| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 351
The House will wish to congratulate the Committee on the work that it has done so far. I believe, however, that delay could prove extremely expensive, not just to the individuals who are blighted by it but to the whole British economy. With heartfelt emphasis, we add to our previous plea: the Committee has all our best wishes, and godspeed.6.25 pm
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) and his Committee. I do not know whether they are volunteers or pressed men--I do not think that there are any women on the Committee--but, in any event, they are devoting a vast amount of their time, and showing the utmost diligence, in dealing with a highly complicated matter.
I want to make three points. The first relates to the old and continuing issue of blight, and the adequacy or otherwise of the discretionary powers of acquisition that are now applied by Union Railways. I welcome the fact that Union Railways is having a further stab at this, and has come up with a new voluntary acquisition package; but I am extremely doubtful about whether that package will be generous enough to meet the needs of people who, without any doubt, have experienced catastrophic blight. They cannot sell their main asset other than at sacrificial prices.
It simply is not reasonable to put home owners in such a position. The limited number of my constituents who are in that position are making fresh applications under the new arrangements announced by Union Railways, and I earnestly hope that those applications will be successful. If they are not, I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to change the rules and make them that much more generous, so that no one is asked to take a large knock on personal capital for a scheme pursued in the public interest. That financial burden should be borne by the public; it is not for individuals to accept a major financial sacrifice and not to obtain fair value for their homes.
My second point relates to two of the detailed provisions of the second motion, (q) and (r). They appear to widen the Committee's instruction to enable it to consider open-ended changes for what will be approved planning permissions--and, indeed, extensions to compulsory purchase. We want to be assured that those wide new provisions will not be used to the detriment of the rights of individual land owners, and rights pertaining to easements. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure us of the limited and responsible use of what are wide extensions of both deemed planning permission and compulsory purchase powers.
My third point concerns freight. I hope that my hon. Friend can assure us that nothing in the second motion will be used to constrain the freight use of the rail link; indeed, I hope that he will be able to tell us that freight use will be enhanced to the maximum extent. At present, freight users will be able to use the rail link to a considerable extent. They are also able to use existing lines to the channel tunnel. Given that two freight options are available, I earnestly hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will treat with the utmost scepticism the planned third option that is apparently being constructed by a company called the Central Railway Group.
Column 352
In a letter that my right hon. Friend sent to me in the last week or so, he tells me that Central Railway Group is planning to apply to him for the construction of a third rail freight line from the midlands, going along existing lines and through Tonbridge in my constituency, to the channel tunnel. On the proposals that I have seen so far, that work would have a serious impact on the centre of Tonbridge and on other regions up and down the proposed route of the Central Railway Group's new freight link.Given that hon. Members are planning to create a new railway line that will carry freight, and that existing lines already carry freight, it is superfluous to create a third freight route, with all the potential blighting effects under the Central Railway Group's proposals. I hope therefore that my right hon. Friend will be mindful of those points if, in the next few weeks, an order is put to him under the Transport and Works Act 1992 procedure.
Mr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth): Will my right hon. Friend give way before he sits down?
Hon. Members: He has sat down.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I believe that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) had already resumed his seat.
6.30 pm
Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury): In this debate, the starting point for all of us must be that we want the channel tunnel high- speed rail link to be built not only as quickly as possible but in the right way. For those of us who represent constituencies along the route of the line, building it in the right way is terribly important. I do not, therefore, want either of the motions before us tonight to be opposed or defeated, but I do want to flag up one concern.
The most intricate part of the proposed route is the approach to St. Pancras, which comes through the borough of Islington, across the east coast main line and into the St. Pancras railway lands. The Select Committee considering the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill spent considerable time on that matter, and I pay great tribute to its work. I am delighted to see its Chairman, Vice-Chairman and my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) here. The Committee deserves great credit for the assiduity of its work.
In its initial conclusions just before the summer recess, the Select Committee recommended that, in the approach to St. Pancras, what has become known as "Alan Baxter's fully tunnelled option" should be adopted. There was rejoicing in my constituency at that recommendation because it was precisely what local people wanted. It removed the problems of blight, disturbance and noise that they had feared.
Work is continuing on the working up of Baxter's fully tunnelled option but, alongside it, we have a second option developed by Union Railways, which the Committee will consider together with Baxter's scheme. The alternative approach will not be completely fully tunnelled. It will, however, contain more tunnel than in the original reference case. Both options under consideration are better, therefore, than the reference case. Local residents are in the process of examining in detail both options to find out which one they would prefer.
Column 353
Those residents have gone through a rollercoaster of hope and despair on this exercise. Having been told that the Baxter's option was going to be adopted, suddenly they are faced with two potential options, one of which may not be as good as the Baxter's option. Blight has returned to the western part of Islington around Caledonian road as a direct result of the new uncertainty that has been created.There is a problem. The plans for the two options will, as I understand it, be deposited on 5 December. Local residents will then have only five weeks to prepare new petitions on the new proposals. Even worse, the people who have already petitioned must pay another £20 fee to submit their new petition, which, through no fault of their own, deals with new material.
I hope that the Government, the Select Committee and the House will recognise that the procedure of having to petition fast over the Christmas period and of petitioners having to pay an additional fee above what was originally deposited is putting a great difficulty in the way of the petitioners. I flag up that concern. Petitioners are being put at a severe disadvantage, blight has returned, and there is continuing concern about what will happen in relation to the final approach to St. Pancras.
I make two simple requests. The first is to Union Railways. It is that there will be a full and fair working up of both the options--the Baxter's fully tunnelled option and the Union Railways option. Local residents will be able to make a clear decision and put their representations to the Select Committee only with a full and fair assessment of the impact of the two alternatives.
The second plea is to the Select Committee members, and I am sure that they will readily accept this: listen carefully to what local residents say when they have had a real chance to examine in detail the two options on the table as we are talking here, not just about the value of property, although that is important, but about people's lives for many years to come. People locally want the line to be built in the right way, but they want their lives to be damaged as little as possible in the process. I am sure that the Committee will want to listen to what they have to say in putting their case forward.
6.37 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham): My constituency has been blighted since 1988. Every route that has been considered for a rail link has twisted and turned across my constituency and, therefore, we in Gravesham view with much concern the on-going considerations in relation to the rail link.
I should like to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to item (u) in the second motion, which refers to the
"A2 and M2 improvement works".
Those works take place in an especially sensitive area of the green belt, which is strong on the natural environment. It contains Ashenbank wood and, in relation to heritage, Cobham hall. That region must be treated with careful consideration by the Select Committee when it returns to it.
Column 354
Encompassed within the M2-A2 works is a junction for the so-called Wainscott bypass. If my hon. Friend the Minister is looking for vast savings to be made on the road programme, the best thing he could do is to scrap that bypass, and to simplify the A2-M2 junction. In those works, reference is made to stopping up various highways in the region. Select Committee members should pay careful attention to a number of accesses along there, especially to the Rochester and Cobham golf club. If that access is blocked, the golf club will be cut off and there will be major havoc to transport flows in the parish of Cobham.The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) referred to work being started on the rail link in 1997. One of the first works to be done would be the initial work for the construction of the tunnel underneath the River Thames and the construction of the Ebbsfleet railway station. These works will be on either side of the ancient town of Northfleet. Heavy goods vehicles already thunder through that old town. If works start on both these massive projects under the rail link proposals, life for the residents of Northfleet will be made totally intolerable.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to nag the highways authority--Kent county council--to ensure that, in its programme for 1996-97, it gives the Northfleet bypass the highest priority. I know that my hon. Friend has referred to it as a high priority, but our highways authority must make that its top priority. If my hon. Friend is worried about the finance for the Northfleet bypass, which is known as the south Thamesside development route phase 4, I point out that he can certainly finance it out of the considerable savings to be made on the Wainscott bypass.
I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley). The House has authorised expenditure of £1.2 billion for improving the existing railroads across Kent to cope with the increased traffic coming from the channel tunnel; passengers and freight now go along the southern routes. The argument in favour of the rail link is saturation of rail capacity across Kent. The construction of the channel tunnel rail link is to bring additional capacity across Kent. As it is new, the logical thing to do is to build it to high-speed qualities so that we do not have one or two problems that were referred to earlier.
If one builds a brand new channel tunnel rail link for high-speed operation, the last thing one does is to put across it heavy carriages with heavy goods. The high-speed rail link should not have freight running along it, not least because residents along the high-speed rail link will not have had railways running past their properties before, and they should not have that added imposition. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling about compensation. We remain to be convinced that there are proposals adequately to compensate people whose houses are their principal investment and saving in this life. It is not fair to say, "We need the project, we cannot really afford it, so we will finance it partly out of the capital value of your house." That would be a shameful way in which to treat my constituents and those of hon. Members in Kent and in central London. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give a lot of encouragement tonight, and that the Select Committee will also bear these points in mind.
Column 355
6.42 pmMs Margaret Hodge (Barking): I join everyone in thanking those members of the Select Committee who did something that is rather unusual-- at least for Conservative Members--and very welcome, which is that they listened. Those who attended the Select Committee sitting that I attended with my constituents were astounded to see Members of Parliament applauded by members of the public for their courtesy in listening. We very much welcome that.
The original proposals were ill conceived and wrong; we have to say that today. They were led by engineers who had no proper concern for ordinary people. The original proposals were dominated by the view that short-term penny-pinching rather than the long-term interests of all the people along the route must be the essence of what was being considered.
The original proposals brought enormous hardship to hundreds if not thousands of my constituents. There was one gentleman whose life was dominated by the issue and who suffered from terrible emphysema because of his proximity to the existing rail track. He died worried about his future.
One family cared at home for a son who was severely handicapped. They wished to emigrate to Canada so that their other children could care for their son in the long term. They were unable to do so and have remained unable to do so because they cannot sell their property; it remains blighted.
Another constituent was unemployed for a long time. He managed to secure a job elsewhere, but he could not take it because he could not sell his house and move to Chelmsford. Those are the real stories--not transitional problems--of the impact of ill-thought-out proposals on my constituents and on thousands of people along the line. I have three points for the Minister. First, we need some indication of the timetable for bringing in the new safeguarding directions to alleviate the blight. The blight has been there for many years and is still there. Secondly, I stress that the discretionary purchase scheme lies in the hands of the Minister and his Department. He cannot keep shifting the blame to other people, whether Union Railways or the Select Committee. If it turns out that people remain unable to sell their properties--if it turns out that people lose their freedom of movement, which is critical to them--the Government must take responsibility and must return to a more generous discretionary purchase scheme, along the lines of the French scheme.
Thirdly, there will be increased freight. What we must ensure and what is of particular concern to my constituents is that the freight does not shift to the roads. They would then have the impact of the rail link and increased road traffic.
My constituents are not well off. They will now have to make new representations to the Committee. Not only is there the £20 fee, but the fees incurred if legal advice is sought and the loss of earnings for the time that they have to take off work to make representations to the Committee. Those new costs should be met by the public purse because, if the Government's original proposals had been less incompetent, we would not have had the additional delay and further consideration by the Committee.
Column 356
If the present Secretary of State had been in his position earlier, if the present Minister for Railways and Roads had had an influence earlier and if I had been able to make representations earlier, we should not have ended up with a compromise for Barking. I welcome the compromise, but it is not ideal. It does not tear the heart out of Barking as the original proposals would have done, but it leaves hundreds of people, both house owners and council tenants, with an uncertain future. They are unclear about whether they can move and whether the channel tunnel rail link will have a long-term impact on their lives.I hope that the Select Committee and the House can come up with sensible proposals to deal with blight and with the discretionary purchase scheme, to alleviate some of the suffering that has been caused in my constituency.
6.48 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I congratulate the Committee on having worked so hard. I was a little disappointed to learn that a senior member of the Committee had said that the proposals from Kent had been well put by officers but not sufficiently supported by councillors. That is unjust, as all the representations made by Kent were made with the endorsement of the councillors. Indeed, in at least one case--and I think in several others-- county councillors were not allowed to give evidence to the Select Committee on behalf of their parish councils. So if there is any sense that there is a lack of political will behind what the Kent people have been saying, it is misunderstood.
I am of course going to support the motions, because, as many hon. Members have said, they are the only way in which to relieve my constituents from blight. But I do so with a heavy heart. It has been a lamentable story. We were told at the beginning, when the channel tunnel was first being devised, that there was no need for a railway; we were told that there would be no question of any form of public subsidy for the line; we were told that there would be four routes on the table, although it quickly became apparent that three of them were a complete whitewash and not ever intended to be worked. A whole series of undertakings have been given and withdrawn.
My constituents are thoroughly cynical about whether they will even see what the Select Committee has recommended--and, indeed, has been accepted so far--happen in practice. It is perfectly clear, as many of my constituents who are much more numerate than I shall ever be have pointed out, that the economic viability of this line is very fragile. Ministers have made it clear in correspondence among themselves that they have anxieties on that score. Those anxieties are well founded.
The worst possible outcome for any of us would be that all the proceedings on this Bill in both Houses of Parliament were completed and the line was not built for a considerable length of time. That would be a scandal and I hope very much that my hon. Friend the Minister will give us an undertaking --even though I am sceptical about some of the undertakings that I have had so far--that the line really will work.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister, however, for the letter that I have received this very evening saying that, on the authority of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Committee, it has been agreed that the worst cases of hardship brought before that Committee will be looked at again. That is a welcome assurance.
Column 357
I say once again to my hon. Friend--he has heard me say it before, but it is essential to say it again--that the way in which we handle compensation on big public schemes is a scandal. It is not easy, but what happens is a scandal. For the permanent secretary to the Department of Transport to try to maintain that there are only two kinds of blight--statutory blight and the blight caused by uncertainty--is so far removed from reality as to be a disgrace. Member after Member in this short debate has pointed out that, although there is no uncertainty over large parts of the line, the blight persists and will probably persist for another decade. I do not believe that the line will be built as quickly as we all hope that it will be. I heard today that a potential tenant of Union Railways was offered a 10-year tenancy. When the tenant said that the company had to be joking because the line was set to go through the cottage, Union Railways is alleged to have said that there was no chance of the line being built in the time scale provided. I have not had time to check the story, but if it is true, it is a disgrace. I wonder what the real cost of the line will eventually turn out to be. There has never been a project on such a scale which has cost anything like the budget first projected. The only thing that would be worse than not having the line built after all the proceedings in both Houses would be to have half the line built and some future Government saying that they could not afford to finish it. I should like to make one detailed point. I am disturbed and distressed to discover that the thoroughly sensible way suggested of improving the amenity of the Boxley valley--one of the causes ce le bres before the Select Committee--by the road going over the line, under the project described as 3A, has been thrown out by Union Railways. I very much hope that in this debate the Minister will allow us to hope that at least that alternative could once again be properly considered.I say to hon. Members on both sides of the House, that after the matter is resolved, the trauma of compensation and blight that we have all endured should not be forgotten. Could we not have a cross-party consensus that the present system of handling compensation is lamentably unfair and try to work out a better system for the future?
6.55 pm
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): I join other Members in paying a warm tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), and the members of that Committee--not because I am a creep, although I am prepared to do almost anything to get the Stratford international station located in my area, but because I have chaired many a Committee on a private Bill and I know precisely how much hard work goes into it and how little credit is given to the Members who carry out the work. I also join with the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and others who have referred to blight. I raise the matter in a slightly jokey fashion, but on the present alignment the tunnel would go immediately under my house in Forest Gate. I am quite happy for that to happen
Column 358
if we can get the international station located at Stratford. Indeed, I do not care if the tunnel goes right through my living room so long as we get that station.Compensation and blight must be taken into account. One would always hope that Union Railways and the Government would be as generous as possible. Many people who want the project are living in properties which will be blighted, especially if, as has been suggested, the time scale for the project is way beyond 10 years. When the Chairman reported the initial findings of the Committee, he said:
"It is our view that a station at Stratford capable of handling international traffic is desirable both in the national interest and in the interest of regenerating eastern London."
In east London we say "Hear, hear" to that.
The long box recommendation, which safeguards the possibility of an international station at Stratford, has been accepted by the Government, who will require the nominated undertaker to build it, but they are resisting the Committee's proposal that it should be done under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
Mr. Stephen Timms (Newham, North-East): Given the Committee's strong endorsement of the Stratford station, which my hon. Friend has just relayed, given the support that the Government have given to the long box, given the fact that every local authority in London supports the choice of Stratford international, given that London First supports it, and given that everybody who advises the Government on regeneration in London supports it, does he agree that it is now time for the Government quickly to give firm support to the Stratford international proposal?
Mr. Banks: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend, and many Conservative Members would also agree with him.
I should like to ask the Minister a series of specific questions. Although the Government will require the long box to be constructed by the nominated undertaker, the nominated undertaker has not yet been chosen. When does the Minister expect to choose the nominated undertaker? Will the decision on Stratford be coupled with that choice, or will it be taken separately? If it is taken separately, when does he intend to take a decision on Stratford? That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) has just raised. Will it be a final decision with regard to Stratford?
Can the Minister confirm that the Stratford rail lands will not be sold off piecemeal prior to a decision? We have received some assurances from the Department of Transport, and a recent letter from the Department to the chief executive of Newham confirmed it, but a public statement from the Minister would be very useful at this point.
In my area, we are alarmed that Railfreight is talking actively about reopening Stratford as a major freight terminal--in fact, as a railhead for freight--contrary to all previous assurances that Ministers and officials have given us that there will no freight railhead in east London. What is going on? Can the Minister tell us? Who is calling the shots? We need to know.
The proposals that Railfreight is now talking about appear to be in conflict with the proposals for developments on the rail land, including the international station at Stratford. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East said, there is enormous cross-party
Column 359
and cross-London support for Stratford as the location of the second international London station. I hope that the Minister will find time to answer the very specific questions that I have asked. 6.59 pmMr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North): I was interested to read in a biographical note about the Secretary of State that he once wrote a book called "Blessing or Blight?" It was on the tourist industry, but in his leisure years the right hon. Gentleman may be able to follow it up by writing about the channel tunnel link and rail privatisation.
We have had a good debate. I add my congratulations to the members of the Select Committee who did the drudgery and, as has been said, listened to the many objections and concerns. I pay tribute, too, to my colleagues who have made such effective representations on behalf of their constituents.
Perhaps the most interesting comments in the debate were made by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who asked when and whether the link would be built. He said that the worst thing would be if "some future Government" said that they would not complete it. However, as the hon. Gentleman and everybody else here should know, under the present scheme it will not be within the gift of the Government to say that they will or will not complete the link. The intention is to hand over the works to a private company, which will decide whether to complete the link.
Let us look at the scenario that Ministers are creating, and the trail of past Secretaries of State for Transport. It seems that an announcement will soon be made that the assets of European Passenger Services--almost £1 billion worth of public assets, every penny of which was paid for by the taxpayer, every brick and pane of glass in the Waterloo international terminal, and every coach and piece of livery on the Eurostar trains--will be handed over to a private company.
From that day the revenue stream, the most lucrative in the history of the British railway network, will go to the private operators. If the Secretary of State wants to contradict me, he is welcome to do so. When the traffic reaches its expected peak, 15 million people a year will travel on the service and every penny of the money will go to the private operator.
The trade-off for that is incredible; if the Mafia had suggested it, it would be regarded as beyond the dreams of avarice. At some future unspecified date, the private consortium will start building a channel tunnel link along a route not yet defined, within a time scale which, as the hon. Member for Mid-Kent rightly said, is undefinable.
If one of the consortia were unscrupulous enough it would go round east London funding the objectors, saying, "Keep this going as long as possible. The last thing we want to do is to build a channel tunnel link. Why should we, because our revenue stream is guaranteed ad infinitum?"
Will the Secretary of State contradict any of that? When the announcement is made will he tell us why the operator would have a vested interest in speeding up the process of building a channel tunnel link? More important, will the Minister who replies to the debate give me one reason why the assets of European Passenger Services should be
Column 360
handed to a private operator before the Bill has completed its passage, and before a sod has been turned on the route that is finally decided?Why is it essential for the private operator to have the revenue stream before there is agreement on either the route or the financing of the rail link? Will the Minister answer that simple question, because it has never been answered? What precedent is there for giving an operator the money in return for an unspecified, and I believe ultimately unsustainable, expectation that the link will be built according to criteria laid down by the Government and the Select Committee?
What is the rush to give away the assets, other than that which underlies all the activities of the Tory party? It is the desire to shovel as much wealth and as many public assets towards its friends in the private sector before the day of judgment when the Tories are finally turfed out. Why is it a matter of public urgency to give away the assets of European Passenger Services?
Let us look back at the timetable for the process. Government is about more than rhetoric; it is about record. The Government should be judged harshly on what they have done to the constituents of many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and for what they have done to British prestige, leaving us with the poor relation, the national embarrassment of the slow line to the channel tunnel, where the French take over with a high-speed railway line.
Let us look at the record of disaster and fiasco. The Channel Tunnel Act 1987 ruled out public funding to support passenger services. Not a penny of public funds was to go to support rail passenger services to or from the channel tunnel. In those days Parkinson's law ruled, under section 42(3) of the Channel Tunnel Act.
In 1988 British Rail launched a competition for a public-private partnership. In those days the Tories hated even public-private partnerships because the word "public" was mentioned. In 1989 Cecil Parkinson reaffirmed:
"It remains the policy of the Government that no subsidy will be given to channel tunnel rail services".
In June 1990 the public-private idea was killed off. British Rail had done a deal on it and then it was killed off, throwing the whole thing into disarray--the ideological hammer blow. I shall return later to the figures involved at that time.
In October 1991 a proud announcement was made at the Tory party conference. By that time it was the present Foreign Secretary, then Secretary of State for Transport, who made the announcement. The route had been definitively finalised and would go through Stratford, terminating at King's Cross.
In 1993 it was the turn of the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), who has now gone off to his merchant bank, where he belongs. He said that the decision was not final at all. Stratford was called into question and Ebbsfleet mysteriously appeared--the Rumbold memorial terminal. Stratford was no longer on the agenda. In 1994 the Bill finally got going--and here we are carrying it on into 1995-96. Thank heaven that, while the Tories blundered around and went to every conceivable length to take the project away from the public sector, the public sector was getting on and doing the job. That is
Column 361
why we have that wonderful Waterloo international terminal, and the trains built and designed in the public sector. The whole job has been done by the public sector, and the public sector is proud of it.What were the costs? In 1990 when Cecil Parkinson killed the joint public- private sector venture, British Rail was requesting a grant of £500 million and a low-interest loan of £1 billion. For that, the job could have been started and the Committee would have been under way in 1990. The work on the link would have been well in progress by now; perhaps it would even have been completed.
However, that was ruled out--it was far too much money. But look what the Government have done with taxpayers' money now. According to the British Rail annual report and accounts for 1994-95, the assets of European Passenger Services, now being transferred to the private sector, are worth £800 million. For Union Railways the figure is already £42.6 million, and cumulative expenditure on the railway project to date is £492 million.
In other words, without a sod having been turned on the project, as much money has been spent as would earlier have been spent to have had the whole thing finished, with a link built and the national embarrassment avoided.
Of course the expenditure continues. Will the Minister tell us how many hundreds of millions of pounds the Government now intend to hand over to the purchasers of European Passenger Services--or rather, "purchasers" is the wrong word, because they will be getting it for nothing? How much cash will they get, on top of the assets? What will be the total bill to the taxpayer for handing the enterprise over to the private sector? The Minister should give us some answers, because that is a fraud on the nation and on the taxpayer.
7.8 pm
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I am tempted to follow the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) into his fantasy world, but the limited time available to me is better spent in trying to reply to some of the serious points made by right hon. and hon. Members. I remind the hon. Gentleman, however, that the previous Labour Government cancelled the project to build the channel tunnel, so some of his blusterings lack conviction.
There is impatience in the House for the railway to be built and opened as soon as possible, and that impatience was shared by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). The project has taken a number of years to develop, and the House is now rightly considering it in fine detail. Everyone directly affected has had the opportunity to petition and to be heard by the Select Committee. Justifiable tributes were paid by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the way in which the Select Committee --under the able chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant)--listened carefully to the petitions and responded in a practical and sympathetic way. The Committee has
Column 362
proposed many important changes. Where it has not done so, the matter must be regarded as settled as far as this House is concerned.Sir Michael Neubert (Romford): I am sorry to intrude on my hon. Friend when he is short of time, but I do so on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who is away on ministerial duties. The Committee recommended that the route should be varied and should deviate 20 m south of the line proposed in the Bill as it passes through Rainham. That is not specifically mentioned now. Has there been an omission?
