House of Commons Hansard Debates for 1 Nov 1995

The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): I beg to move,

That further proceedings on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament;

That if a Bill is presented in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in this Session--

(a) the Bill shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;

(b) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of the same Members as the Members of the Committee in this Session; (c) all Petitions presented in this Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn shall stand referred to the Committee in the next Session;

(d) any Minutes of Evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in this Session which have been reported to the House shall stand referred to the Committee in the next Session;

(e) only those Petitions mentioned in paragraph (c) above, and any Petition which may be presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any proposed additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in the next Session, shall stand referred to the Committee;

(f) any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Committee in the next Session shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition;

(g) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day the Minutes of Evidence taken before it; (h) three shall be the Quorum of the Committee;

(i) any person registered in this Session as a parliamentary agent entitled to practise as such in opposing Bills only who, at the time when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in this Session, was employed in opposing the Bill shall be deemed to have been registered as such a parliamentary agent in the next Session;

(j) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with in the next Session; and

(k) if the Bill is reported from a Select Committee in the next Session, it shall thereupon stand re-committed to a Standing Committee.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motion: That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill is committed in the next Session-- (1) that it have power to consider- -

(a) alternatives to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding the approach of the rail link to St. Pancras station from the west of Highbury Corner;

Column 341

(b) the provision of rail sidings on the Midland Main Line on the western edge of the King's Cross Railway Lands;

(c) the relocation of Tarmac plc's existing concrete-batching facilities to a site in the north-west corner of the King's Cross Railway Lands;

(d) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding railways in the throat of St. Pancras station in the vicinity of the Regent's Canal;

(e) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding diversion of the Camden sewer;

(f) the provision of an additional road into the King's Cross Railway Lands from York Way, in the London Borough of Camden; (g) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding ticket halls and subways of the London Underground Railways;

(h) the provision of a sewer forming a diversion of the St. Pancras sewer;

(i) alterations to the table in paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 to the Bill (buildings authorised to be demolished), so far as relating to the London Borough of Camden;

(j) the running through a tunnel of so much of the rail link as lies between Barrington Road, in the London Borough of Newham, and Dagenham Dock, in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham; (k) works required in connection with the accommodation of the easterly portal of the main London tunnel;

(l) the undertaking of additional overhead line diversions in the vicinity of the A13 in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and the London Borough of Havering;

(m) realignment overground of the rail link and Tilbury Loop Railway in the vicinity of the Mardyke Park housing estate at Thurrock, in the county of Essex, and associated works;

(n) the provision of additional roads in the vicinity of Crowbridge Road, Ashford, in the county of Kent;

(o) the provision of sidings on the Ashford to Canterbury Railway to the east of the River Stour at Ashford, in the county of Kent; (p) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding the junction of the rail link and the Eurotunnel Railway at Folkestone, in the county of Kent;

(q) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding planning permission for development authorised by Part I; (r) alterations and additions to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding the compulsory acquisition of easements and other rights over land by the grant of new rights;

(s) the disposal of land acquired for the purposes of or in connection with the works authorised by Part I;

(t) the inclusion of additional land within the limits of land to be acquired or used; and

(u) additional power to stop up highways in connection with the construction of the A2 and M2 improvement works;

and, if it thinks fit, to make Amendments to the Bill with respect to any of the matters mentioned above, and for connected purposes; (2) that any Petition against Amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee mentioned in paragraph (1) above is empowered by that paragraph to make shall be referred to that Select Committee if--

(a) it is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the Amendments was published or, if that period includes any time during which the House is adjourned for more than four days, not later than five weeks beginning with that day, and

(b) it is one in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents;

That it be an instruction to the Clerk of Private Bills that, on receiving an original copy of the first newspaper notice of any Amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee to which the

Column 342

Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill is committed in the next Session is empowered by paragraph (1) of the above instruction to make, he shall publish the date of the notice in the Private Business paper. That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Sir George Young: There are two motions on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill to be debated today. The first is an instruction on additional provisions, and the second is a carry-over motion. It may be helpful to the House if I say a brief word about both. The channel tunnel rail link is one of the country's most important infrastructure projects of this decade, probably of this century. The House gave the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill an unopposed Second Reading on 16 January, with hon. Members on both sides expressing a wish to make rapid progress with the passage of the legislation and the implementation of the project.

The carry-over motion takes forward that unanimous will of the House. It is simply a procedural requirement to allow the Bill to run from this Session into the next. It is a hybrid Bill, which therefore has to be considered by Select Committees in each House in addition to all the usual stages of a public Bill. Because of that, and because of the scale of the rail link project, the Bill will inevitably take more than one Session to complete its passage. Good progress has been made since the Bill's introduction on 23 November last year and its Second Reading on 16 January. The Select Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), started work on 21 February. The Committee has spent 60 days so far considering the 993 petitions received, which is well over 250 hours. The House will, I am sure, join me in paying tribute to the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick), and the seven other members of the Select Committee for the way in which they have tackled this daunting task. They have kept proceedings moving forward and have listened to petitioners with unfailing courtesy, concentrating on the important issues. They have already reached and announced a number of key recommendations and decisions.

The Committee needs to complete its work in the new Session, and the carry- over motion provides for the Committee to continue on the same basis as approved by the House in the original committal motion on 16 January. The House has already made clear its support for the CTRL project, and carrying over the Bill is essential to bringing the project to fruition.

The other motion, instructing the Select Committee with regard to certain additional provisions, is to give effect primarily to the Select Committee's own wishes, announced on 20 July, on changes to the route of the rail link. The procedures of the House require that the people whose interests may be affected by the new route changes must be afforded the right to petition and be heard by the Select Committee. This is achieved by a formal instruction of the House to the Select Committee that the Committee may consider the route changes, which then enables the Government to deposit the necessary additional provisions and notices to be issued to those affected. The major route changes are at Mardyke park in Thurrock, Barking and the approach to St. Pancras. Following the Select Committee's announcement in July, the route changes have been developed in sufficient detail

Column 343

for plans to be produced, property to be referenced and environmental assessments to be undertaken. For Mardyke park, the route is being realigned and a viaduct moved away from the housing estate. For Barking, there is a longer tunnel than the Select Committee sought. For the St. Pancras approach, the Select Committee accepted the promoters' proposal that two options for changing the route should be considered, and the motion allows for that. I do not intend to run through other items in the motions, although the Minister of State will be prepared to respond to any particular concerns raised by hon. Members. Generally, the other items are minor alterations to works and land to be acquired or used, some of which are a consequence of the Select Committee's decisions. Others are tidying-up provisions, often to meet concerns raised by petitioners during negotiations.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): I have a personal concern about blight: the tunnel goes immediately underneath my house. I am quite happy about that, but is there any compensation in this for me? My property, along with many others, has been blighted; its value has gone down. People do not want to buy a house over a tunnel.

Sir George Young: As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are statutory compensation schemes, to which he, like other members of the public, is entitled. Union Railways is operating its own scheme for people whose properties are affected by blight. The best advice that I can give the hon. Gentleman is the advice that I would give my own constituents: to take legal advice if he believes that his property interests are affected.

Mr. Banks: You are the Secretary of State.

Sir George Young: I am not a solicitor. I do not have the relevant qualifications, and I would hesitate to give the hon. Gentleman any unqualified legal advice.

Ms Margaret Hodge (Barking): I share my hon. Friend's concern. Hundreds of my constituents' properties were blighted by the original proposals, and they remain blighted. The Secretary of State said that it was up to Union Railways to come up with a scheme for voluntary purchase, but Union Railways tells me repeatedly that it works under directions given to it by the Department of Transport. We therefore seek tonight the assurance that the properties that will remain blighted--despite the revisions in the proposals--will be covered by a compensation scheme that will be fair to the people whose homes have been blighted for many years.

Sir George Young: As I am sure that the hon. Lady knows, the Select Committee has not yet dealt with this subject. It will come to the matter, I believe. She is right to say that Union Railways is buying homes on request within the safeguarded zone for the CTRL. That includes all homes taken wholly or in part by the link. It also operates a discretionary purchase scheme for properties seriously affected by the construction or use of the CTRL in cases of severe hardship. Union Railways published new guidelines for the operation of the scheme on 19 July; they are broadly in line with the arrangements for the road schemes. In our view, widening the purchase schemes to less affected properties could worsen any blight.

Column 344

The Select Committee, as I have said, is still considering property and compensation issues connected with the CTRL.

The instruction by the House does not approve the additional provisions listed; it merely empowers the Select Committee to consider them formally, with the benefit of petitions from those affected. The Committee is not obliged to adopt all or any of the provisions.

The Government's aim is to deposit the additional provisions in two batches: the first--including Mardyke and Barking--in a few days' time, and the second--principally the St. Pancras approach--in early December. This should enable the first batch to be considered by the Committee starting just before Christmas. The second batch should start in Committee after the Christmas recess. The House will, I am sure, share the Committee's wish to complete its hearings without delay so that the CTRL project can go ahead as soon as possible. 6 pm

Ms Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood): I shall begin by saying something personal about the Secretary of State for Transport. I hope that he will remember the time--it was some years ago--when we worked together in the project Re-unite, the purpose of which was to give more support to parents--usually mothers--whose children had been abducted. It was a worthy and important cause. I hope that the period during which we work together on transport matters will be as productive as our earlier work.

I have made a comment about the Secretary of State behind his back that perhaps I should make in front of him. I know him to be intelligent and socially concerned, and that being so, I have a basic respect for him. As we begin our new transport relationship, I find it impossible to believe that the right hon. Gentleman judges the current rail privatisation proposals to be in the national interest. I am sure that we shall return to that issue. The more I see of the proposals, the more people I meet who are involved with them and the more of the detail that I come to examine, the more I become aware that they are massively destructive to our transport systems. I cannot believe that a man of the quality of the Secretary of State could possibly support the proposals. It seems--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not wish to intervene too strongly when there might be harmony. I hope, however, that we shall restrict the debate to the motions that are before us.

Ms Short: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wanted to get my compliments in first.

Along with many other Members, I accepted an invitation about a year ago to travel to Paris from Waterloo on the new Eurostar service. I think that we were all invited to make the journey. I tried to register the journey in the Register of Members' Interests and was told that if something is offered to all Members, it is not necessary to register it. That is an interesting concept. I made the journey with my mother. It is interesting when people in their 70s travel by rail. For them, the smoothness of the ride is of great importance. I met my

Column 345

hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and he, too, was taking his mother to Paris. We had a mothers' day out to Paris, in the rain.

I found--many others have found since--that the quality of the service on the French side of the Channel was massively more impressive than that on our side. Some British people are ashamed about that when they make the journey. President Mitterrand, when he opened the French link to the tunnel on 18 May 1993, said:

"Passengers will race at great pace across the plains of northern France, rush through the tunnel on a fast track and then be able to daydream at very low speed, admiring the English countryside." Speed and comfort are important. With a poor-quality service there is spilt coffee on the English side but not on the French. There are stops and starts on our side and it is difficult to walk through the train as it sways. I felt sad and rather ashamed that the quality of the service on the French was so massively higher.

Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point): Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Short: I shall give way to ascertain whether the hon. Gentleman's point is sensible.

Dr. Spink: The hon. Lady will not be aware that I travelled on the Eurostar service today. I returned to Waterloo this afternoon. I can assure the hon. Lady that the service that I received was excellent on both sides of the channel. There was no difference in the service on either side. I do not recognise her description of the service. Again, our service is being berated at the expense of British Rail. That is deplorable.

Ms Short: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was sleeping during the journey. No one is suggesting that the quality of service provided by the British staff is lower than that given by the French. I am merely saying that the train travels a great deal more slowly on the British side. That is fact. I am not berating anyone. If the hon. Gentleman did not notice the difference in speed, his sensitivity-- [Interruption.]

We support the motions that are before us. Given that it is possible that the Bill will be given Royal Assent during 1996 and that instructions for work to begin will be given in 1997, we, Labour, expect and intend to take over responsibility for the project and see it through to completion as early as possible in the new millennium. We are critical, however, that one of the largest civil engineering projects in Britain for a long time has progressed so slowly and that so much anguish and pain has been caused by planning blight because of the Government's mad ideological commitment to market forces and private sector control of all projects, rather than a partnership between the public and private sectors that would bring the best from both sides to the project. The Labour party is firmly committed to the latter approach, which would be much more strongly in the national interest than the Government's arrangements. Any review of the details and the history of the project--I have obviously engaged in such a review in preparing for the debate--makes enormously depressing reading. It is a story of delay, dither, blight and wasted resources. That stems from the Government's initial determination that no Government grant or subsidy should

Column 346

be provided for the project. As a result, it had become clear by the end of 1991 that London's investment community was

unenthusiastic. That error of judgment led to the big U-turn in March 1993, when the then Secretary of State for Transport said that the Government had decided that the project would have to go forward as a joint venture. We were told in January 1994 that the Government were willing after all to provide substantial public sector support for the project.

We now know that the Government intend to hand over to the successful bidder as much as £1.7 billion in cash subsidies and asset transfers without taking any public stake or power to ensure public accountability in return for such massive public investment. That is deeply wrong, both morally and democratically. The tax burden is higher now as a percentage of gross domestic product than it was in 1979. The burden is more inequitably distributed with the result that those on lower incomes are paying more tax now than they have for a long time. It seems profoundly wrong to hand over massive public resources to private companies without ensuring that the public interest is secured. The Opposition object to that.

It is to be welcomed that the Government have responded positively to the proposals that are set out in the report of the Select Committee on Transport. We are concerned, however, about the delays caused by the Government dithering over the best way in which to finance the scheme. We are also concerned about planning blight. We note that there is good news for those who live along some sections of the route. A pamphlet is being issued in Barking that states that there is good news at last. Many people will be comforted by the progress that has been made, and that is to be welcomed.

Some extremely serious allegations were made in an article that appeared in The Sunday Telegraph on 27 August. It suggested that the Secretary of State and his Ministers had attempted to nobble the work of the Select Committee. It is such a serious allegation that I imagine that Ministers will want to respond to it. The article states:

"Sir George Young, the transport secretary, has told Cabinet colleagues that the Select Committee has already accepted too many points made by objectors, especially in Labour-voting areas of London."

I hope that the Secretary of State has not proceeded in that way. Citizens' rights to compensation and other matters should be protected regardless of voting behaviour.

The article continued to the effect that The Sunday Telegraph had learnt

"that Sir George is to send a discreet message to the two senior Tory MPs on the committee that it would not take much more to make the project no longer viable."

That is interesting. The article stated:

"Sir George and John Watts, the rail minister, intend to approach Sir Anthony before the committee's next meeting on October 17. They will urge him to resist widespread demands for a more generous approach to compensation."

That is extremely serious and something that should be mentioned on the Floor of the House.

Sir Anthony Durant (Reading, West): I received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in which he outlined his views. He told me that he did not intend in any way to influence the Committee. I read out the letter to the full Committee at one of its

Column 347

meetings. The Committee accepted his word, as I did. No attempt has been made to influence me in any way. I assure the House that if that were tried, I might go the other way.

Ms Short: The letter seems peculiar. I think that the Minister, when he is winding up, might want to come back to that point. Another specific point that I would like the Minister to address when winding up is where things stand on the ombudsman's report, which found the Government guilty of maladministration leading to injustice over their refusal to pay compensation to some residents. As hon. Members may well remember, the report included some extremely distressing cases: a couple who wished to move because their son had hanged himself in the property; and another where a woman with a degenerative illness wanted to move closer to her family but was unable to do so. I understand that there is a meeting this evening. I also understand that there might be some suggestion that the Government will be rather more helpful than they have been about the ombudsman's report. I very much hope that that is true and that we can have some news on that.

I should also be grateful to know what progress has been made to ensure that when passengers arrive at St. Pancras station the infrastructure can cope with the traffic, because one of the great worries about rail privatisation is that there will be separate writs breaking up the national network and that there will not be the necessary co-ordination of the system. I want to know whether those developments are in hand and, in particular, whether we can now have a firm date for the commencement of direct services via east coast and west coast main lines to the rest of the country.

Our view is that the project is essential to the updating and strengthening of Britain's rail network, and we as a party are absolutely committed to the maintenance of a united national rail network that will co-ordinate transport services throughout our country and remain in public ownership. We also believe that it will improve comfort and efficiency for travellers and that our trade and business relationships with our European neighbours will be strengthened. We deeply deplore the terrible delays that the project has suffered because of the Government's ideological obsessions, but we strongly support it and look forward greatly to taking responsibility for it in government and carrying it through to success.

Several hon. Members rose --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is self-evident that a large number of hon. Members wish to speak. The debate must finish at 7.21, so I appeal for short speeches.

6.11 pm

Dame Peggy Fenner (Medway): I am grateful to get your help in this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will try to comply with your injunction. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench two particular points. First, today on the front of a national tabloid appeared a report--I do not know whether it was leaked--which concluded that the M2 road widening between junctions 1 and 4 has been postponed. I remind my right hon. Friend that the Select Committee sought assurances that it would be completed within the same

Column 348

construction period as the channel tunnel rail link. The Government themselves gave the qualification that if either were delayed for funding reasons, they would not delay the other indefinitely. I should make it quite clear about the widening of the M2 road that, as soon as I learned the price of building another bridge--hon. Members will be aware that we are to have two road bridges and one rail bridge adjacent to one of my villages, Borstal, near Rochester--I said that it was a bridge too far, and asked whether we could ban the road. I ask my right hon. Friend to look again to see whether that road really is needed, as it is a great imposition and additional noise to my constituents.

Secondly, I had hoped to read in the instructions to the Select Committee-- I accept that they cannot be too detailed--some instruction to look again at the mitigation of noise, because my constituents are certainly not satisfied with noise barriers that cover only one portion of each of these three confounded bridges. They want noise barriers that go right the way across. Their living environment must be balanced against the visual impact that the barriers would have. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that some of the £13.6 million that was allocated from Brussels should be given to ensure the protection of the living environment of the people in Kent and in London who perforce must have this link running through their section of the country.

I have read a rumour, but being a politician I do not believe much that I read in the newspapers, that the Select Committee, when it continues into the next Session--I hoped that this would be in the instruction--will look specifically at generic matters, such as blight, compensation, noise mitigation and construction, because in those matters hon. Members like myself are very worried about people who want or need to move. We are worried about construction--in the case of my constituents, not only of a rail bridge but of another road bridge, and all that that implies. My constituents hoped that building of the two bridges would run simultaneously, but they opened their paper today and learned that that will not be. Will they have 10 years of construction, as the bridges are built sequentially, one after the other?

Part of my constituents' problem, in addition to this great burden on their environment, is that the construction will interfere with a tip that has had asbestos dumped on it for years. Nobody will give them any scientific evidence that it is safe to interfere with it. I warn my right hon. Friend that they require some scientific reassurance about the effects of moving the tip, and construction on and around it. I do so in respect of a recent finding in a court on compensation for people who are suffering because, as children, they played near a source of asbestos. People are naturally worried. We also had the same situation in the dockyard. Although proximity to the source of asbestos was many years ago, men have died 30 years later.

I take it that hidden in this instruction are the detailed instructions to the Select Committee about its next work. I know that the Chairman of the Select Committee is a very independent character and that he and the Committee will do it their way, but I seek assurances on the fate of the M2 and its consequential co-ordinated building; the factory farm site and its asbestos; and the noise mitigation barriers across all two or three of the bridges, whichever it finishes.

Column 349

6.17 pm

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): Some six hours ago I, too, emerged from the channel tunnel on Eurostar, coming back from meetings in Brussels, and I have to say that my experience was identical to that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) rather than that of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink). Indeed, other passengers in the carriage clearly thought that there was something wrong with the train. Those coming from Brussels who had not used it before, having had the smooth ride through Belgium and France, when suddenly faced with a remarkable reduction in speed, and much more rattle and swerve as they came through the Kent countryside, clearly did not relish the prospect of reaching London, as they feared, some hours late because the train obviously had something wrong with it.

We know that there is nothing wrong with the train; it is a great institution, but the link is clearly totally inadequate. That is why I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House will congratulate the Select Committee and express relief that it has made such progress so far. We are grateful to the right hon. and hon. Members who have undertaken this task, but it has to be said that already the likely cost of the link has risen by another £170 million as a result of the amendments. We are now looking at a bill of something in excess of £2.7 billion. The cost of delay is clearly the most difficult cost of all to face. How can we justify that to our constituents, who are already well aware of the considerable time that it has taken to get thus far?

The instructions clearly are helpful in a number of ways, and I shall concentrate on one or two of them and their broad purpose rather than go into great detail, because I know that many hon. Members with local concerns wish to speak. The most important implications are for the provision of freight travel through the tunnel. I have always believed that to be the major justification for a rail-based fixed link across the channel. Indeed, I believe that that is already considered to be fully justified, and that its potential is extremely exciting.

Last year, for the first time, freight shipments on the United Kingdom's rail network fell below 100 million tonnes. That has serious implications for the whole British economy, let alone for the balance between road and rail. I hope that both these instructions and the speed with which the Committee is able to make progress will result in increasing opportunities for the economic transport of freight by rail.

A few weeks ago, it was suggested in the Financial Times that that would be the most critical issue in regard to future funding of the tunnel, and also that it would be critically important to our entire rail network. Given that few freight journeys of less than 300 miles are possible because of the loading and unloading costs at each end, the access given by the tunnel to the continental rail network is clearly of remarkable importance. We shall not have that opportunity again. More than 75 freight trains a week are making regular return journeys to a number of European countries; surely we should encourage that trend.

Given that the inadequacies of the trans-European network from Britain's point of view are of our own making, we are clearly presented with another opportunity. According to a Railnews bulletin sent to hon. Members by Eurotunnel,

Column 350

"taking the road to rail ratio and comparing to other countries, Britain could have got 750km of high speed rail but instead only got 80km, for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Sources in Brussels have said that Britain could have got very much more if it had applied; one wonders if there is a real government intention to spend a significant amount of money on improving the West Coast Main Line. Could not some of it have come from this TEN scheme? Even the modest £70 million required for the line upgrading between Glasgow and Folkestone for piggyback services could have been covered under the combined transport priority list.

The Whitehall excuse is that projects, other than the CTRL, were not sufficiently advanced--who can we blame for this but the same people!"

The CTRL is incredibly important in itself, but it should also be the pioneering project that leads to effective new

investment--particularly in freight travel--on our rail network in other parts of the country. It is feared that the return that Railtrack will demand for access charges--not just for the CTRL, but elsewhere in the country--could hold that back.

Of course noise insulation--to which the hon. Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) referred--and blight involve important

considerations. Many hon. Members will wish to express their constituents' views on those subjects, but those are transitional problems, and I hope that the improvements that have already been hinted at will be seen as the Committee continues its work. I believe--as, I think, do many members of the public, as well as Members of Parliament--that the function of this link to the continental network to extend opportunities for the freight industry to convey more loads by rail will really make the difference. It will be able to remove from the hard-pressed roads of Kent, and southern England generally, a proportion of the heavy loads that they are currently carrying, and at the same time enable the road improvement programme to be seen in a different light.

Finally, let me comment on future funding for not just the CTRL but similar projects. The French Government may not be perfect in other respects, but over many years, under different political leadership, they have seen opportunities for partnership between local authorities and national Government, and between public and private enterprise, as critical to such projects as high-speed rail links. The DATTAR scheme is by no means perfect in its consideration of environmental implications--we in this country would probably consider ourselves better at such things--but in other respects it leaves us standing.

Today, not for the first time, I passed through the amazing station at Lille where the three mayors of the Lille conurbations--all of different political persuasions--worked together to create a magnificent focus for a TGV station, as well as for Eurostar and for an integrated nodal transport system. That project is already a great success: it has generated new business and retail involvement. I believe that we are missing an opportunity. I hope very much that the Committee's work will be successful, but I fear that we are still treating the project as a "one-off"--a project that can be attempted only in special circumstances--when it should be showing how we can bring private investment into the public-sector rail network as a whole.

That is the Liberal Democrat recipe for the success of a 21st-century rail system. It is working successfully in other parts of Europe, and we should model the future of Railtrack on it rather than allow the cranks of the right to abscond with an important national asset.

Next Section

Home Page