| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Channel Tunnel Rail Link
5. Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the promoter for the channel tunnel rail link. [13022]
Sir George Young: We expect to announce soon the name of the winning consortium in the competition to select a private sector promoter for the channel tunnel rail link.
Mr. Arnold: My right hon. Friend will be more than aware of not only the battering that the current promoter, Union Railways--a British Rail subsidiary--has taken from people in north-west Kent in relation to the possible damage to the environment but the opportunities in terms of jobs, and so on, that are to be gained from the Ebbsfleet station. Is he aware that we need a decision now on a promoter so that we can ensure that our environment is safeguarded and, above all, that the opportunities deriving from Ebbsfleet are realised as soon as possible?
Sir George Young: It is an important project for the nation--it has been supported by both sides of the House--and for my hon. Friend's constituents, who will gain access to a quick link to St. Pancras station. As I said in my initial response, we hope to make an announcement soon.
Mr. Timms: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when he makes that announcement, he will also announce the Government's decision on intermediate stations? Will he further confirm that, in making that decision, the Government will honour the commitment made by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in 1991 that the rail link will bring economic regeneration to east London?
Sir George Young: It is indeed my intention when I announce the name of the successful competitor to make a simultaneous announcement about the locus of Stratford and the CTRL.
Mr. Chidgey: Will the Secretary of State please assure the House that, when the channel tunnel rail link is constructed, it will allow the operation of large-gauge
freight trains and that links will be made to allow them to operate on an improved and upgraded west coast main line track?
Sir George Young: My understanding is that there is an optional provision for loops for freight traffic. The link is primarily intended for passenger traffic into St. Pancras.
Ms Short: Will the Secretary of State admit that the Government's obsession with rail privatisation has caused long delays in the building of the channel tunnel rail link, and that those delays have meant prolonged blight for many families and a failure to use the opportunity created by the channel tunnel to get more freight on to the railways? Will he take this opportunity to tell the House more about the allegations of financial misbehaviour at Union Railways? Is he aware that the national joke is now about train delays being caused by thieves on the line?
Sir George Young: On the hon. Lady's first question, had we not engaged in dialogue with the private sector, and if the project was to be financed entirely by the public sector, it would have taken significantly longer to be realised.
As for the second point, the hon. Lady will have seen the announcement made last week by Union Railways. I have asked the chairman of Union Railways to keep me abreast of the progress of the investigation. I have no further comment to make at this stage.
Public Transport
6. Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his criteria for the future funding of new capital public transport provision in metropolitan areas. [13023]
Mr. Norris: Funding criteria are set out in Department of Transport circulars 3/89 on section 56 grant and 2/95 on transport policies and programmes guidance to local authorities, both of which are in the Library.
Mr. Gunnell: Does the Minister agree that the scheme for a tramway in Leeds meets the criteria set down by his Department, and that it has the support of all parties in Leeds and strong support from the private sector? Will he assure us that, when he comes to decide on the future funding of the tramway in Leeds, he will bear in mind the length of permission issued by the House for its construction?
Mr. Norris: We do indeed recognise that the tram system in Leeds fits well within the package of measures proposed by the authority. As I explained to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues when we met the week before last, the weight of demand on available resources meant that we could not fund the scheme this year. Not least among those demands was the Midland metro, which received the go-ahead this year, and the prospect of our entering into a similar commitment, subject to the quality of the bids, on the Croydon tramlink. I assure the hon. Gentleman that not least among our considerations are the time constraints laid on Leeds by the statutory process.
Capital Projects (London)
7. Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the most cost-effective capital projects he has planned for London; and when each will be implemented. [13024]
Mr. Norris: The Government's annual report on expenditure on transport over the next three years will be published next month. We are also preparing a document for publication later in the year specifically setting out our transport strategy for London.
Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that one of the most cost-effective capital facilities in London would be a central London river service, the capital costs of which would be but a fraction of the £80-odd million costs of the single station on the Jubilee line at Westminster? Will he confirm that he received a report about a year ago from the transport on water working party, of which the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) and I are members, which advocated such a service?
Will he further confirm that he expects to receive a report from London First this week? Does he agree that the best features of those reports should be sent to a working party to see how effective such a project would be in the interests of visitors and Londoners alike? Would not the installation of such a service be a permanent memorial for the millennium, whatever might happen to other millennium celebration services down the river?
Mr. Norris:
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford for the considerable effort and expertise that they brought to the Transport on Water proposals for a river service on the Thames. The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions about such a service, and I hope that he will accept by way of an answer today that, from the day in 1931 that Sir Alan Herbert mooted the idea of a river service, a great many people who have uttered the immortal phrase, "We should do more about transport on the river," have run up against the practical difficulties that anyone operating such a service at anywhere near financial viability encounters. That being said, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government office for London has, with my distinct approval, invited London First and KPMG to study the business case for passenger transport on the Thames. They are, as the hon. Gentleman says, due to report shortly. I will consider their findings in detail, and I hope to be able to take matters forward from there.
Sir Sydney Chapman:
Will my hon. Friend confirm that capital investment programmes for public transport in London are at a record level, and that, even if the Jubilee line extension project were excluded, investment would be about 10 times more today than it was in 1979?
Mr. Norris:
My hon. Friend is entirely right. That frequently embarrasses the Labour party, but it is one of those uncomfortable statistics with which it will have to live. My hon. Friend's constituents are a long way from the River Thames, and, although they would no doubt appreciate such a service, they might query the wisdom of providing a large public subsidy for a service that, by definition, few would be able to appreciate. We must
Mr. Tony Banks:
If the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) is entirely right, why are there so many clapped-out old buses on London's roads? I suggest that the Minister go outside and see how many filthy and dirty old buses that should have been taken off the roads years ago are belching out fumes and suffocating tourists and Londoners. It is all right for the Minister, who goes around in an air-conditioned chauffeured limo, but those who have to breathe the air know how filthy it is. How much has been spent on new buses in London during the past 12 months?
Mr. Norris:
I have it on fairly good authority that my chauffeured limo is not as large as that of the hon. Gentleman when he was chairman of the Greater London council, and the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question lies in precisely that direction. The other day, I looked at a table that showed the tremendous increase in orders for buses nationally that the private sector has been able to institute. The table provided a rather invidious comparison with the very poor record of the industry when it was under national control in 1985. In London, the largest single trial of cleaner fuel buses has been undertaken at substantial public expense by London Transport Buses, and was inaugurated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |