| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.15 am
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey): First, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) and, on behalf of the neighbouring borough of Southwark, I endorse entirely the case that he made. Secondly, although we have clearly suffered from the long-term closure, there is great expectation about the reopening of the line. Thirdly, all the stations currently on the line serve a vital use. Fourthly, of all the five cross-river underground lines, the east London line has the greatest potential for regenerative advantage at the least cost and with the greatest ease for the citizens of Southwark, and for those citizens of the area where the Minister lives and beyond.
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, West on securing this debate, and I am extremely grateful to him for his kind personal remarks. The trouble is that mutual congratulation is a dangerous sport in this place, although I am probably rather more relaxed about it than the hon. Gentleman. But I am extremely grateful to him, not only for having raised the issue tonight, but for all the support that he has given to the east London line through what he rightly said has been a difficult time.
I acknowledge straight away that this has been an extremely unsatisfactory process for constituents, including those of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). In the limited time available,
we do not want to go over that history. However, I confirm that the Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society is working closely with London Underground to make sure that the historical aspects of the tunnel are fully studied, analysed and recorded. The line is expected to be ready to reopen in the summer of next year, and it will reopen in a better shape than ever.
About £75 million is going into the line, bringing real and visible improvements to both the trains and the infrastructure and underpinning the future of the line. As well as the new station at Canada Water--which the hon. Gentleman rightly said will be vital for access to the millennium festival and to the swathe of stations east of the east London line--the stations at Whitechapel, Shadwell, Wapping, Rotherhithe and Surrey Quays are all being renovated and cleaned, and their brickwork is being repointed. There will be a spectacular difference. Those stations are beautiful in their own right. They have some fine industrial archaeology, which might be frustrating on occasions, but which is worth preserving and celebrating. That also means that they will be in good order to survive for the use of future generations, and they will be a lot more attractive.
We are going to improve the trains as part of the big train refurbishment programme. They will be smarter, cleaner and more comfortable. We will be renewing the signalling system, which will make the service a lot more reliable. There will be new train arrival indicators, station closed circuit television, clocks and so forth, and the train radio and tunnel telephone systems are also being replaced.
In addition to the more visible signs of improvement, we are going to renew sections of the track, completely overhauling the pumps and the drainage and installing additional track-side power supplies. So our joint hope is that, when all that transpires in the summer of next year, we will have a first-class system as a lynchpin to the two extensions.
As the hon. Member for Lewisham, West said, the interest is now in looking at the future--in terms both of the northern extension and of the prospects south of the river, which are every bit as exciting as he suggests. First, on the works north of the river, as he says, I have issued a "minded to" letter already for the northern extensions. I think that we have made it clear that, in the event that the work proceeds, it will need to do so as a private finance initiative project.
London Underground is reassured that there is a degree of interest in that project and in taking it forward. None of the three of us here represents that part of London, but we are acutely aware of it. Hackney is, I think, the only borough north of the river that does not have any tube station. There is no doubt that putting a rail facility in from Dalston and Highbury and Islington down into the east London line and accessing the City in that way will be a major improvement. As a lot of the track bed is already in place and the cost of refitting the line will be relatively modest, it seems an opportunity well worth taking.
I am obliged not to express any further opinions on the attractiveness or otherwise of the details of the scheme, because of the quasi-judicial role that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is required to exercise. We
have initiated the scheme with London Underground, and have always been clear about its advantages for London. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is included in the strategy document. I can make it clear that I think that it will serve a worthwhile purpose.
On the extensions to the south, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the prospect of the line going from East Croydon through to Canada Water and then north is very exciting. Obviously, the train path issues must be studied with Railtrack--in terms of Thameslink and the other competing services on the line. On other occasions, I have found it frustrating that the limiting factor for a new proposal--I am thinking of the west London line--is not so much the willingness of the rail company to run the service, or of passengers to use it, as the fact that there are limitations on train paths, which are almost insuperable, for technical and safety reasons.
The hon. Gentleman made a good point. We have to ensure that we explore as many of the rolling-stock opportunities as we can. Where it is possible to offer longer through services, I am sure that, the more we are able to stitch in the east London line to services both north and south, the greater benefit there will be--decongestion, opening up the hon. Gentleman's area and, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey suggested, perhaps even opening up parts of Camberwell, Peckham, and possibly Denmark Hill and the loop through to Victoria. There are some tremendous possibilities, which are worth exploring.
I have always felt that the east London line was something of a Cinderella. Ironically, unlike the Jubilee line, at more than £2,000 million, the east London line--at what we might describe as £100 million in envelope terms for the extensions--is probably a fairly modest bet, but it is just as important to the areas it will serve. The hon. Gentleman has made his point very well: there is nothing like the density of rail link in this part of south-east London as exists in almost every other quadrant of the city.
The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions about the future of the line. First, he asked about re-marketing of the line on reopening. He is right: that needs to be treated as a specific exercise. I know that London Underground is very keen to win back substantial custom on the line. To put it bluntly, having invested £75 million in substantial improvements, the one thing it does not want to do is let them go by default. London Underground wants to ensure that the marketing is forceful, and brings home to people just what a good service there is from north to south.
As for the Transport and Works Act order application, I understand that a final decision letter could be issued by the end of this month, or very soon thereafter. I am afraid that I cannot give a more precise date.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we could give a commitment that the extensions could open as a cross-river link in time for the Greenwich millennium exhibition. I agree that that is a very desirable objective, although we shall have to deal with a number of issues that exist in the real world--not least, affordability and value for money--and obviously the PFI competition will have to run its course. We will have a reopened line through to Canada Water that will facilitate some of the millennium traffic.
The hon. Gentleman is right about the time scale. I think that we are both committed to agitating for the development in order to make it a reality and a success.
As for the funding gap, I look forward to receiving furtehr advice from London Underground on the possibilities for financing of the scheme. LUL has undertaken to come back to me either later this month or early next month on the figures that it is now hearing. I can make no promises at this stage, because I do not yet know what the financing prospects are, but when I talk to London Underground, I shall bear in mind the strong desirability of an effective package.
As for the urgent discussions among London Underground, Railtrack, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising, the regulator and others, the point has been extremely well made. We have an interface between two different systems, and it may be a question of underground trains running on Railtrack track.
Personally, I have always felt entirely relaxed about the ownership of the new scheme. Whether it is owned by a train operating company, London Underground or a third party seems to me much less important than that the scheme goes ahead. The PFI discussions may well make it obvious who should take on the financing, but I am assured that the process of joint urgent discussion being
led by London Underground is now under way. My officials stand ready to help in any way they can in the event that their services are needed.
The hon. Gentleman's points about access to a better public transport system for a huge number of people in the south-east quadrant of London underpin the whole debate. The historic reasons for not building the underground railway south of the river are reasonably well known, certainly to the hon. Gentleman and others with experience of London. We must now plug the gaps, which, as we all know, are large and not inexpensive.
However, together with the Docklands light railway extension, and hopefully, in due course, the Woolwich metro project--which we mentioned in the strategy document--this development will enable us to take much of the traffic off roads in that quadrant and use some of the public transport capacity that is inherent there. At present, there is heavy traffic in the area.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |