House of Commons Hansard Debates for 28 Jan 1992

Column 884

us look specifically at what British Rail proposes--or what the present owners propose--at the time when the proposals are presented."

British Rail does not need the powers that it seeks in the Bill to build its station. We should ensure that such matters as the closure of Omega place are decided on their merits, at the appropriate time, rather than being dealt with now, on a permanent basis, when British Rail requires only a temporary closure to carry out its work. Amendment No. 11 relates to other working sites, which are not owned by Mr. Stuckey to the same extent. Schedule 4 concerns a large area of land in both Camden and Islington, towards the north of the site. Here again we confront the problem referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). The schedule would enable that piece of land to be used for the provision of a construction site, and

"thereafter for the general purposes of the Board."

Most of the land should be returned to its former owners, under the Great Northern Railways Act of 1846, if it ceases to be used for railway purposes.

The Camden land is currently the subject of litigation by its former owners, the St. Bartholomew's hospital trustees. I shall not say too much about that, because the matter is sub judice ; suffice it to say that the trustees are arguing powerfully that the land which, under the 1846 Act, ought to be returned to them, should not end up in the hands of British Rail if British Rail has no specific railway purpose in mind for it. They feel that that principle ought to apply when land is needed for construction purposes, but is not required when the construction is over.

According to the book of reference attached to the 1846 Act, the equivalent land in Islington used to be owned by a gentleman called Mr. Leigh Keck. Mr. Keck's descendants, or assignees, may be interested in getting their land back, just as the St. Bartholomew's trustees are interested in getting theirs back. Amendment No. 11 would resolve all those problems by ensuring that working sites that are required for works but not for the station that will subsequently be built should be returned to their freeholders, or to the descendants of the original owners.

Amendment No. 4 seeks to ensure that the Camley street natural park is reinstated within six months of the completion of the works that will destroy it. The park was created, as a superb natural ecological environment, by the Greater London Council, and has been much appreciated by many hundreds of local school children. It has been used as an educational resource by both Camden and Islington education authorities. The park, which is located beside the canal, will be destroyed if the Bill is enacted. British Rail intends to build a series of railway tracks there.

I should be fair to British Rail : it has consistently said that the park will subsequently be reinstated. That will be difficult ; it is impossible to develop a fragile ecological environment overnight. British Rail, however, claims that it may even make the park a little bigger.

My amendment effectively says to British Rail, "Once you no longer need the area for the works, the Camley street park must be reinstated immediately". I do not want British Rail to drag its feet, feeling--when the station is completed and the railway lines are in place, and it is time to turn to the property development that London Regeneration may then be beginning to undertake--that office blocks come first and Camley street comes last.

Column 885

I want Camley street to come first ; I want to ensure that that precious educational and environmental resource is restored at the first opportunity for the benefit of local children. I hope that, even if the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) will not accept amendment No. 4, he will give a firm commitment that British Rail will embark immediately on the job of reinstating Camley street once the land is no longer required for works.

Amendment No. 5 concerns a hostel for the homeless, now located at 13-17 Caledonian road. The hostel was opened in May last year by the Minister for Housing and Planning, with a considerable fanfare of trumpets. The local newspaper was very positive about the affair. It interviewed a young woman called Tracy Atkinson, who was being housed in the hostel. The report stated :

"Housing minister George Young, opening the 33-bed hostel in Caledonian Road on Thursday last week, was shown Tracy's room and heard first hand how she"--

oh, I beg the House's pardon--Tracy Atkinson is a man, not a woman-- "how he had ended up there."

The point is that that hostel for the homeless was created with assistance from the Church housing association and was sponsored by the Government and opened by the Minister only seven or eight months ago, yet it is one of the properties affected by the Bill. As soon as British Rail gets permission to start compulsorily purchasing and demolishing property, the hostel will be one of the properties to go. At most, the hostel will have had a life of two years or perhaps three years if it is lucky. Surely provision for homeless people should not be made on the basis that a facility will be up and running for only two or three years. My amendment does not seek to stop it being knocked down, because that would fundamentally breach the Bill, but it seeks to ensure that once the work is finished a hostel for the homeless will be recreated by British Rail.

British Rail will have the necessary land because it will have the land on top of the station box which it will try to redevelop. It will also have all the railway land behind King's Cross and St. Pancras stations which London Regeneration is likely to develop and all the land that it is taking for construction purposes but which it will not need for the station. Therefore, British Rail will have the land and the amendment would ensure that a hostel for the homeless would be recreated in any subsequent development undertaken by British Rail.

Amendment No. 3 seeks to delete from the land used by the promoters what is known as the lighthouse block. Hon. Members who frequently go through King's Cross will know that the lighthouse block is the building at the apex of the triangle as one faces along the Euston road towards Pentonville road with King's Cross on the left. The building immediately in front of one at the apex of the triangle has a structure on top of it which is reminiscent of a lighthouse, and it has always been known as the lighthouse block.

The triangular block of which the lighthouse is the apex is bounded by Grays Inn road, Pentonville road and King's Cross bridge just to the east of King's Cross station. Although it is included in the Bill, British Rail announced on the first day of the Committee hearings--on 22 June 1989--that it was not needed for any of the work included in the Bill. British Rail is saying--and has been saying for the past two years--that it does not need to take the

Column 886

lighthouse block. In that case, the promoters should be able to accept my amendment immediately, because it seeks only to delete that block from the Bill.

This detailed series of amendments relates to specific pieces of land which British Rail may in some instances require temporarily but not subsequently. In the case of the lighthouse block, it is land that it does not require at all. Camley street and the hostel for the homeless are important social facilities on existing property and pieces of land in the area which I seek to have reinstated or recreated by British Rail as rapidly as possible after it has completed its works. Those are reasonable points, and I hope that they will receive a reasonable response from the Bill's sponsor. 8.45 pm

Mr. Waller : I shall deal with the amendments in the order chosen by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). The promoters are not able to accept amendment No. 12. Its effect would be to prevent the British Railways Board from permanently acquiring the major portion of an area of land which is known locally as the coach station block, and it would limit the board's powers to acquire the block temporarily as a construction site.

The coach station is not required by the British Railways Board merely as a construction site. The proposed low-level station and its approach tracks from the south-east will be located on or under the block and, therefore, the board requires permanently to acquire and retain the freehold of the block to enable the construction and maintenance of the works so that the block will become operational land over which the board will retain permanent access and control. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) drew what I considered a spurious comparison with the Crichel Down case, but, as he will know, in that case the land was not used for the purposes for which it was acquired, and the scandal arose because, in the meantime, its price had inflated considerably and the original owner did not benefit. In this case, of course, the land will definitely be used and is required not for property development but for the railway works themselves.

If the amendment were accepted, it would create significant difficulties, because it includes all the properties in the coach station block except four in the row of shops facing Caledonian road, which are omitted for some unaccountable reason known only to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. Perhaps he will explain why the owners of those properties should not also enjoy the benefit of his proposed amendment. There seems to be a defect in the drafting of the amendment, which I think, would ensure a result entirely contrary to that which he intends.

Mr. Cryer : Is the hon. Gentleman saying that my analogy with the Crichel Down case is mistaken because, in this instance, British Rail has no intention of undertaking any development after the purchase of the land, the use of it as a construction site and its restoration as there will be a need for some of the land--in whole or in part--to be in operational use underneath to allow for the approach of other tracks? If so, is he also saying that, if British Rail gets hold of land which is superfluous to requirements for construction purposes, it would be

Column 887

parallel to the Crichel Down case if British Rail then obtained the enhanced value of the land and retained it for entirely different purposes?

Mr. Waller : No, I am saying that British Rail would not be seeking to acquire the land for its temporary or permanent purposes if it were not for the railway development work that it intends to carry out. There is no comparison with the Crichel Down case, which involved different issues and in which the land was not used at all, but in which the original owner did not benefit.

I must disappoint the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury by saying that amendment No. 2 cannot be accepted. It would take from the Bill the power permanently to stop up Omega place between points X8 and X9 as shown on the deposited plans. It is considered that Omega place is too narrow and is located too near Pentonville road to be capable of being used as a means of access to the coach station block following the construction of the works, and that it must therefore be stopped up permanently. Indeed, the Department of Transport King's Cross highways improvement scheme has been prepared on the basis that Omega place will remain stopped up and that access to the coach station block will instead be via Northdown street. Amendment No. 11, too, is unacceptable. It relates to properties in Camden forming part of the railway lands at King's Cross that are owned by the British Railways Board and are occupied partly by the board and partly by the operators of concrete mixing plant and other industrial users. Schedule 4 to the Bill will enable these properties to be used for the provision of a construction site and, therefore, for the general purposes of the board. This amendment would revise that provision so that it would read :

"For the provision of a construction site and thereafter to be returned to the freeholder."

But the amendment is misconceived, since all these properties are already in the ownership of the board. This is another point that the hon. Gentleman seems to have neglected to check before tabling his amendment.

Amendment No. 4 would require the British Railways Board to reinstate the Camley street natural park in its present position after completion of the relevant works. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the board accepts the importance of preserving this facility, and detailed discussions between the board, the London Wildlife Trust and the London borough of Camden have been taking place over a long period. It is expected that a satisfactory agreement will be reached between the board, the trust and the borough with respect to the natural park. This will cover a number of matters, including the park's resiting during and after completion of the works. As was said during a previous debate, it is intended that, during the construction work, there will be a small natural park. This will ensure an element of continuity, which would otherwise be lost. The amendment is inappropriate in that, its limitations would impose too simplistic a solution on a complex problem--a solution that would not entirely meet the wishes of any of the parties most closely concerned with these sensitive issues.

Mr. Chris Smith : I should like to put two questions to the hon. Gentleman. First, he says that there are proposals for the re-creation of Camley street to a limited extent during the course of the works. Is that the project in respect of which British Rail very recently submitted an

Column 888

application for planning permission to knock down a building in Goods way, in the Regent's canal conservation area, to make way for a car park and study centre? If that is indeed the case, it is a very small site, which in no way represents a replacement, even on a temporary basis, for Camley street.

Secondly, in the discussions with Camden and the London Wildlife Trust, has any account been taken of the time scale for the re-creation of Camley street on a permanent basis after the work has been done? It is time scale that my amendment seeks most actively to promote.

Mr. Waller : The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes. The temporary park is indeed related to the application to which he has referred. I do not think I used the word "replacement". It is not intended that that temporary facility should be an adequate replacement. That is why the promoters propose replacing the existing natural park with a rather larger one in a slightly altered position.

The existing park came into existence very quickly. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the fragile ecological environment. Anyone who has examined the site of the Camley street natural park will be aware that the environment in which it developed was not propitious so far as the intentions of the people who devised it were concerned. In many ways, it is a tribute to their imagination that it came into existence, and the board is certainly determined that there should be developed something that is just as much an asset to the area and to the schoolchildren who visit it.

It is not possible at this stage to give an exact time scale, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the board is determined that the facility that comes into existence following completion of the works will be at least as good as that which currently exists. In fact, because it is larger, it will be ecologically suitable for a wider variety of species. I do not believe that the people of the locality will be disappointed with the park that they are ultimately able to enjoy. The hon. Gentleman's narrow amendment does not really accord with the wishes of those parties most closely concerned with these issues, and I do not believe that they would necessarily support the amendment in its present form.

I am afraid that I am unable, on behalf of the promoters, to accept amendment No. 5, which relates to a building known as 13-17 Caledonian road, Islington, which is owned by a finance company, Gleniffer Finance Corporation Ltd. When the Bill was deposited, that building was vacant, and it will be demolished for the purposes of the works. Pending demolition, the owners made arrangements to enable the building to be used as temporary residential accommodation for homeless persons, but that temporary use will cease on demolition. I submit that it would be unreasonable to require the board to provide on that site a permanent hostel for homeless persons. In any event, there must be doubt as to whether this is a suitable place for such a hostel. The suggestion that it is suitable is not reflected in the land uses contained in the planning brief recently approved by the Islington council.

Mr. Cryer : Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government are seriously in error in having as their flagship the conquest of homelessness in London and the removal of some of the cardboard cities? Have we simply

Column 889

had a plaster to cover the terrible policies that resulted in the creation of cardboard cities in London and other major urban areas? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government are mistaken in undertaking the work at this site?

Mr. Waller : The task of providing accommodation for homeless people in London is a vital one. What I am saying is that it is not a task for the British Railways Board. Arrangements were made to ensure that this building would not stand empty during the period of construction. However, that concession--if I may call it a concession--was not intended to suggest that there should be a permanent requirement on the board to provide a hostel for homeless people. That is a desirable objective, but one to be addressed by other agencies.

I am happy to say that amendment No. 3 is acceptable. It would disapply the powers of compulsory purchase which would otherwise apply to the properties referred to in the Select Committee proceedings as the island triangular block--the so-called lighthouse block. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury knows, since the Bill was deposited, the design for the works has been further refined, and the promoters are now satisfied that they will not need to purchase compulsorily any property in the island triangular block. The promoters are therefore prepared to accept amendment No. 3.

9 pm

Mr. Chris Smith : Before turning to the welcome news about amendment No. 3, I shall comment briefly on the other amendments. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) castigated me in relation to amendment No. 11 for seeming to be unaware that some of the land to which the amendment referred and which it required to be returned to the freeholder was at present in British Rail ownership. I was, of course, aware of that.

The point that I sought to make through the amendment was that the provisions of the Great Northern Railways Act of 1846 have still not been fully resolved in relation to those portions of land. We shall shortly discuss the specific provisions of the 1846 Act and the rights of reversion. It is possible that, if the land ceases to be required for railway purposes, under the provisions of the 1846 Act, it immediately has to leave the hands of British Rail and be returned to the original owners. I was conscious of that point, and that is why the amendment is drafted in its present form.

I am disappointed to hear that it is not possible to give a time scale for the replacement of Camley street natural park. We all hope that, when it is replaced, Camley street will be bigger and better, and even more of an educational resource for local children and local people than the existing natural park is. There is a lot of local concern about how rapidly, or slowly, that will happen.

The purpose of amendment No. 4 was to spur British Rail on to say that Camley street must be replaced as quickly as possible, rather than have the matter dragged out until the very end of any development on the railway land. That is a danger, because Camley street will not be profitable for BR. It is an obligation that BR will have to undertake for the benefit of the community. I hope that British Rail will not say that, because the natural park is a community benefit and because the board will not reap

Column 890

a profit from it, it will wait for years before it recreates the park. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Keighley did not give a commitment about the time scale.

Mr. Gordon McMaster (Paisley, South) : Many of us from Scotland are keen that the Bill should make progress because of the benefits that it will bring to Scotland. However, as a supporter I say that I, too, am disappointed that there has not been a better commitment about Camley street natural park. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) well in his campaign because, although we support the Bill, I assure him that we also support Camley street natural park.

Mr. Smith : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he just said. His comment shows that, even among colleagues who strongly support the location of the new international station at King's Cross, there is concern about the impact on local people and on the local environment, and on the extremely valuable resource of Camley street natural park which was created by the Greater London council. On amendment No. 5, the hon. Member for Keighley said that it was not in the purview of BR to create permanent accommodation for homeless persons. If, as I suspect, the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that he believes that BR's purpose is fundamentally to run a railway, and to provide stations, trains and transport, I agree. It is not in the purview of BR to seek to make profit out of property speculation and property development.

If the hon. Member for Keighley is taking the attitude that he has taken on the question of any re-creation of a hostel for the homeless, I urge him to take precisely the same attitude on the future of the land referred to in amendments Nos. 2, 11 and 12, because the land and the property mentioned there are not required by British Rail for running a railway either. If British Rail is not in the business of providing hostels for the homeless, it should not be in the business of speculating on land which it will, in effect, have expropriated from the land's existing owners.

The basis of amendments Nos. 2, 11 and 12 is that, if British Rail does not require a particular piece of land once the station is completed--it has to have that land for access, construction or some other purpose while the work goes on but the purpose ceases once the station is completed--it should not be able to make a killing out of having compulsorily purchased that land in the first instance and then subsequently seeking to develop it. That is an important point of principle.

The House should protect the interests of existing owners rather than handing over land that British Rail does not need permanently. If BR needs the land temporarily, we should give it temporarily to BR in the Bill, but we should not allow BR to take permanently something that it does not need permanently.

Having said that, however, and having explained why I think that the hon. Member for Keighley and British Rail are wrong to seek the powers that my amendments would delete, there is good news on amendment No. 3. As the hon. Member for Keighley said, BR has said that it does not now require the lighthouse block. In that case, I hope that we can now proceed to vote on amendment No. 3 to ensure that that provision is indeed deleted from the Bill.

Column 891

You may be able to guide me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how this can be done under our procedures. Instead of voting on amendment No. 2, which I moved, I wish to ensure that we can put amendment No. 3 to a vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Does the hon. Member seek the leave of the House to withdraw his amendment No. 2?

Mr. Smith : I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20

Purchase of land

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Do I understand that amendment No. 3 is agreeable to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) speaking on behalf of the promoters of the Bill?

Mr. Waller : Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Amendment made : No. 3, in page 11, line 27, at end insert-- (5) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the Board or the Company to purchase or use the land in the London Borough of Camden numbered 88-101 on the deposited plans.'.-- [Mr. Chris Smith.]

Clause 28

Abolition of rights of reverter and pre-emption

Mr. Chris Smith : I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 17, line 14, leave out clause 28.

We touched on some of the issues relating to the amendment in our discussion on the last group of amendments. The amendment would delete clause 28 on the abolition of rights of reverter and pre-emption. The purpose of clause 28 is to abolish rights given to landowners in the 1840s and 1850s when King's Cross station and the Great Northern railway were created.

Pre-emption means the right to buy back land acquired under the Great Northern Railway Act of 1846, if and when it ceases to be used for railway purposes, and here is the real sting in the tail : pre-emption means the buying back of that land at the original purchase price. Hon. Members will immediately identify the importance of that particular right. The original purchase price was about £100 per acre and, if the land were now available to the original holder at such a price, it would constitute an extremely valuable asset. The reference to rights of reverter is a reference to the equivalent rights written into contracts for voluntary sale by at least one landowner ; so the principle in the case of both rights--pre-emption and reverter--is exactly the same. Those who owned the original land back in the 1850s, who either had the land compulsorily purchased by the railway company or sold it by voluntary agreement, should have the right to re-acquire it if it ceases to be used for railway purposes--and to do so at the original purchase price. British Rail does not require some of the land for railway purposes, and seeks, under clause 28, to override the provisions of the 1846 Act.

Two major organisations have come forward to claim their rights to the land referred to in the clause. Many other people and organisations owned land in the King's Cross station area in the 1850s, and there may well be substantial numbers of descendants of the original owners

Column 892

who, were they aware of their rights under the 1846 Act, would be extremely concerned to learn that clause 28 would remove those rights. We know of two organisations in precisely that position--the special trustees of St. Bartholomew's hospital and the Church Commissioners.

Both organisations have gone to court to prove and protect their rights. They won their case in the chancery division. British Rail appealed and judgment on that appeal is awaited, so the matter is, strictly, sub judice. It is generally believed that, whatever the outcome of the appeal, the matter is likely to go before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

British Rail wants to short-circuit that process. It is intent on abolishing the right of pre-emption and reverter and ensuring that, when any of the land is no longer required for railway purposes--it has used the land and no longer needs it once the works are completed--it can develop that land. For some years now, British Rail and the London Regeneration Consortium have been discussing the possibility of such development, which would be extremely valuable, although the current state of the property market--with 20 or 25 per cent. overcapacity in office space in London and surrounding areas--the package has become somewhat less financially attractive for British Rail and the developers. That is throwing into question some of the financial calculations that British Rail must have been making in relation to the King's Cross project.

The point is quite clear : British Rail wants to hang on to such land even though it no longer requires it to run a railway or a station, and to overturn rights which, for the past 150 years, have pertained to St. Bartholomew's and the Church Commissioners--and, for all we know, many other organisations and individuals. I do not think that it is right that British Rail should seek to overturn such long-standing rights. I do not think that it is right for British Rail to seek to expropriate property which it no longer needs for running a railway.

British Rail should be in the business of creating stations and running trains. BR should not be in the business of taking rights away from the descendants of previous owners of the land to enable BR to make a profit out of property development. That is what clause 28 would make possible. I believe that clause 28 should be removed from the Bill, and that is precisely what my amendment would do. 9.15 pm

Mr. Waller : If the amendment were accepted, it would remove from the Bill a power to be conferred on the British Railways Board to abolish certain rights of reverter and pre-emption that may exist over land specified in clause 28. The bodies that would be affected by the exercise of that power--the Church Commissioners, St. Bartholomew's hospital and the National Freight Corporation--would be suitably compensated. The matter is the subject of litigation between the board and those bodies. The parties are fully protected by the litigation, which, I submit, should be allowed to run its proper course. The question whether the clause should remain in the Bill may then be settled in the other place, when that litigation has been determined. Nothing could be achieved by our accepting the amendment.

Column 893

I hope that that answer will satisfy the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that any good purpose would be achieved by accepting the amendment, and I therefore have to disappoint him.

Mr. Chris Smith : With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the hon. Gentleman.

I must confess that I am as disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's response as I expected to be. I did not expect that British Rail would be prepared to give way on this rather important point. We all hope that the judicial process which is currently under way will take proper and fair cognisance of the rights of not just British Rail but the original owners of the land in question. But, if the hon. Gentleman is so convinced that the judicial process ought to decide this matter, there is no need for British Rail to have this clause in the Bill.

We hope that, when the Bill goes to another place, their Lordships will be mindful of the concern that several of us have expressed in the House about overriding the rights of pre-emption and reverter. It is a matter to which the Committee that considered the Bill referred and on which a number of hon. Members have consistently expressed concern. It is a matter which ought to be, and could be, decided by judicial process rather than by the inclusion of clause 28 in the Bill and I certainly hope that their Lordships will take note of these facts.

I am not convinced by what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I wish to put the matter to the House.

Question put and negatived.

Schedule 1

Descriptions of Works referred to in section 5 of this Act

Mr. Chris Smith : I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 20, line 50, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 21.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this we shall take the following amendments : No. 8, in page 22, leave out lines 28 to 33. No. 9, in schedule 2 page 23, leave out line 6.

No. 10, in schedule 3, page 24 leave out line 45.

Mr. Smith : These amendments are of a somewhat detailed nature and relate to some of the specific items of work which are included in the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 seek to delete works Nos. 01 and 014. Those works were proposed by London Underground Ltd. rather than British Rail. They relate entirely to work to the underground concourse at King's Cross, which was recommended in the Fennell report on the tragic fire at King's Cross underground station. Hon. Members will probably recall that some of my constituents died in that fire, as did some of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Firefighters from my constituency and his operated with amazing bravery in trying to ensure that the tragic loss of life was kept to a minimum. None of us needs to be reminded of the need to ensure that the proper safety works recommended by Fennell can be carried out.

Column 894

When London Underground came forward with proposals for works in connection with the Fennell proposals, and included them in the King's Cross Railways Bill, we did not object to them. We wanted to see them on the statute book as quickly as possible. London Underground, being more sensible than British Rail, saw its opportunity and published a separate Bill, the London Underground (King's Cross) Bill, which includes specifically works Nos. 01 and 014.

That Bill has gone through all its stages in this House, and is now under consideration in another place. I am pleased to have been able to assist in ensuring that it got through its procedures in this House quickly. It has leapfrogged the King's Cross Railways Bill and is ahead of it in the queue of private Bills. I hope that it will go through another place quickly, so that the works may be undertaken as soon as possible.

In those circumstances, it seems otiose, to say the least, to have works Nos. 01 and 014 still in the King's Cross Railways Bill. I hope that my amendment, which seeks to delete them, will be acceptable to the promoters of the Bill, because it is nonsense to include them when they are covered by another Bill which is already ahead of the King's Cross Railway Bill in the legislative programme.

Amendment No. 9 seeks to delete access point A8 in Railway street. That access point is redundant for British Rail. If it were used, it would have a severe impact on the residents of Balfe street, which is a small street of residential accommodation. Much of it has been renovated in recent years by the London borough of Islington, and the houses are occupied by council tenants who are my constituents. The access point is redundant because, under the King's Cross Railways (No. 2) Bill, British Rail seeks a replacement access point known as A27. That Bill has just been deposited and made its initial attempt at Second Reading earlier today. The new access point is at the junction of Railway street and York way. Petitioners against that Bill object to that proposal and have suggested other points in York way that would be preferable and would avoid unnecessary demolition. Although alternative access points have been proposed by British Rail and local objectors and petitioners, British Rail is still pursuing access point A8, which the amendment seeks to delete. It is worth noting that that access point is less than 30 m from the rear of houses on Balfe street and is at the start of a steep ramp. British Rail's engineering witness said, in front of the Committee that considered the Bill, that he preferred an access point nearer to York way because of the steep ramp, which makes the access point a bad engineering solution for British Rail. Furthermore, the disruption and disturbance of residents in Balfe street should also be taken into account. For all those reasons, it would be sensible to accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 10 seeks to delete Balfe street from the rods to be dug up in the construction of a replacement of the York way sewer. When the works are undertaken, Balfe street will be surrounded by construction work. The amendment is an attempt to remove just one small and unnecessary part of the work that will be inflicted on Balfe street residents. Work No. 13, to which the amendment relates, is a sewer diversion required by the position of the low-level station. At present, the sewer runs down the line at York way, but it will have to be diverted once the enormous low-level box is created by the Bill. The

Column 895

proposed sewer will run along Railway street from York way and then down Balfe street to Caledonian road, where it will join the existing sewer. So the proposed diversion route will include a new sewer running straight down Balfe street.

Although alternatives were put to the British Rail engineer in Committee, they were rejected for various reasons. However, two weeks after the Committee finally reported, British Rail announced that the sewer could be tunnelled after all and said that there was no need to dig up Balfe street because it could tunnel from the existing sewer to a proposed sewer. That was said at a meeting on 22 May 1991, whereas the Committee had reported on 8 May 1991.

My amendment would remove Balfe street from the list of streets that should be dug up in order to carry out sewer works. It simply seeks to give practical legislative effect to British Rail's claim that it does not need to dig up Balfe street, that it can achieve that sewer diversion by tunnelling. If BR is certain that it can achieve that and that it can carry out the necessary sewer diversion work without having to dig up the whole of the middle of Balfe street, with all the inevitable noise, disturbance and disruption, that will be extremely welcome to the residents. Those residents are already suffering 24 hours a day, seven days a week because of the work that is going on. As a result of the amendment, another additional item of work, which would have an impact on those residents, would be removed.

9.30 pm

That is the import of my amendments. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 relate to work that British Rail does not need to include in this Bill because London Underground has extracted them and put them in another Bill. Amendment No. 9 relates to an access point, which is not needed because an alternative already exists, as well as another alternative in another Bill. If that work were persisted with, it would create many difficulties for the residents. Amendment No. 10 relates to the diversion of the sewer and the inclusion of work in Balfe street. However, BR has agreed that that work is not specifically required, because the necessary diversion could be achieved by other means. The amendments are specific and reasonable, and I trust that they will commend themselves to the House. I hope that the sponsor of the Bill will feel able to accept some of my amendments.

Mr. Waller : I am happy to tell the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and the House that amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are acceptable to the promoters.

As the hon. Gentleman explained, those amendments effectively leave out works Nos. 01 and 014. Those works are safety measures recommended in the Fennell report and would be carried out by London Underground Limited. Due to the delay that had been encountered by the promoters of the Bill, London Underground has decided that those essential safety works should be authorised in a separate Bill to be enacted as soon as possible. The London Underground (King's Cross) Bill was therefore deposited in November and provides for the construction of similar works, which will supersede works Nos. 01 and 014. The House will be aware that the latter Bill is expected to be enacted in the current Session. Accordingly, the promoters of this Bill are content to agree

Column 896

to the amendments on the ground that the powers in the Bill are otiose, to repeat the word used by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.

I am sorry that amendment No. 9 is not acceptable because it would remove from the Bill the power to form a means of access to Railway street at point A8, as shown on the deposited plans. The power to make an alternative access is being sought by the BR board in the King's Cross Railways (No. 2) Bill, which was deposited in Parliament during this Session. If that Bill is enacted to include that power, the board has acknowledged that it would not then need to make the access at point A8. At this stage it would be premature for the Bill to be amended as proposed since it would not then confer on the board the complete package of powers that are necessary to construct the access point.

The board is prepared to give an undertaking to Parliament at this stage that, if the King's Cross Railways (No. 2) Bill is enacted in a form authorising the board to construct an alternative access on to York way at point A27, as shown in the plans deposited in connection with the No. 2 Bill, it will not exercise the power proposed in this Bill to construct the means of access on to Railway street at point A8. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that assurance. Amendment No. 10 is not acceptable either. Its effect would be that the board would not have the power temporarily to stop up or open up the surface of Balfe street. Presumably the amendment was tabled--naturally enough--for the protection of the constituents of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury who are owners and occupiers of properties in Balfe street and who are to be affected by works at the rear of their properties. It is possible to construct the Balfe street portion of work 13--that is, the sewer--by tunnelling, but it should be understood that some opening up will still be necessary in some places. That is why this provision is vital. Obviously, the board regrets any inconvenience to the owners and occupiers of properties in Balfe street, but the power to open up the street is essential to enable the board to carry out the works required for the diversion of the main sewer.

Mr. Chris Smith : The hon. Gentleman has asserted that it is necessary for the board to be able to dig up parts of Balfe street in order to open up for the works, even if the sewer is tunnelled. Is he saying that, in order to construct the tunnel, it is necessary to dig up the surface of the road? That is not credible. Or is he saying that there may be some other purpose in digging up Balfe street? If so, it would be helpful to know exactly what purpose the board has in mind.

Mr. Waller : As I understand it, most of the work originally intended to be carried out by opening up much of the length of the street is now to be carried out in tunnelling, but it is necessary to have access to that tunnelling work. That is why there needs to be some opening up of the street.

In evidence given before the Select Committee, the duration of the portion of works affecting Balfe street was estimated at about nine weeks. There will be disturbance during those nine weeks but I submit that that is a relatively short period considering that the entire works required for the King's Cross project will take a number of years to be brought to fruition.

Column 897

I have been able to accept two amendments, which I hope will be to the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman, and I have been able to give him one assurance, which I hope that he will welcome. I am sorry that I cannot go further, but I am sure that he will understand that the BR board has been anxious to accommodate him as far as it lies within its power to do so.

Mr. Chris Smith rose--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?

Next Section

Home Page