Mr. Watts: All the matters on which the Committee made a recommendation have been covered by our response. The instructions before the House relate to matters that the Committee does not already have adequate powers to consider and take forward. I appreciate that a number of hon. Members would like more changes, but the suggestions have all had a fair run before the Select Committee. The Committee is quasi-judicial, which means that its decisions and recommendations carry special weight, but the promoters' approach to the Committee's announcements on 20 July was --as far as possible--to deliver what the Committee sought. In undertaking the further development work, new problems and opportunities invariably arise. It was therefore important to look not only at the letter of what the Committee sought but at the underlying explicit and implicit objectives. We were loth to reject decisions, and where problems arose we sought other ways of achieving what the Committee wanted. At the end of September, the Government published their detailed response to the Select Committee; it is now for the Committee to decide whether it is content.
The hon. Member for Ladywood accused the Government of seeking to "nobble" the Committee. I commend to her the transcript of the proceedings of the Select Committee on 24 October--day 57 of the proceedings--in which the Chairman of the Committee quoted the Secretary of State's letter of 23 October to him. The letter reaffirms the Government's recognition of the quasi-judicial role of the Select Committee, of the chairman's independence and of not constraining the Committee's work. The Chairman said that he had no more to say on the subject; nor do I.
The hon. Lady also raised the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the Chairman of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), to give the Government's response to the Committee's report, which was published on 25 July. Copies of the letter were sent to hon. Members concerned and placed in the Library.
The Government are prepared to consider afresh how a scheme might operate to implement the Committee's recommendation that redress could be granted to those affected to an extreme and exceptional degree by generalised blight from the CTRL between June 1990 and April 1994. We must look at the costs, which cannot yet be established. The response is out of respect for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Select Committee and for the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner, and without any admission of fault or liability.
Column 363
The hon. Lady asked me about Eurostar services beyond London. European Passenger Services expects to begin these services in the first half of 1996.My hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) mentioned the M2 proposals and their concurrency with the construction of the CTRL. I can tell her that there is no foundation to the report relating to the M2 in today's edition of the Daily Mail .
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): I understand that, if preliminary work has not been carried out on the Wennington-Mardyke section of the A13 before the channel tunnel rail link has been constructed, the Government will have to pay heavy compensation. Can the Minister clarify that? Will he write to me on the matter, as it is not clear whether the section will go ahead or what the consequences would be if it did not?
Mr. Watts: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well seized of the significance of the A13 scheme to the CTRL project, and I shall write to him in due course on that matter.
We recognise the advantages of a co-ordinated approach to the M2 schemes, to the construction of the CTRL and to construction of the projects within the same time scale. That is why the M2-A2 scheme was originally included in the CTRL legislation. I can assure the House that the Government will use all reasonable endeavours to ensure that the M2-A2 widening works are completed within the same period as the CTRL, and that the construction arrangements for the two projects are co-ordinated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Medway also raised the generic issues that are to be addressed by the Committee, including those related to blight compensation. There is no instruction to the Committee on this matter because it needs no new instruction. The Committee already has the power to look at such matters and make recommendations. I understand that the Committee has heard a great deal of evidence on the matter already, and it is not ready to make recommendations. When it does, we shall consider them, but it would be premature for me to prejudge what the Committee might recommend.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) mentioned freight and the CTRL. The Committee asked for the freight loops at Charing and Singlewell and for the connection to the Dollands Moor freight yard to be constructed according to the same time scale as the main project to allow the rail link to carry as much freight as possible. We have accepted that recommendation, and given the Committee an undertaking that will be binding on the nominated undertaker.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling also raised--he has done so assiduously on many occasions--the problems of blight, and he referred to the new voluntary purchase arrangements introduced in July. For the first time, we are to bring the arrangements for new rail projects into line with those for roads. In fact, before these proposals were made, there was no provision for dealing with new rail projects in terms of voluntary purchase arrangements. Other matters concerning blight compensation are for the Committee to consider and to
| Next Section
| Home Page |