present it is appallingly congested. If we are talking about a 75 per cent. increase in traffic--that is the conservative estimate of the Department of Transport--I shudder to think of the traffic congestion and chaos in the immediate gyratory system around King's Cross and in the whole of north and east London. My constituents will be powerfully and deeply affected by the traffic chaos that will be generated by the location of the new station at King's Cross.
It is not good enough for British Rail to say that everyone who arrives from Paris or Brussels will immediately get on an underground train or British Rail train at King's Cross to travel elsewhere in the country. Some people will do that, of course, but an enormous number will take taxis to travel to business meetings. Many others will be met by car by friends or relatives. Others will want to board coaches, buses or specially hired vehicles. There will be an enormous increase in the road traffic in the area.
Unless British Rail wakes up to that fact and starts talking seriously with the Department of Transport about how best the impact of the increase in traffic on those who live and work in the immediate area of King's Cross and
Column 725
beyond can be alleviated, it does not deserve to have the Bill carried forward. The traffic implications have not been properly considered and researched. They need much further and deeper consideration.My sixth reason--a linked reason--is that the road traffic impact may be exacerbated by some of the provisions that are set out in the Road Traffic Bill, which was being discussed earlier this evening. That Bill would give the Secretary of State for Transport the power to designate priority routes to assist with the movement of traffic. We have not heard from the Secretary of State or from the Department what they would propose for the potential designation of priority routes in the King's Cross area. Until we know that, it is difficult to judge exactly the transport implications of the proposed station. The seventh reason for not advancing with the Bill is that the Select Committee required that a series of amendments should be made to it. First, it said that it would propose a right of reversion so that if property was compulsorily purchased but had not been developed within 10 years, that property would revert to the original owner at the original price. We know that that is the Select Committee's intention, but the precise proposal is not in the Bill. The Select Committee also insisted on the deletion of clause 19 and the inclusion of what became known as plot 51. The House will no doubt recall from earlier debates that plot 51 is the piece of land that is needed to make the platforms longer to take the trains. British Rail had attempted to introduce a Bill that included a provision for platforms that were too short to take the cross-channel trains. The sheer incompetence in British Rail's detailed presentation has been breathtaking--the failure to take account of the length of the platforms is the finest example of that.
British Rail was not only incompetent enough to advance a proposal that was inadequate in the first place, but, to everyone's surprise, it stuck by it for several days of Committee evidence until it was forced to admit that it would be much more sensible to introduce a further proposal to extend the area of works to include plot 51. The Committee is right to insist that that inclusion should be made.
Mr. Tony Banks : My hon. Friend has made a number of telling points, but I hope that he will leave enough of them for the seven or so hon. Members who also want to speak. My hon. Friend has missed one small point, however, relating to the whole notion of having a second London channel tunnel station. When the original Channel Tunnel Bill was discussed, we were told that there would be one terminus in London. It is clear that past errors are vast, so how can anyone view with any seriousness the opinions and calculations that British Rail is now making?
Mr. Smith : My hon. Friend makes a strong point and certainly the saga of British Rail and the channel tunnel has been one of error compounded upon error.
Originally, Waterloo was judged the location for channel tunnel traffic. British Rail argued that one terminus would be sufficient and that Waterloo was the bee's knees. At the same time it specifically ruled out King's Cross as a viable option because of the classic congestion that would be caused by the location of such a
Column 726
terminus. That was only four years ago, but now British Rail is saying that King's Cross is the only location that makes sense. It was not singing that tune four years ago.The Select Committee has required that a subway link to St. Pancras should be enshrined in the Bill, but no such requirement appears. It has also required that the compensation zone should be extended. That does not require an amendment to be made to the Bill, but an undertaking from British Rail. However, one has to take such undertakings with a pinch of salt.
I also understand that the points of access to the proposed station development are to be reconsidered. We do not have any of the amendments before us and therefore we do not know the detail. We know that they are to appear, but we cannot seriously consider this Bill any further until we know precisely what amendments will be made. I know that other hon. Members want to participate, but there are a couple more reasons why we should not proceed with the Bill. The eighth reason against such further consideration is the environmental impact assessment that is referred to by the Select Committee. It is welcome as far as it goes, but it should be extended. We do not know when British Rail will come forward with any conclusions on that, but the Bill involves the destruction of an incalculably valuable natural park in Camley street. It is valued by hundreds if not thousands of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), especially children. The destruction of that natural park deserves a better environmental assessment to be made. We do not have such an assessment in front of us, so how can we possibly continue to consider the Bill?
Mr. Waller : The hon. Gentleman's argument is tautologous. The environmental impact assessment that the Select Committee required to be updated is currently in hand. It will be made available before the House has an opportunity to debate the issue any further. However, how can the House consider such an assessment and any further updated information unless it has an opportunity to reconsider the Bill? That can happen only if the motion before us is passed.
Mr. Smith : That is the first time we have had anything remotely resembling a guarantee from British Rail that that updated environmental impact assessment will be with us before we consider the Bill further. That appears to be the guarantee from the hon. Gentleman and, as he is the sponsor of the Bill, I grab it gladly and welcome it. As yet, however, all we have is the word of British Rail that that work is under way. We are entitled to be somewhat sceptical of the manner in which British Rail has conducted itself, and may yet conduct itself, in relation to the Bill.
The ninth reason why the Bill should not proceed is that there is still uncertainty about the future of the east-west crossrail. That route is crucial to links in the west. If we press ahead with the development of King's Cross and that crossrail goes ahead, we may find that we have ruled out the possibility of transport links to the west and to Wales that might have been available if an alternative location, such as Stratford, had been chosen. The Government should make clear their position on the east-west crossrail, as it will have a profound impact on the viability of Stratford as against King's Cross. I know that the
Column 727
Government have announced that they want to go ahead with that crossrail, but the Treasury has, as yet, made no announcement about the money available to British Rail for that link.Mr. Freeman : The hon. Gentleman may know from previous exchanges in the Chamber on that specific issue that I have given a clear commitment that the Government will make the resources available to British Rail and London Underground to complete the east-west crossrail. I have given that commitment on two occasions and I repeat it tonight.
Mr. Smith : I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance and I hope that he is right. However, the figures do not appear in the autumn statement plans for public expenditure. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will win his battles with the Treasury and will come up with the required funding.
The Bill has so many flaws and imperfections and there is so much that we still need to know about its consequences that it would be foolish for the House to continue consideration of it now. In its report, the Select Committee, in the strongest language that I have ever known a Select Committee use, said that it was deeply unhappy about the task that it had been given to do in considering the Bill, deeply unhappy about British Rail's conduct, deeply unhappy about the imperfections in Committee procedure and deeply unhappy about the exclusion of Stratford and other alternatives from the consideration that it was able to give the Bill. With such regret and unhappiness being expressed by a Select Committee, the best thing is for us to stop for a moment or two and ask British Rail whether it would be best to go back to the drawing board and start all over again. I reiterate as strongly as I can why my constituents and I believe that British Rail has made the wrong decision. It should scrap the Bill now and start the process of thinking strategically about how best to maximise properly the benefits of channel tunnel traffic, rather than by means of the tawdry private Bill procedure that we have experienced over the last year and a half. King's Cross will not be able to cope. It is already the most congested part of London, both above and below ground ; the Bill would impose millions of extra passengers on that already congested link.
British Rail itself ruled out the King's Cross option four years ago. It has not properly considered the alternatives. Its current examination of the options is either a serious exercise, in the light of which the Bill should be called off, or it is not. It is still conducting a vigorous campaign to promote King's Cross as the desired option while nominally conducting a review of that decision. The Bill would destroy a substantial slice of my constituency and create traffic chaos across much of north London. It would not even bring very much benefit to the north, despite British Rail's claims to the contrary. It is time that the House said, "Enough is enough" and denied the Bill the chance to proceed any further.
8.3 pm
| Next Section
| Home Page |