| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Ottaway : The trams are being built in Derby. I know, because I went there the other day.
Mr. Wicks : I hope to go to York soon and have a more fruitful discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for York about the building of the trams. Things can happen in two places at almost the same time. My hon. Friend the Member for York is clear about where some of the trams are being built. If we can encourage British firms to put in good bids, gains will be made all round.
I am glad that the first trams in London for 40 years or more will be introduced before too long, with support from both sides of the House, in London's largest borough. In terms of population, Croydon would count as England's tenth city. I am bipartisan in regarding it as becoming a modern European town. It is already a major centre of business and retailing, but it has a council and community who care deeply about their environment and they support the measure for environmental as well as social and economic reasons.
Column 431
I support the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East. The tramlink is good for Croydon and is on the right lines.9.7 pm
Sir Paul Beresford (Croydon, Central) : It was intriguing to listen to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), who justified much of his position on this evening's debate on rambling. He said that he had been rambling through my constituency.
I entirely agree with many of the points that have been made, particularly those about New Addington. I welcome the prospect of a decent transport system for people in that area. I shall ignore the fact that the hon. Gentleman has pre-empted great portions of my speech while rambling across my constituency and the parks. Considerable credit must be, and has been, given to Croydon council. It unanimously supported the Bill, and promoted and pushed it forward in conjuction with London Transport.
Many comments have been made about the positive aspects of tramlink--the light rail idea--and bringing together so many different councils, including Croydon, Merton, Sutton and Bromley, as well as London Transport and British Transport. That shows the difficulty which the council, as promoter, must have had when bringing together the different organisations involved in the project.
The scheme is essentially to be constructed and funded by the private sector. The fact that it is anticipated that it will be self-financing when it is up and running also highlights the extraordinary ability of the promoters in pushing the scheme forward.
The scheme's benefits have been mentioned. It will be a quiet, low- pollution service linking central Croydon with Wimbledon, New Addington and Beckenham--I suspect that there may be some dispute about that later. It will link trams, trains, buses. Many of the stations involved have been mentioned, including Wimbledon, West Croydon, East Croydon, Elmers End, Beckenham Junction, Mitcham Junction and Birkbeck. The potential benefits have been extensively promoted this evening.
I wish that, over the years, the same approach had been taken by the council and the Department of Transport to the M25 link with Croydon--but that issue related to earlier events today.
Much credit must be given to the promoters for the care and thought given to assisting passengers, particularly for shoppers and those using wheelchairs, prams and trollies, through the use of canopies over the bus stops and train stations, as well as modern technological devices such as automated ticket machines and information displays and television cameras. Those issues were mentioned by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West.
It is worth quoting from a fact sheet produced by the tramlink team in August 1992, which states :
"Whilst tramlink has been promoted by London Transport and the London borough of Croydon, it is intended that the scheme will be financed, constructed, and operated, by the private sector". That is an extremely commendable and bold statement, which greatly enhanced my attitude towards tramlink.
Unfortunately, the very next sentence in the statement states :
Column 432
"A public sector contribution may be required to reflect the benefits to other road users of easing congestion".That may cause some Conservative Members difficulties. Such a scheme, which anticipates considerable public benefit, must strongly tempt my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London to slip into the scheme a pump-priming sum. However, such a proposal presupposes that, despite all the demands on the limited budget for future years, the funds will be available. It also presupposes that it would be only a small pump-priming fund.
The prospect of a tramlink in an urban district such as Croydon presents considerable difficulties for many people along the route, particularly where the route is new. Many residents live along the route that is already under way between Wimbledon and Croydon. Much of the route which runs through to New Addington is new. It has raised many fears with residents which may or may not turn out to be justified.
Certainly the residents' fears have been all too real for them since the initial planning of the development. The fears have been greatest among those who wish to sell their houses and move. The scheme will affect many of those people--certainly in their own minds, and those of the estate agents. Their properties will fall outside the normal remit of compensation. I know that purchase of the properties would be prompt, but many of the residents who qualify for compensation do not wish to have their properties purchased, but wish to remain.
I wonder why such a long and tedious technique--the use of the private Bill procedure to take the Bill through both Houses--was chosen. An alternative, which was available, has been mentioned. Given the openness and relative speed offered by the alternative, I was a little surprised that the private Bill procedure was chosen. There has been considerable consultation, and some support, but there has been also considerable vocal and written opposition. I have received one letter in favour of tramlink, but I have received hundreds--not all of which were organised--against the scheme. People are worried.
Nevertheless, the hundreds who wrote opposing the scheme will be probably portrayed as few compared with the numbers of people who will be served by the tramlink and who live further from the area of development.
I add my congratulations to the promoters. Many of the arguments in petitions have been met. Variations in the routes have been considered-- perhaps the rambling of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) will be allowed to continue freely through my constituency.
Many points, even if they have not been met, have been carefully looked at and assessed, but a few things need elaboration, because we have still to come to the Committee on the subject.
Mention was made earlier of the Park Hill area. Many residents of Park Hill --with considerable justification--feel anger at the widening of Barclay road, Fairfield road and Chepstow road, and the bulldozing of trees that that has made necessary. I accept that the council has tried to replace the trees, but the claim that the project was needed but was not related to tramlink stretches the credibility somewhat. The tram will run adjacent to properties in Addiscombe road and through the frontage of Lloyd park. There is justifiable concern in those areas. Many protestors anticipate environmental damage, and I have mentioned that the Lynden Hyrst residents association has been
Column 433
particularly vocal. I will use a slight exaggeration, but the residents feel that their toenails are trimmed by the scheme when they step out of their properties on to the pavement.Many estate agents in the area believe that the development has reduced the value of local properties, but that will be overridden when the tramlink is running. I suspect that the estate agents will then use a reverse process and say that a property is worth more because the tramlink service is there, but until that day, there will be a considerable blight.
Going a little further, the tramlink service will progress down Gravel hill. The majority of local residents will be relatively unaffected--they will be across a multi-lane highway from the service, and also above it-- but it is worth mentioning one petitioner ; a lady who purchased a property before the announcement of the plans. Her property is situated at what is effectively the bottom of the hill, where it is proposed that the tramlink will cross the multi-lane highway using an extensive and complicated system of lights. One can see in the plans that drawings that relate to tramlink noticeably--one could say, cynically--skirt the boundary of her property in such a way as to remove from the tramlink scheme the obligation of purchasing the property.
The lady would prefer to stay in her home--she has bought and extended it-- but she does not want to stay with the tramlink running across her toes at the front of her garden. If tramlink proceeds, she would prefer to have her property purchased with full compensation. She would then move and start again. I believe that the promoters are looking seriously at the situation, and I encourage that. The knowledge that some public utilities may need to be changed in that area may well mean that the lady's hopes will be met.
It needs to be mentioned that the route will have a negative effect on the residents of the New Addington section in my constituency. Mention has been made of the prospect of park-and ride problems, and those problems need to be faced. However, the residents of Parkway and Central parade who live adjacent to the proposed tramlink face the prospect of living cheek by jowl with the route. That is particularly so when the route has to deviate to go around the medical centre. During the run-up to building the link, the perceived blight for those people will be considerable, even though the road is narrow at that point.
I expect that the blight will be considerable even when the tramlink is built, because that area is the stopping point at which the tram will move up to a blind junction and reverse down in front of and close to the properties of several people. Worst of all, I suspect that the rules and regulations on compensation are such that those residents will receive no compensation. I hope that I am proven wrong.
It is right that this paving Bill should progress through the House. The details show that it proposes a 10-year period during which commencement of building must be undertaken. At this stage, we face the prospect of a £140 million building programme, but it appears that there is a touch of guesstimate rather than estimate in that figure.
Many of us are aware that the full assessment of the costs of key factors such as the realignment of public utilities has yet to be completed. I suspect that the original estimate of those costs may prove to be on the low side.
We need to bear in mind the importance of Croydon to such utilities as British Telecom, Thames Water, electricity suppliers, gas suppliers, cable companies and so on. I
Column 434
understand that building the tramlink will cause particular difficulties for British Telecom, because it has a key junction with key facilities at an important point. As I understand it, the effect of that has not yet been taken into account.My personal view is that any funding beyond pump priming from national coTelecom apparatus, and that large quantities of that apparatus would have to be moved? Does he agree that that charge should be levied on the promoters of the scheme?
Sir Paul Beresford : I understand that British Telecom will be a petitioner in Committee. It will probably be more appropriate to discuss points of such technical difficulty at that stage. The promoters expect that the line will be self-sufficient once it is up and running. On that point, the most sceptical eyebrows have been raised. For example, the link between Wimbledon and West Croydon has been running for many years under the gentle hand of British Rail. The line is poorly utilised, and I understand that it is accepted as a loss maker. Anticipation of a marked improvement in use to such a degree that the viability of that line in revenue terms would be increased stretches credibility.
When one takes into account the fact that commuters may be required to pay a premium, especially at key peak times, one wonders about the potential viability of the line in the light of the competition that will definitely come from bus services as a result of deregulation and lower bus fares in real terms.
Mr. Congdon : Does my hon. Friend concede that one of the problems of the West Croydon to Wimbledon link is that British Rail has ensured that the service runs only once every 45 minutes, which misses out much of the market? More significantly, it would be linked only between West Croydon and Wimbledon, whereas tramlink links not only West Croydon and Wimbledon, but Wimbledon right through to East Croydon and beyond. That link to East Croydon is especially critical because it links Victoria and further south.
Sir Paul Beresford : I thank my hon. Friend for his points. The infrequency of the link could be related more to supply meeting demand, which, in that context, was not considered. I remain unconvinced that, apart from myself, the use of a line from Wimbledon straight through to New Addington would be of tremendous advantage to anyone. The attraction of using tramlink to travel from Wimbledon to Croydon and on to New Addington or Beckenham probably passes by most of the residents of Wimbledon and may continue to do so for some time, but I may be proved wrong.
There is the possibility that the Bill will be passed and left on the shelf for 10 years because the finances to build and run the scheme will not materialise. It worries me that, if that occurred, it would be difficult to remove the Bill from the statute book during that time. The plans will therefore blight the area for a further 10 years unless something is built into the Bill to allow Croydon council, perhaps, as one of the promoters, to withdraw it in the event that it proves not to be economically viable.
Column 435
Nevertheless, I support the Bill, as it is a paving Bill, because the crunch decision time will be when the bids are made.9.27 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : I shall try to be brief, as I know that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) wants to speak. I am a supporter of trams in London, although they are more like light railways these days than the old trams. Trams are an alternative to road building, and that is to be welcomed. I went to Croydon to look at the proposals for the scheme yesterday and also meant to see those who object, but due to the usual muddle, for which I take responsibility, I did not see them and I apologise to them. There are merits in the proposals, as my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) said earlier. There would be big benefits in terms of creating employment, especially in the New Addington area, where 17 per cent. of the population of 25,000 are unemployed. The residents there are currently inadequately served, and under the scheme they would have the opportunity to get into central Croydon in 17 minutes, they would have access to part- time work in Purley, and they would have easy access to British Rail stations in central London. Those benefits should be taken into account.
Other advantages of an efficient public transport are the saving of travelling time, and a reduction in accidents and overall traffic congestion. However, I take on board the representations made by the objectors, that other traffic-calming measures would also be necessary if overall congestion is to be reduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made some good points about open space. One of my concerns was that the scheme would use the edge of woodlands, although it could be argued that it gives access to those woodlands. However, compensatory land and trees need to be provided, and the objections of the ramblers, for example, should be fully taken into account.
There should also be better compensation for those who are affected by blight. Such compensation relates not only to this scheme, but to many others where it is unfair that people on the edge of schemes do not receive compensation. The Department should look into improving the compensation schemes for people just outside the affected areas. The trouble is that the schemes seem to be chosen at random--first docklands, now Croydon. Although they are worth while, there may be other areas that would benefit even more from similar projects. There is no co-ordinated Government approach to trams, and there have been no studies of where they might best be sited in London. There has been no commitment of public money, and local authorities have not been helped to encourage the private investment which the Government claim to want.
This is a serious criticism. The Government have not co-ordinated tram projects and light railways in London. There is plenty of scope for trams in east London ; the docklands light railway could be extended to my part of the world--
Column 436
Mr. Norris : The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair. The Manchester metro receives substantial Government support, as does the south Yorkshire supertram project. Indeed, the very purpose of section 56 is to provide grants for systems such as this. The hon. Gentleman's reference to east London reminds me of Barking, which has expressed an interest in a light rail project. We shall be interested to see what it comes up with.
The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that it would be quite wrong of the Department to set a national plan for light rail systems. Local communities should develop their own plans and then submit them to the Department. Such cases may be eligible for grant, and the Department considers each on its merits.
Mr. Cohen : I am grateful for that statement. I welcome the projects in Manchester and elsewhere. London lags behind the rest of the country. The Department has been a factor in that. Many local authorities wonder whether they would really find approval in the Department for schemes that may involve pump priming with public money.
Mr. Bennett : Would it not also be an advantage if rolling stock were interchangeable, and if encouragement were given to the buying of rolling stock made in Britain?
Mr. Cohen : Those are both good points, and they make the case for involving the Department and promoting trams throughout the country, particularly in London.
If mainly private money is involved, that is fine by me, but the gap will have to be filled with public funds. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) talked about a small element of pump priming, but for this scheme alone that is likely to amount to £45 million--probably good value for money, but hardly a small sum. I repeat that the Government should decide which areas should be given tram systems as a matter of priority, particularly in London. That is another argument for Department of Transport involvement. There is some concern that fares may rise. I hope that they will be properly regulated, and that operators will not be given carte blanche to charge what they like. I also hope that pensioners will still be able to use their concessionary fare cards on the trams. With those provisos, I still think that there is merit in the scheme.
9.33 pm
Mr. Piers Merchant (Beckenham) : My views on this Bill seem to have had a good airing this evening already. It is almost as if, by a process of osmosis, hon. Members have discovered what I intended to say.
It will come as no surprise to the House to learn that I have serious reservations about the Bill : in fact, I do not like it at all. I have listened to the debate with great interest and I have heard echoes of my own concerns in many of the speeches given. I believe that, if one were to delve a bit deeper into hon. Members' views, one would find that many share a number of my grave doubts. I have listened to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon). As I would have expected, he handled his brief with skill and charm. He is a close colleague of mine, whom I greatly respect ; I admire his current work in his constituency and his past reputation as a councillor in Croydon borough.
Column 437
He is my next-door neighbour, so the House will not be surprised to hear me say that, but it is my genuine opinion of him.I share my hon. Friend's views on most local issues, including the quality and quantity of British Rail services and the future of South Norwood country park, which are particularly relevant to the Bill. We have worked closely together to save the park from a proposed development by Bromley borough, which would have devastated it. I therefore find it peculiar that he is now supporting a scheme that involves some destruction of the park.
Mr. Congdon : I have never made a secret of the fact that I would have preferred the scheme not to go through South Norwood country park. There was an option at an earlier stage that the tramlink should go up Elmers End road, but, unfortunately, Bromley council was not prepared to accept such a route. I can understand that, but the decision was unfortunate ; hence the need to go across the country park. I would stress to my hon. Friend, however, that the impact on the park has been minimised, and that the route goes nowhere near the environmentally sensitive areas of the lake and the wetlands.
Mr. Merchant : I appreciate that my hon. Friend has concerns about the country park, and I am glad that he has expressed them. Two immediate options are open to the promoters. One is for the system to end at Elmers End. That would bring the system into the Beckenham area--which my hon. Friend and the promoters seem to feel is an important and significant location. It would probably be possible to build a park-and-ride facility there, because there is a great deal of undeveloped land around Elmers End station.
The tramlink will come in to Elmers End, but only on a tiny shuttle service, which is projected to carry so few passengers that one wonders whether it will be worth running an hourly service on the line. The rest of the route into Beckenham could be left aside. If the promoters feel that there is an advantage to be gained from taking the link further into Beckenham--which I question--another possibility is for the tramlink to run further alongside the British Rail line up to New Beckenham. There is a British Rail line, running from Elmers End right through Beckenham, which stops at stations such as Clock House, which is as close to the centre of Beckenham as Beckenham Junction station. That line also provides a direct route up to central London. If I have time, I will express some broader criticisms of the route into Beckenham junction and the need for it. I want to make it clear that, although I am very critical of the Bill and many of the things that the promoters have suggested, I am not critical of my hon. Friend. I appreciate his position ; he is, in a sense, a vehicle for the promoters of the scheme. I also appreciate that he recognises the need to ameliorate the traffic problems that exist in central Croydon. But the essence of my case is that, if there are problems there that need tackling, I do not see why it needs to involve the Beckenham area and running a link right up to Beckenham Junction.
I shall now turn to some of the remarks that have been made by other speakers this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East, who put the case for the promoters, rather simply and quickly dismissed the possibility of running better services on existing British Rail lines. I should like to ask him, and through him the
Column 438
promoters, what detailed studies were carried out on the alternative routes that could have been built up around the existing British Rail system in that part of London.I believe that, if such studies were carried out properly, one would see that it was perfectly possible to run a high level of service, if there is a demand for it, on existing British Rail lines, possibly with one or two fairly inexpensive adaptations, rather than building a whole new rail system costing, we are told, some £140 million.
Mr. Bennett : Will the hon. Gentleman accept that many of the problems between tramways in Britain as opposed to tramways in Europe is that Europe has a whole series of regulations that allow joint running between tramways and heavy railways? So far, those regulations do not exist in Britain.
Clearly, one of the problems with many tramway schemes is that they cannot run, even for short distances, on railway tracks on which heavy trains run. I realise that there could be a major problem with possible accidents, but I would have thought that, with modern signalling, it should be possible to have joint running.
Mr. Merchant : I entirely accept that point. It is a genuine one, and relevant to the argument. The Department of Transport recently produced a detailed briefing on light rail systems, but it makes rather arbitrary distinctions between trams, light rail systems, rapid transport systems. Indeed, at the end of the day, what is a railway?
There is no clear divide between any of those different systems, other than the definitions that are imposed on them. There is a slow transformation from the heavy rail system at one end to the miniature light railway at the other. Only where regulations are drafted does there become a legal distinction between the two.
There is scope for investigating the possibility of having lighter vehicles on British Rail lines, perhaps at times mixed with existing heavy British Rail rolling stock. It should be possible to find means of allowing the tracks to run in closer proximity than they do at the moment--perhaps to be interchangeable to an extent.
The point with which I was dealing before the hon. Gentleman intervened was the use of existing British Rail track, not for the rolling stock to run on, but for the tramlink to run alongside. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East rightly said, over a large section, but not all, of the route in Beckenham, that is exactly what is proposed.
However, my criticism relates to what my hon. Friend said. It particularly relates to the promoters, who say that, because these people have a British Rail line running at the bottom of their gardens, it does not matter that they should also have a light rail system operating there as well. It is a very peculiar argument that, if one is already troubled, it does not matter if one is troubled a great deal more, and troubled continuously.
For people who live close to a railway line, there is a great difference between a line that carries only a couple of services an hour and none after 8 pm, which is the situation over most of the stretch in Beckenham, and the line that runs from Beckenham Junction via Crystal Palace to Victoria. The former is very much a secondary line, although it is important for the people who travel on it. That line is not heavily used. That will change with the arrival of tramlink into the area, as through trams will run
Column 439
possibly from 6 am until midnight, eight times an hour in each direction. That is a completely different situation. I reject the argument that it is acceptable to intensify use on that line. If anything, I believe that that is the one thing that should not happen. If we must have new transport systems in that area--something I challenge-- they should not be in areas where people are already disturbed.My constituency measures three miles by two miles and contains 14 BR stations serving destinations north, south, east and west. As some of my hon. Friends have explained, although there is a radial rail system in London which emerges from the centre of London, lines in my constituency run at perfect right angles to that. It is possible to travel east and west slightly more easily than it is to travel north and south. In addition to lines serving central London, it is possible to travel to Croydon on the existing BR system. However that service is difficult.
At present, there are two ways of travelling to Croydon. One way is via Addiscombe station, which will disappear under the tramway proposal, as that station will be removed and there will be no service to that area. Addiscombe is half a mile from East Croydon, and it is one and a half minutes by car--I know, because I have driven there.
Although I accept that that route is not as convenient as travelling right into the centre of Croydon, perhaps something could be done at the Croydon end to improve matters. However, there is a service at the moment from Beckenham to Croydon via Addiscombe. The other service runs via Crystal Palace.
With that transport infrastructure, it is questionable whether the people of Beckenham would benefit from the proposed tramlink.
Mr. Congdon : Will my hon. Friend at least concede that the best judgment about whether the people of Beckenham would see great value in tramlink lies with the assessment of the private operators as to whether the scheme would be viable? They judge that it would be viable as an integral part of the network. Will my hon. Friend at least concede that they, and not he or I, are the best people to judge?
Mr. Merchant : I have examined in extreme detail the assessments of the predicted number of passengers who would travel on every section of tramway. I have read the summaries and alternative proposals, which have been studied professionally and with great expertise. I believe that the promoters' figures for the use of the tramlink system are deeply and fatally flawed. I simply do not believe that the custom exists to make the system a viable project.
In addition, the prospect of capital finance emerging to make the project work is very unlikely. I suspect that, when people in the private sector are asked to come forward with large amounts of cash to finance the project, and they study in great detail the likely demand and passenger flow, they will conclude that it is a risk which is not worth taking.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North-East made great play about the private sector providing capital for the scheme. I am not against the private sector doing that if it wishes, but the promoters have made it clear to me--I have pursued the matter in some detail because it is of
Column 440
great importance to me--that they will definitely need the addition of public funds in order to raise sufficient money to build the tramway system.We now have a curious situation. The promoters say that they would like to build the system but that they will need public money and that they hope to raise private money on the back of the public money that will be pledged.
In addition, my hon. Friend the Minister has said, quite rightly, that he can give no pledge about public money for the system. He said that he would consider any application and that he might be in favour, but rightly added many caveats. He said that he would need to be convinced that the system was viable and that it would have to take its place among other competing systems.
The House has passed other such Bills. Indeed, I was on the Committee on one of them, and I did not oppose it, because I do not oppose light rail on principle. The system will have to take its place among those other demands and, most crucially, it will have to take its place alongside other Government priorities.
Perhaps I am doing an unusual thing, but I am offering my hon. Friend the opportunity not to have to come up with a large sum of public money. I am offering him a way out by suggesting that, if the Bill does not go through and the scheme is not developed, he can save the money that he might otherwise have felt obliged to put into it.
Mr. Ottaway : In such an eventuality, the money could be used for improving the road infrastructure in Croydon.
Mr. Merchant : That is possible, but I am sure that, if the House were offered £40 million and hon. Gentlemen were invited to decide how to spend the money, there would be no shortage of requests for it to be spent on a wide variety of alternative projects, either in transport or elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said something that was echoed by a number of other hon. Gentlemen and caused me considerable concern. He said that this was only an enabling Bill. The implication is that it therefore does not matter much, and that we should give the project the go-ahead and see what emerges after all the details have been worked out. If we reach that stage, to whom should the promoters go for permission to continue? They will have to go to no one because, if they have the money, they can go ahead with the scheme within the wide powers given by the Bill.
My interest is the ordinary people who live in my constituency and, to an extent, those who live elsewhere but will be affected by the project, who have expressed grave concern about the impact that building and operating the tramlink will have on their houses and daily lives. They have a right to be heard, and they are entitled to have their concerns taken into account.
I know that the Committee will consider much of their evidence, and I am glad about that, but it will know that this is only an enabling Bill, so its members may feel that, on balance, the principle of the Bill is acceptable so long as various measures are taken to look after the concerns of the hundreds of people who will be affected by the tramlink.
When the pressure is off--the pressure of the commercial and transport lobby, who are pushing the scheme so hard--will the promoters be prepared to talk to those people who live in the houses affected? I suspect that
Column 441
they will be far more interested in pushing ahead with the project, if they can get the money. So I am worried about the Bill being dismissed as simply an enabling Bill.Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside) : We have just been through a similar debate in relation to Southampton. The House failed to pass a similar project because no provisions had been made for park and ride. Can my hon. Friend tell the House how much provision has been made in this case for car parks, so that people can park their cars before getting on the tramway system? That is fundamental to the viability of the system.
Mr. Merchant : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that, because it is essential. Very few, if any, light rail systems of this nature can operate without feeder passengers and park-and-ride facilities. That is simply because enough passengers cannot be attracted from a wide enough area to make such a system viable, particularly in the deregulated and competitive atmosphere that we are likely to face by the time the project, if it goes ahead, is built.
The only way in which such systems can become viable is by having good park -and-ride provision. There is no such provision in the system. It is not catered for by the Bill, and its promoters have been extremely coy about the possibility of it. In fact, they have effectively said that they have rejected the addition of park-and-ride facilities in most areas of the system.
In Beckenham, about which I am most concerned, the Beckenham Junction link has no park-and-ride facilities at all. That is of grave concern to my constituents, because they feel that the immediate danger they face is that people who use the system will come in--
Mr. Congdon rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put :--
The House divided : Ayes 199, Noes 8.
Division No. 356] [9.55 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Alexander, Richard
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Allen, Graham
Amess, David
Ancram, Michael
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Arbuthnot, James
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Austin-Walker, John
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Baldry, Tony
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Barnes, Harry
Bates, Michael
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Benton, Joe
Beresford, Sir Paul
Bermingham, Gerald
Blackburn, Dr John G.
Boateng, Paul
Boswell, Tim
Boyes, Roland
Brandreth, Gyles
Brazier, Julian
Bright, Graham
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Burns, Simon
Burt, Alistair
Butcher, John
Butler, Peter
Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Cash, William
Chapman, Sydney
Clappison, James
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Cohen, Harry
Colvin, Michael
Congdon, David
Conway, Derek
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cousins, Jim
Cox, Tom
Cryer, Bob
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Day, Stephen
Deva, Nirj Joseph
Dewar, Donald
Dixon, Don
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Dover, Den
Dowd, Jim
Duncan, Alan
Duncan-Smith, Iain
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
| Next Section
| Home Page |