| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (PRODUCTION AND SALE) BILL
Ordered,
That, in respect of the Statutory Instruments (Production and Sale) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.--[Mr. Bates.]
Ordered,
That the Speaker shall, notwithstanding Standing Orders Nos. 14B (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents) and 15 (Delegated legislation (negative procedure) ),--
1 Jul 1996 : Column 693
(1) at the sitting on Monday 8th July, put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew relating to Industrial Tribunals and Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion; and
(2) at the sitting on Tuesday 9th July, put the Questions on the Motions in the names of Mr. Secretary Lilley and Mr. Tony Blair relating to Occupational Pension Schemes not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion; and
the said Motions may be proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.--[Mr. Bates.]
PETITION
Inland Revenue (Salisbury)
11.59 pm
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): It is now midnight. Exactly 12 hours ago, I received at St. Stephen's Gate the petition that I now present to the House. My constituents object to the proposal to close the tax office in Salisbury. Nobody likes paying tax, but when people do, they require a good local service to taxpayers and employers. Last year, there were 10,000 personal callers at the Salisbury tax office and more than 50,000 telephone calls seeking advice and help.
- Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will take note of our concern and join us in calling on the Government and the Inland Revenue to maintain current levels of service and to continue to provide a local tax office in Salisbury.
East London Line
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. McLoughlin.]
12 midnight
Mr. Jim Dowd (Lewisham, West): I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise an issue that is important to us in south-east London. I am also pleased to see the Minister in his place. I am well aware that his duties seem to entail responding to a disproportionate number of Adjournment debates; I do not know whether he receives performance-related pay. That highlights the importance that transport-related issues have for Members throughout the country, and especially in London, where the problems are often at their most acute.
I do not know whether the press reports that the summer will see the Minister finally being able to lay down his onerous burden are accurate. If that does happen, I for one will miss him, and I wish him well in whatever the future may bring.
The ability to travel easily into and through inner London on good public transport is becoming ever more urgent as road traffic grows and as greater priority is given by all political parties to environmental standards. In that regard, the prospects for the development of the east London line offer substantial potential for relatively rapid low-cost and cost-effective improvements to the transport system in south-east London in particular.
The dearth of tube services south of the river, and especially in south-east London, is a matter of historical fact and a continuing source of discontent for those of us who live there. The Minister's constituency, which is at least three times further from this place than my own, has a tube service reaching up to if not beyond the M25, deep into Essex. Yet the entire borough of Lewisham, an inner-London authority, has only two stations in the very north of the borough, at New Cross and New Cross Gate, neither of which is in my constituency. It is the potential of an expansion of services from those stations to which I wish to draw attention this evening.
The east London line has always has been the Cinderella of the London underground--or north London underground, as it could more accurately be described. It seems to have been viewed more as an awkward appendage to the overall system than as an integral part of it. The present position is even worse, because we have no service at all on the east London line. It has been closed since March last year for work to the Brunel tunnel under the Thames and other work associated with the Jubilee line extension.
The people in the area welcome the improvement and upgrading, but we were told that the line would be closed for only seven months. It remains closed, and, for a variety of reasons of which the Minister is well aware, as I have raised the matter with him on numerous occasions--I have a strong impression that his views on the handling of the matter are not very different from my own--the reopening will certainly not be until next summer, probably in August. That is a period getting on for 30 months, as opposed to the original seven.
The Minister will be relieved to know that I do not intend to belabour that aspect of the case. However, I will say that, although the people of south-east London have as much regard for our common architectural heritage as
anyone, they place at least as much weight on having comprehensive, safe and reliable transport links as they do on being spectators in an industrial museum. Suffice it to say that it has been an object lesson on how not to run a railway. None the less, looking forward optimistically to the restoration of the service, it is imperative to maximise the benefits of the refurbished river crossing by examining ways of extending services both north and south.
As a lifelong resident of south-east London, I have long felt that the extension of the Bakerloo line from Elephant and Castle through Camberwell, Peckham, Dulwich, Forest Hill and Catford to Bromley and/or Croydon would be the most significant transformation of the public transport system in our part of the capital. However, the plans have been around for many decades, and the immense logistical and financial implications of their numerous permutations effectively pushes any such scheme firmly into the medium if not long term.
It is my firm belief that the development of the east London line services south from New Cross Gate via Forest Hill and Norwood Junction to East Croydon can, by the imaginative use of largely existing Railtrack infrastructure, effect the best and quickest extension of underground services into south-east London.
The east London line extension project has strong regeneration benefits for inner London and represents good value for money within London Transport's business criteria. It could be operational within the lifetime of the next Parliament if priority is given to authorisation and funding. With the creation of the important interchange at Canada Water linking to the millennium site on the Greenwich peninsula, and the opportunities for connection with direct services to Gatwick at East Croydon, the scale of the possible benefits becomes clearly apparent.
Government policies support the extension in principle. The public inquiry into the northern extension to the City and Dalston was held in autumn 1994, and just last week the Minister announced that he was "minded to approve" the project. I welcome that unreservedly.
A cash funding gap is currently forecast for the extension. London Underground is actively pursuing private finance initiative opportunities, but better value for money could be achieved by through running to and from Railtrack lines in south London. Subject to line capacity, it might be possible to provide crossovers on to Railtrack at New Cross Gate as a low-cost and rapid solution.
Final authorisation and contractual arrangements depend on a number of next steps, including the actions that I have just listed, progress with the PFI and an understanding of the funding gap that London Underground might have to cover. There is good support from other interests such as Railtrack, which is researching through-running options.
At present, the line is closed, but when it was last running, it made a small operating loss. It is recognised as an important cross-river public transport service east of Tower Bridge. It serves the boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Southwark and Lewisham; I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in his place. They are all inner-city communities involved in regeneration projects such as those in Bethnal Green and Deptford.
Passenger business doubled in the 10 years to 1994, largely through docklands redevelopment. London Transport has long recognised that the line's revenue potential and the economic benefits for London have been limited by its use simply as a cross-river shuttle, and its policy is to extend the line to serve a larger area, and preferably link with the Railtrack lines north and south of the river.
The Government's transport strategy for London was published in May, and recognises the potential of an extended east London line. It states:
A through-running study reviewing routing options is due later this year from Railtrack, and the project would be better value for money if through running via a southern extension was introduced at a similar date to the northern extension, although work on the northern extension is much further advanced, as I shall explain. Subject to available line capacity--I recognise that as a constraint, especially with the as yet unclear development of Thameslink 2000--it should be possible to provide the crossover I mentioned for a low-cost and rapid solution for the southern extension.
The southern extension from New Cross via Forest Hill and Norwood junction to East Croydon also has the distinct advantage above all the other southern extension options of not needing any special powers under the Transport and Works Act 1992, or other special powers. Opportunities for through running to increase further passenger traffic would have the benefit of providing through commuter trains between north and south London, serving the City of London at a new station on the site of Bishopsgate goods yard, and linking outer-London centres such as Croydon directly to docklands--Croydon being one of the south-east's major commercial centres outside London.
The east London line projects score well on all calculators of regeneration benefits and London Underground's value-for-money criteria; however, a cash-funding gap is forecast for the northern extension. The schemes accord with the Government's funding priorities as set out in the joint Department of Transport/Government Office for London transport strategy, which was also published in May, which stated as priorities
The East London Line Group, which, as the Minister will be aware, is a joint body representing the common interests of all the boroughs along the route, together with local communities, regeneration partnerships and businesses in the areas affected, has a crucial role to play. It has already been active in raising partnership finance and assisting site preparation, which has included Hackney council, London Industrial and Dalston City Partnership securing £2 million from the European regional development fund for refurbishment of the Dalston viaduct. Hackney and Tower Hamlets councils have worked with Railtrack Property and English Partnership to secure the go-ahead for the almost £2 million-worth demolition of Bishopsgate goods yard.
Other crucial elements are required to be put into place to take the schemes forward. With rail privatisation, the rail network in London has a mixed economy for planning and authorisation, ranging from statutory railway regulatory agencies and Government Departments to the public sector, London Underground and its newly enlarged PFI powers, to the private sector Railtrack and other train operating companies. The east London line and its extensions are at the interface between all those different ownerships and responsibilities, and it will require positive support and effort and innovative decisions to take the project forward expeditiously.
The Government need to provide guidance on the scale of any funding gap that may be bridged in recognition of the projects' benefits to London's regeneration and the many London boroughs that have access to the single regeneration budget, transport policies and programmes funding and ERDF money that are not available either to Railtrack or London Underground.
The East London Line Group has offered to work closely with London Underground on marketing the reopened line and seeking better connections with other rail and bus services, although the best marketing tool for a transport service would be that it serves the places where people are and the places they want and need to go. The extension of the east London line falls neatly into that pattern.
The list of necessary next steps show that, with the PFI and main line privatisation, the path towards an extended east London line is not simple. Much needs to be done by others. Railtrack, for example, is helping with assessment of the extensions for through running. Nevertheless, it would greatly assist the project if the Minister could give commitments--not necessarily now, but certainly in the near future--to endorsing the re-marketing of the line on, we hope, its reopening in the summer of next year, and to giving a definite date by which a decision will be made on the northern extension.
That will give confidence and certainty to the private sector--the key to levering in private finance moneys and to the project development process. The Government must
agree in principle that the initial east London line extensions should open as a cross-river link in time for the Greenwich millennium exhibition. They must indicate their willingness to consider what core funding may be appropriate as a contribution towards the extensions project once any funding gap has been better defined by London Underground Ltd.
"Some schemes, notably the East Thames Crossings and East London Line, are of particular importance to the achievement . . . of regeneration."
The Government's strategic guidance for London's planning authorities that was also published in May includes the objectives to
"maximise the environmental and economic benefits of serving London's transport needs by public modes in preference to the private car and improve the attractiveness of all forms of public transport to provide a viable alternative to the private car and secure modal shift"
and to
"support new rail infrastructure where justified, both in response to demand and to assist regeneration".
Technical advice is that through main line trains could use an extended east London line, subject to some modifications of the existing line. It was used by British Rail until the 1960s, and the design of the strengthened Brunel tunnel permits use by some national train types.
"new and improved river crossings downstream of Tower Bridge . . . projects which sustain and enhance London's economic position . . . projects which exploit the contributions that private finance can make".
1 Jul 1996 : Column 697
The east London line extensions are listed in the Department of Transport and the Government Office for London's third tranche of schemes after existing and committed projects. The Department of Transport and the Government Office of London have advised that progress and timing of the east London line extensions now depend on securing private finance. London Underground Ltd. launched a major consultation exercise in April to seek views on how the project can best be structured to achieve successful private finance involvement, and is to consult further with train operating companies.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |