House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 Nov 1991

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Smith : I will, but it must be for the last time.

Mr. Wilson : Is there not another side to the coin? The huge numbers of people arriving at King's Cross and Euston and wishing to travel on to the continent will create a fair amount of additional and unnecessary congestion if they all have to find a way to get out to the alternative that my hon. Friend seems to support.

Mr. Smith : I am not sure what point my hon. Friend is making. If a passenger comes to King's Cross to transfer immediately to the channel tunnel train, there is no question of having to go out to Stratford.

The problem is one of traffic and congestion impact, which will spread well beyond the immediate environment of King's Cross. Therefore, it is important that British Rail goes back to the drawing board and thinks again. There is a possible breach of European Community law if the station is proceeded with without any recognition of the environmental impact of the high-speed link leading to it. The financial viability of the King's Cross project must be in serious question now that the decision to create an additional station at Stratford has been taken.

As yet, there are no answers from the Government or British Rail about the status, size and impact of Stratford. It is possible that the potentially £1.5 billion project at King's Cross will pre-empt other important expenditure on which British Rail should be embarking, and that will have serious implications. There are no guarantees of frequent through services from the north and Scotland. We have no information on what will happen to freight. There is an expectation of serious congestion at King's Cross and there is a real possibility that, even if King's Cross is chosen for the location for channel tunnel traffic, rather than being in the precise location and form set out in the Bill, the station could be located elsewhere at King's Cross.

For all these reasons, the House should not proceed, at this stage, with the Bill in its present form.

8.24 pm

Mr. Norman Miscampbell (Blackpool, North) : It is my intention once again, as I have so often in other debates on this subject, to put down parameters and markers for those who come from the north. When I say "the north", I do not mean only 250 miles north but 50 miles up from King's Cross. The problems are the same no matter how far up the country one comes from.

Column 698

This matter first came to my notice under your Chairmanship, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the Court of Referees. We had an entertaining three or four days with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) who has a deep interest in the matter. We looked at the back ends of King's Cross and found wildlife in abandoned nooks and crannies, and discovered that double, if not treble, the number of people that the British Waterways Association thought were living on the canal actually did so. It was a fascinating hearing of the court.

We are debating a matter of deep importance to the north.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : Hear, hear.

Mr. Dobson : The hon. Lady always agrees with the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Miscampbell : Let us be fair. My hon. Friend agrees with me on most occasions.

It has been said that this is a matter of them and us, but it is not. It is them, but it is not us. We are speaking for the whole country and for a far bigger constituency than that of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. We can hardly overestimate the importance to the north of the decision that we are making. If there is to be a high-speed link, it must come through to King's Cross and it ought to come through--so that we start at both ends together, so that we know that it is there. The Bill will allow that to happen. Nothing needs to be changed to allow that to be done. However, this is basically a decision for the Government. It is most desirable that we have a clear and unequivocal decision. As has been said, if the link terminates at King's Cross, all is not lost. We may be able to have the Stratford complex as well as King's Cross, but this will all cost money. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) will agree with me when I say this. The Labour party may be saying it anyway, but we must also say that money must come from the Government. We cannot get it from private enterprise, and there is no way round that. It should be made clear that if the north is to be looked after, money must come from the Government.

Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South) : My hon. and learned Friend will have retired by then.

Mr. Miscampbell : It may be that if the money does not come from the Government, others will retire as well.

Mr. Dobson : Although King's Cross station is in my constituency, I have always believed that it was right to have the Eurostation at King's Cross. However, I am extremely dubious about the underground proposals that are before us. If British Rail were confident in its assertion that it can deliver an adequate service to the north through its proposals, why did it advise the original promoter of the Bill not to accept my instruction to the Committee that it should assure itself that this proposal would guarantee a fast, frequent and reliable service to the north and Scotland?

Mr. Miscampbell : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I shall not take up the content of it, because I am not in a position to comment on the burning constituency problems of the hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). We all, of course, understand the arguments that

Column 699

they advance, but surely an overall decision must be taken. I accept that that will cause great trouble in Islington, and on that basis there may be potent arguments for an overground or underground system. It is not for me to interpose my views on that matter at this moment. I am merely saying that we need the development.

The truth is that Stratford is no substitute for King's Cross. Indeed, it can be only an adjunct to it. At the end of the day, it is King's Cross that will let us through into the entire network. It is surely relevant to embrace in our consideration the area 50 miles up country and areas beyond all the way up to Glasgow. It is relevant also to consider what has happened in the north of England over the years. For example, about 100 years ago Liverpool was as large a port as New York, and had a far better dock system. In the context of the Bill, I am not all that fussed about passengers. After all, passengers can put themselves on a travolator, if necessary. I am more interested in the fact that the high-speed link will extend from King's Cross to both sides of the country, where millions live. It will extend to the manufacturing heart of the country. I return to Liverpool, which is the first western port. It will never return to its days of glory, but I feel that it would double, treble or perhaps even quadruple its present throughput if it were known that freight could be handled more efficiently at the docks. The problems with Liverpool have been largely cured and the complaints have been met. Liverpool is all right in its docklands ; it is not too bad at all.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : There is the dock labour board.

Mr. Miscampbell : I shall not argue that matter now. I merely say that Liverpool is able to take its chance internationally. If the goods came into Liverpool and were able to enter the system by means of high- speed lorries, there would be beneficial consequences for us all. As I have said, there would be a transformation of the area 50 miles north of London. That is what we should be considering. 8.32 pm

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford) : I shall be brief because I know that others wish to speak. I support the carry-over motion. I appreciate the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and I congratulate him on the way in which he has argued the interests of his constituents. I am sure that he will not be surprised, however, if I take a different view.

We must consider the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury along with the interests of many other people. Whenever there is a controversial development we find that there are many who want it, but not in their back yards. That is often the position in my constituency, and I am sure that many hon. Members have shared the experience.

King's Cross must be London's second international passenger terminal, but construction there is not yet secure because of the decision to route the high-speed rail link via Stratford. I am sure that the entire House appreciates that. It is crucial that the Bill continues on its way if we are to enable the development at King's Cross to take place.

What is the importance of King's Cross? It will be a nationally important facility for international passenger

Column 700

services to the north of England, to regions beyond London and to London itself. I shall quote some information that has been sent to Members representing northern areas over the past few days by the North of England Regional Consortium, which states :

"King's Cross will be the key terminal to link the North of England to the Channel Tunnel, allowing international trains to run directly along the Key Main lines beyond London.

King's Cross will provide an excellent interchange for passengers from the North of England, the Midlands, Scotland, Wales and Ireland wishing to catch high-frequency London Channel Tunnel trains. King's Cross could be operational for significantly faster Channel Tunnel services providing a much-needed north-south link (via Thameslink line) as soon as the terminal is constructed--it does not have to wait for the HSRL to be built."

That is extremely important in this context. The consortium continues :

"King's Cross could be implemented with minimum delay because powers for its construction are being dealt with now.

King's Cross will provide excellent access to London itself." In October, when the Government announced their decision on the high-speed rail link route, the British Rail-preferred route direct to King's Cross--the best for the north--was rejected in favour of a longer route via Stratford. All of us in the north were disappointed when that decision was made, but that is what happened. The announcement committed the high-speed rail link to terminate at King's Cross. On that basis, the passage of the Bill is the immediate test of the Government's commitment to secure a terminal development at King's Cross. We hope that the Government are sincere and that they intend pushing forward the Bill, which will meet channel tunnel demands.

The consortium believes that notwithstanding the commitment the Government's decision creates a real risk that the high-speed rail link will terminate at Stratford, and that because of the extra costs involved the project at King's Cross will never be built. To prevent that happening, three main objectives must be achieved. First, I take up one of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), which the consortium puts in this way :

"King's Cross international must be developed at the earliest possible opportunity. The Bill does not need alteration in view of the HSRL route decision and should now receive a swift and uncontroversial passage through its remaining stages."

I sincerely hope that it will. The consortium continues : "Public money should be put into the King's Cross to Stratford line because this connection is of national strategic significance, recognising that from a commercial point of view the private sector cannot be expected to share the objective of connecting the HSRL to the rest of the UK network."

It is essential that public money is forthcoming.

I shall continue to quote the recommendations of the consortium. The next paragraph reads :

"Construction of the HSRL should begin at both ends, working towards the same time scale, so the link operates from day one of its completion from King's Cross. The chosen route is expected to cost £750 million more than the BR route and, considering that the original BR funding package of last year was rejected because it did not provide an adequate commercial return for the private sector and for financial reasons alone, is a severe threat to the Stratford to King's Cross Link."

It is British Rail's view that the link will be needed by 1998, and the Government's announcement suggests a

Column 701

possible delay until the year 2005. Early high-speed rail link construction will ease congestion on existing lines while providing much-needed capacity.

Rail plans for Stratford should be made clear, if there are any. Any passenger facilities at Stratford must not dilute the full development of the King's Cross terminal project as proposed. Likewise, any freight facility at Stratford must not undermine the proposed development of freight facilities in the north. That is a factor which concerns me. In the areas that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton represent, there is delay at a freight station because a planning application has been called in by the Secretary of State. If a Berne gauge high-speed rail link capable of carrying freight to Stratford is proposed, northern firms will use road transport to Stratford--causing further congestion and environmental damage. The full impact of such a proposal on the rest of the United Kingdom must be considered, must be evaluated.

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe) : My hon. Friend spoke cogently and with due emphasis about the importance of the evidence put to the House by the North of England Regional Consortium. He will be aware of my close connections with that organisation since its inception. My hon. Friend has worked hard to stress to right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House how important it is to listen to the authentic voice of the north of England. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that the interests of the north are bound up with the Bill's success. It is a test of representativeness--as to whether, if one comes from the north, one backs the Bill.

Mr. Lofthouse : I agree with my right hon. Friend. Some northern areas are depending on the King's Cross development. Certain areas of Yorkshire have been devastated by the decline of the mining industry, and hope to attract alternative manufacturing industry. Their success may depend on the King's Cross development.

Opposition to the Bill runs counter to the objectives of the main political parties. The route decision has already caused longer journey times between the north and continental Europe, additional costs to the high-speed rail link, and further delay and uncertainty. Before that decision was made, proponents of the Stratford scheme argued for further development King's Cross as well as at Stratford. They must not now be allowed to argue that there is no alternative. We all recall the argument that Stratford was not an alternative to King's Cross. Having heard some of tonight's speeches, I hope that some people do not have it in mind that the King's Cross development should not go forward and that the main development should be at Stratford.

8.41 pm

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman) : Perhaps it would be convenient if I addressed the House very briefly at this point. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on the manner in which he presented his motion and spoke to it so eloquently. The Government support the revival motion, and I find myself in agreement with many of

Column 702

tonight's speeches about the importance of King's Cross and of the links, via not only the east and west coast but the midland main lines to the north of England.

I will comment briefly on five points that, although they do not directly affect the Bill, are relevant to the revival motion. As to the Commission's comments on the environmental assessment procedure, I confirm that the Government and British Rail do not seek in any way to circumvent the Community's requirements in terms of preparing a full environmental assessment. That applies not only to that stretch of the line for the new high-speed rail link between Detling and King's Cross that is under way-- British Rail has already completed the work from Detling to Folkestone--but to the work on King's Cross station itself. There is no intention in any way to frustrate or to circumvent the rules. They are clearly understood within the whole Community, and British Rail and London Transport will honour them. I agree with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in his reference to the implications of a station at King's Cross being opened before a high-speed rail link is completed and opened. That matter is for British Rail, but it ought to be possible for trains to run-- instead of via the west London line--on Thameslink, through King's Cross, and on to the north.

That would require engineering work not only in the tunnel but in south London, but it should be possible in railway terms. If the station is ready before the rail link, that would bring an extra benefit.

The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) referred to the London Underground, and he is right to say that the low-level interchange work is the subject of a separate Bill. I visited those works myself last Friday. However, the major part of London Underground's works at King's Cross are contained in, and depend on, the passage of the Bill before the House. They concern the widening and enlargement of the ticket hall, which is extremely crowded. Even London Underground's low-level interchange work will not solve that particular problem. That is another reason for reviving the passage of the Bill.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell), who is temporarily absent from the Chamber, and several other hon. Members alluded to the scheme's funding. The Government have no specific proposal before them, but I confirm that it will be an extremely expensive project. It will include at least three elements of funding. The first is that portion due for the improvements to London Underground, which will be expensive ; I have referred already to the larger ticket hall at King's Cross. Secondly, there will be improvements to Network SouthEast's Thameslink services. Anyone who has visited the Thameslink station at King's Cross knows that it is wholly inadequate. The platforms are small, and the tunnel is too narrow to take intercapital, channel tunnel trains, and is rather winding.

Network SouthEast will gain some benefit, so our investment appaisal for that portion of the work will follow the normal procedure in respect of new Network SouthEast investment. We will take into account cost-benefit appraisal techniques in assessing Network SouthEast's advantages, the channel tunnel services, and InterCity services. Several different elements of the heavy and underground railway combine in the project, so it will be difficult to appraise. Planning permissions will be

Column 703

needed from Parliament, so we will have a clearer idea of what is feasible and possible. The Government will then give applications urgent consideration.

We are providing British Rail with sufficient funds to ensure that the necessary design and other work necessary to keep the project properly planned and prepared can be undertaken.

Mr. Dobson : Can the Minister throw any light on what is meant by British Rail's reference to a dedicated link between King's Cross and Euston stations? The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) spoke of a dedicated road, but none exists. The only road between Euston and King's Cross stations is Euston road, which is dedicated to traffic. An underground travolator would have to negotiate the six underground storeys of the British Library, and five tube lines between the two stations. There are no British Rail-owned roads that could contribute in any way to a dedicated connection between the two stations. Any such line would have to be underground, at ground level, or overground--but British Rail has not come up with any real answers.

Mr. Freeman : I share to a certain extent the hon. Gentleman's interest in how passengers are to travel between Euston and King's Cross. We must wait to see whether British Rail has in mind an elevated pathway, or something at ground level. Despite the hon. Gentleman's scepticism about the aspect, he must concede that it does not in any way invalidate the importance of a brand new station at King's Cross and St. Pancras--or the fact that those coming down the west coast main line will--through the benefit of the chord for which British Rail is seeking permission in the British Rail (No. 3) Bill--find that their trains can run into King's Cross station. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras makes a valid point, and I am not seeking to make light of it. However, the answer to his question--which is in the gift of British Rail, not me--does not in any way invalidate the Bill's importance and significance.

Mr. Dobson : The whole route--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. I do not believe that the Minister wants to give way.

Mr. Freeman : I would like to make my fifth and final point, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will again catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The question of the rail link was raised by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse). My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport never said that he does not anticipate the completion of work on any high-speed rail link to be in 2005, or that construction will not begin before the year 2000. That was a misunderstanding. My right hon. and learned Friend was referring to the time when capacity would run out on Southern region, according to British Rail. What we have said is that if construction takes five years and planning permission and further work on the environmental assessment of the rail link takes three, the rail link cannot be completed before the end of the decade. We have also said that we want the private sector to be involved as much as possible in the financing of it.

The Wakefield terminal was not mentioned. I understand that the matter is subject to inquiry, so I am unable to comment, but the nine channel tunnel freight

Column 704

terminals are extremely important to British Rail. Stratford, if it were the terminus of a Berne gauge railway, could not possibly be a substitute for them. They are needed to carry freight from the regions, which are also important in passenger terms.

Mr. O'Brien : Will the Minister give us a commitment that public funds will be made available to ensure that the high-speed link from Stratford to King's Cross goes ahead without any hitches or disappointments? Will he also tell us whether the two environmental assessments will be dealt with together or separately?

Mr. Freeman : We have made it plain that we do not favour a high- speed rail link that terminates at Stratford. We want the link to run through Stratford, with a station to take trains on to King's Cross. There is no question of passengers being stranded at Stratford--although Stratford is, of course, an important interchange, which will become more important as the years go by. The necessary links are within London--on crossrail, the Jubilee line and the docklands light railway.

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley should respond to the question about environmental assessments. As I have said, however, both British Rail and London Regional Transport will comply with both the letter and the spirit of Community law, and will appreciate that the implications of the King's Cross assessment and those of the rail link assessment are inter-related.

Mr. Tredinnick : Does my hon. Friend plan to say anything about the burning issue of the electrification of the midland main line, which is of great concern to his constituents, among others? He has already written to me, and I am grateful to him for that ; but can he now say whether the decongestion benefit that might result from electrification--which was referred to by the midland main line consortium--has any bearing on his current thinking? The question is very pertinent to the spur line link, which is mentioned in the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I think that the Minister will need some ingenuity if he is to deal with that question while remaining in order.

Mr. Freeman : I appreciate that my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) have long been interested in the prospect of the electrification of the midland main line, but I do not think that it is directly relevant to the Bill. I assure my hon. Friends that I will write to them. By the time that the high-speed rail link is completed and is running into King's Cross--the end of the decade--British Rail may well have electrified the line, in which event the trains will run through not only my constituency, but the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth.

I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support the revival motion.

8.54 pm

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East) : We are discussing a revival motion. The principles of the Bill were agreed on Second Reading, and it was discussed in detail in Committee. If the House passes the motion, amendments made in Committee can be discussed further, and, no doubt, the Bill will be given a Third Reading.

Column 705

There is a degree of cross-party support for the Bill--and, of course, some cross-party opposition. The scheme will benefit domestic as well as international passengers. It is fair to mention the benefits that will be experienced by Londoners, and those living and commuting in the south of England. For example, the longer platforms at King's Cross will allow longer trains to be run, which will relieve the overcrowding problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has pointed out that the platforms were originally not long enough to accommodate the trains that are now proposed. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) may think, I do not set myself up as an apologist for British Rail ; BR did not pay me very well in the days when I worked for it, and now that it does not pay me at all I certainly do not intend to rush to its defence. However, I liked BR's rejoinder--that the trains were longer than originally planned because of the requirements of Customs and immigration in regard to drink. My hon. Friend sniggers. I remind him that a good half coach may be taken up by such provisions, and that, regardless of whether they are essential, they will be included in the through trains if and when they are introduced.

Mr. Dobson : That was not the reason given by the Committee, in three successive sittings. It argued that the platforms were long enough on the ground of measurements that had already been made.

Mr. Snape : I leave the House to decide whether the platforms were too short or the trains too long. Certainly British Rail has advanced a number of interesting explanations for the problem.

The scheme also authorises a link from the east coast main line into St. Pancras to take additional Network SouthEast trains from the Great Northern Line, as well as high-speed trains running between St. Pancras and the Bounds Green depot. It allows an enlargement of the underground station to meet the recommendations of the Fennell report ; and, perhaps most important, it allows the extension of the Thameslink network. I hope that all of us who take an interest in railway matters will see the significance of that.

At present, the northern and southern railways, and those running through London, are constrained by capacity problems. The new station would allow two 12-car Thameslink platforms to replace the present cramped eight-car King's Cross Thameslink station, to which the Minister of State has just referred. Two weeks ago I visited that station for the first time. The fact that so many additional trains could go from Peterborough, Huntingdon, King's Lynn and Cambridge in the north to-- [Interruption.] In the case of Huntingdon, I am not sure whether there would be cut-price fares on that line to Thameslink, but that is one of the places where services would be improved by the scheme. Trains would run through to many points in the south. The scheme would also allow more cross-London local services to serve other inner London areas.

In a speech that was as relevant as it was comprehensive my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that he thought that Stratford was a suitable alternative terminus. I made my disagreement plain during

Column 706

my hon. Friend's speech. I do so again now. It is inconceivable that through passenger trains could run to Birmingham, or to other places in the midlands and the north, via Stratford. My hon. Friend mentioned the east-west crossrail and suggested that that would be the way for our constituents to complete their journeys. The purpose of the east-west crossrail is the alleviation of congestion on the underground and on roads in London. It is neither fair nor reasonable for my hon. Friend to suggest to those of us who represent constituencies north of London that our constituents should leave a trans-Europe train at Stratford and make their way, via the east-west crossrail, to the London terminus from which they wish to continue their journey. That is hardly the benefit that many of us envisaged when we supported the channel tunnel project.

Mr. Chris Smith : The east-west crossrail provides the potential for direct links from Stratford through to Paddington, Reading, Bristol, Cardiff and the west. That is not possible from King's Cross. If we were to accept my hon. Friend's argument and agreed that King's Cross should be a location for channel tunnel traffic because of its potential for links to the north, does he agree that it would not necessarily have to be this exact scheme at King's Cross? Does he agree that it is not the only possible option for a terminus there?

Mr. Snape : This is the only scheme that is before us. I have been in this place long enough to know that if one wants to knock a project on the head one merely produces on the back of an envelope--or, in the case of British Rail, through tracing paper on the kitchen table--a scheme that guarantees that there will be years of controversy to follow. Unacceptable though this scheme may, in part, be to my hon. Friend, it is the only one that provides us with any reasonable degree of security that there will be any service at all north of London after 1993 when the channel tunnel opens.

Sir John Farr (Harborough) : The hon. Gentleman is busily telling the House what we ought to be doing. Can he tell the House what he would do, if he were in Government, about electrifying the midland main line north of London?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I have to tell the hon. Member, as I said to the Minister for Public Transport, that he will find if very difficult to keep in order in answering that question.

Mr. Snape : In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I may use the same ingenuity as did the Minister for Public Transport. It is important that the hon. Gentleman's constituents and all the people who live alongside the midland main line should benefit from the project. I agree that they could best do so through electrification. Given, however, that all the signalling on the midland main line would need to be immunised prior to electrification and that all British Rail's signalling resources appear to be devoted to improving boat train routes Nos 1 and 2 in the south of England, we are still some way off that happy time when electrification could take place. I support the hon. Gentleman's demand, but it does not look as though electrification could take place without detailed preliminary work that would take a considerable time to complete.

Proper and direct Government involvement from the first day would have been the ideal solution in the case of

Column 707

this vexed project. This is the greatest civil engineering project in the United Kingdom this century. It is, I am sad to say, typical of the Government that every detailed question that is put to Ministers receives virtually the same answer--"these are matters for British Rail." They shuffle off responsibility and deprive the people whom they blame of the resources to do the job. That makes many of us despair of the Government and their transport policy--to dignify the present shambles with such a name. It is no good the Minister shaking his head. He is as guilty as other Ministers. We would not be in the current mess if the Government had accepted their responsibilities from day one.

Although the motion is far from ideal, it is the only way forward. Responsibility for the mess should be placed fairly and squarely on transport Ministers and on the mandarins and Ministers at the Treasury who work the glove puppets to whom all too often one listens and who have got this country's transport infrastructure into the mess that it is in today-- a mess that only the election of a Labour Government will go some way to turning around.

9.5 pm

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent) : I shall be very brief.

The last time that I spoke in the House, I said that, although I had not always been as charitable towards British Rail as I could be, the time had come to pass on beyond my complaints and to bury the hatchet. Hansard recorded that without the word "beyond", so it appeared as to pass on complaints about British Rail. We must make as positive a contribution as we can. In that spirit, I suggest that if it could come to an accommodation with the British Library for a travolator to pass through the basement, there would be amazing possibilities for improving the literacy of a whole number of passengers since the speed at which the train would be allowed to proceed would be unquestionably quite slow.

Since the Bill was last before the House, we have had several changes. If we confine ourselves to the high-speed rail link alone, we find that whereas before it was not to be of European gauge it is now to be of UIC gauge. Before, it was lamentable to imagine that it would go to Stratford ; now, it is going to Stratford. Before, as the former Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) said, it was highly unlikely that freight would use the new line ; now, it is to be worked up for freight--changes that I greatly welcome and are absolutely sound. I congratulate the Government on having been persuaded, after a great deal of time, that we were not as daft as we appeared.

Mr. Dobson : All that has happened is that it has been decided that the route will not go through south London ; no firm decision has been made that it will go to Stratford or anywhere else.

Mr. Rowe : My understanding is that there is a firm decision that it is going to Stratford. How it will get there is as opaque as it always has been.

That brings me to another point that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who temporarily is not in the Chamber, made about the Baxter scheme for King's Cross. He said that it has no less impact on houses, buildings and the environment than the present scheme. My understanding of the Baxter scheme is that, apart from anything else, it would have preserved the Great Northern

Column 708

hotel. Whether that is germane or not, if that is so, it shows clearly one of British Rail's continuing weaknesses-- that it has an extraordinary inability to count the number of buildings that will be affected or to identify them. British Rail persuaded the Government that a change to the safeguarded part of the route would not have any consequences for any listed building. It is wrong. If the final freight route is one of a number of highly likely routes, the change required in the corridor passing through my constituency will directly affect a listed building. If British Rail wishes to carry conviction in this place, it must be much more accurate.

We have been informed that the project will cost £1.4 billion. The new high-speed rail link--we are not sure where it will go--will cost about £4.2 billion for 55 miles of new line. I understand that the Germans can build a new railway for about £20 million a mile. My point is that, even after all this time, there is little certainty about any of British Rail's cost predictions. When there is, the projects seem to be very expensive. There should be a much closer look at the costs, both of the King's Cross terminal and of the line to it.

Given the fluid situation and the fact that nothing is the same as when the Bill was first presented, we should compare the costs of the present scheme with those that Kent, for example, will have to pay. There is a danger that there will be no international station at Ashford, which would be absurd. I took some comfort from my hon. Friend the Minister when he said that it was manifestly a benefit to have a station before a line was built. That is true for Ashford as for King's Cross.

My hon. Friend the Minister could do a lot worse than turn British Rail's attention to the new buildings that Kent county council's education authority has commissioned for schools. Such buildings have an estimated life of 60 to 70 years, but they can easily be uprooted and moved elsewhere. They can be clad so that they fit into almost any environment. I was impressed by the quality of those buildings and by the fact that they can be moved. Given that British Rail is always uncertain about where its stations will be, it may find that buildings that can be moved around the country are of great benefit.

Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. He makes an extremely good point about fluidity with regard to the channel tunnel rail link and particularly the need for the King's Cross terminal. Would not British Rail be better served investing money in the appalling service that it provides in north Kent which causes our constituents such inconvenience and discomfort? Our constituents have been asked to pay about 8 per cent. more for their season tickets next year, taking the cost of, for example, a Chatham ticket to more than £1,700. They have been told that they must invest for the future--for what future, that of King's Cross or that of the north Kent line?

Next Section

Home Page