| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir George Young: I make no apology for my statement to the House, which I think will be widely welcomed by those who take a serious interest in transport policy. I announced the winner at 10 o'clock this morning, because stock exchange requirements oblige the companies concerned to notify it when they incur additional obligations. I did not announce then the decision on Stratford, the Government's commitment or other relevant aspects, which I preserved until my statement to the House this afternoon.
I am glad that the hon. Lady would like to see the channel tunnel rail link constructed. If she wants to proceed with the 1989 proposals, she will have to explain to her hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) why she wants a route that would not have provided the regeneration opportunities that are now available to the Thames gateway. So far as blight is concerned, the hon. Lady will know that the Select Committee saw about 1,000 petitioners, and that it has safeguarded the interests of those who have been affected by the proposals.
As far as the commencement date is concerned, London and Continental proposes to start when the Bill has completed all its stages in both Houses, which I hope will be in about a year's time.
Taxpayers' interests have been protected in respect of the eventualities that the hon. Lady mentioned. The key point that she will have to answer is that it was her party that cancelled a publicly funded channel tunnel; we therefore take with a pinch of salt commitments by the Labour party to any publicly funded project.
So far as the rail link is concerned, the hon. Lady must decide whether she is old Labour or new Labour. If she is old Labour, and she wants this project to be funded conventionally, she must come to the House, with the sanction of her hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), and commit herself to £3 billion-worth of public expenditure.
If, on the other hand, she is new Labour and welcomes projects that involve the private sector, she should welcome with open arms the project that I have just announced, which is a public sector/private sector project; driving the project forward--protecting the taxpayers' interests, harnessing the enterprise, energy and resources of the private sector--at a faster pace than the public sector would ever have been able to afford.
Sir Anthony Durant (Reading, West):
My right hon. Friend will be aware that my Committee sat for 320 hours and 71 sittings on this important Bill. I am sure that my Committee would welcome the fact that the station at Stratford is to be built. We put in the Stratford box so that it could be built, because we supported it but did not wish to hold up the Bill. We are also delighted--I am sure that my Committee would agree--about the development at King's Cross and St. Pancras. I hope that it will be well planned and well developed, as it is a very important development in that part of London. My only plea is: can we get on and build the line?
Sir George Young:
The whole House will want to pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend and all members of the Committee, who spent such a long time listening to the petitioners and processing the Bill through its Select Committee stage. I share his wish that the Bill should make speedy progress in Standing Committee and in another place, so that developers can have the legislative cover that they need.
I am sure that the promoter, London and Continental, will take to heart my hon. Friend's exhortations about the treatment of St. Pancras. All of us who know St. Pancras chambers cannot wait to see that building brought back into constructive use. The regeneration work that will take place there--the construction of a major international terminal--will make it possible to put St. Pancras chambers to more productive use than we have seen for the past decade or so.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
May I refer to the references to the north? The Secretary of State mentioned Manchester and Birmingham. Has he any idea of the frequency of service to Edinburgh and Glasgow using Stratford rather than the difficulties of King's Cross?
Sir George Young:
At this stage and with trains likely to start running on the link in 2002, the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot predict with great accuracy the frequency of the services that will run through to the north, but under the present regime, EPS will run services through London to Birmingham and Manchester, so those who live north of London will have an opportunity to get on an EPS train and go to the continent. Those facilities are, I believe, being extended this year.
Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford):
I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially his confirmation that the station will be built at Ebbsfleet in my constituency. Will he confirm that he will impose, as much as he can, a rigid timetable, so that construction is locked into the shortest possible time, to minimise disruption to my constituents in north-west Kent?
Sir George Young:
It is a contractual minimum requirement that London and Continental should build a combined international and domestic station at Ebbsfleet. In fact, it is keen to do so, because that is an integral part of its plans. It also intends to improve the station by building extra platforms, so that trains running from the north Kent line on to the CTRL can stop at Ebbsfleet, providing an excellent interchange with international services.
The structure of the contract provides London and Continental with every incentive to make good progress. Only when it has achieved a substantial proportion of the contractual requirements will it receive its grant from the Government, and only when the contract is fully met can trains run on the line and provide revenue. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the reassurance he seeks.
Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh):
I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement: the link is essential to our rail system. Sadly, however, there has been a good deal of delay, especially in comparison with the progress made by the French.
Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks, is it not a fact that, had the British Rail proposals been proceeded with in 1989, the link would be nearly in place by now, at a cost of around £1 billion? I recognise the problems that the right hon. Gentleman cited, but is it not also true that much of the delay was caused by the Government's insistence on using solely private finance?
The net result has been an increase in costs from£1 billion to £3 billion. Does not total reliance on the PFI concept mean that the taxpayer ends up paying more, because private finance is more expensive than finance generated by the public?
I welcome the statement about the channel tunnel rail link with the North London line, which will provide links with the west coast main line. That is an important part of the development. Will the Secretary of State assure the House, however, that, throughout the channel tunnel rail link, there will be requirements for the necessary works to be done to accommodate large-gauge freight and to facilitate piggy-back operation?
That will enable us to provide a modern rail freight service throughout the west coast main line, using the meagre £70 million that is needed to upgrade the system. We shall then have a proper, efficient, modern connection between our freight system and the rest of Europe.
Sir George Young:
The CTRL will indeed be able to carry freight, certainly piggy-back--although its main purpose is to carry passenger traffic, thus freeing other lines that may be more appropriate for freight. The capacity and track geometry are suitable, and the necessary loops are there to accommodate freight traffic.
As for the allegation that this deal will cost more than the original one, I do not believe that that is true. The 1990 proposal would have required or placed at risk £1.9 billion of Government money. The eventual outturn could have been much higher, and would probably have fallen on the taxpayer. We now have a well-structured contract that minimises the risks to the taxpayer.
More important, the 1989 and 1990 proposals would not have brought about the significant regeneration that we have secured by re-routeing the CTRL through the Thames gateway and east London, and providing a station at Stratford, where regeneration may create up to 50,000 jobs. We must view the project in the round. It is not just a transport contract; it is very much a regeneration contract as well.
Dame Peggy Fenner (Medway):
I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend assure the House that the conditions imposed on the bid would include all the proposals agreed to by the Select Committee--that the Government had accepted them all.
My right hon. Friend said that other matters could be raised during the Bill's remaining stages, including its consideration in the House of Lords. Does that apply to further petitions in respect of noise barriers? My constituents in Borstal are not wholly satisfied that the barriers agreed to by the Select Committee will be adequate. I would welcome reassurance from my right hon. Friend.
Sir George Young:
My hon. Friend is right. Petitioners will have further opportunities in another place to make that point. As I made clear in my statement, if the Bill is amended as it goes through Parliament, the Government will bear the risks of any changes; but the project will still proceed.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |