| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ray Whitney (Wycombe): Is not it the case that the plan involves the construction of some 24 km of tunnels, some of which would be wider than any tunnels now in use?
Mr. Watts: The proposal certainly involves some extensive tunnelling, but, again, I shall come to that point a little later in my speech.
The application also contains proposals for new passenger stations at Lutterworth, Rugby, Woodford Halse, Brackley, West Wycombe and White City. Central Railway estimates that about £3 billion will be required to finance the project.
Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh):
Does the Minister accept that for a fraction of the £3 billion that he cited we could upgrade the existing west coast main line to the necessary standard and probably move freight from road to rail, something for which we perceive there to be a demand? Would not that perhaps be a better way forward?
Mr. Watts:
The two issues are fundamentally different. I have not seen estimates for upgrading the freight capacity of the west coast main line which would come anywhere near £3 billion. Essentially, however, it is for the private sector promoters to decide whether it is worth their while to promote such a project and to raise the finance. Of course, this is an entirely privately funded proposal, whereas the hon. Gentleman is possibly thinking of some public sector money for upgrading the west coast main line.
Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East):
Has there been any consultation between the developers and any local authorities along the route?
Mr. Watts:
Applicants under the TWA are advised to consult local authorities and others affected by any proposals. The company claims that it has consulted extensively.
If parliamentary resolutions approving the project are passed, the company would seek to raise additional equity funding to finance the inquiry and statutory blight compensation. Central Railway estimates that the project would capture and retain 25 per cent. of the UK-continental market for lorries and containers, which is about 15 per cent. of total UK-continental freight tonnage, within four years of opening.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent):
I am sure that we would all be interested in a list of the companies that are providing the money to keep Central Railway afloat. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have such a list; it is just that I have not seen it.
Mr. Watts:
I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend. I do not have such a list. Frankly, I do not think that it is relevant to the consideration by the House of the principle.
Sir David Mitchell (North-West Hampshire):
As we are dealing with a new procedure, at what stage will there be an examination of the financial viability of the process?
Mr. Watts:
That would be appropriate at a public inquiry were both Houses of Parliament to allow the scheme to proceed to that point. It would be unreasonable for us to expect the company to have raised the full project financing at this stage in the development of the project.
Mr. Matthew Carrington (Fulham):
If the financing of the project is crucial to its viability--as to whether it would lead to extended planning blight--does my hon. Friend have any idea whether his Department could undertake a feasibility study into whether the total cost of the project would be £3 billion or £6 billion, as has been suggested elsewhere?
Mr. Watts:
It is not for my Department to second-guess the promoters of the project. On the matter of blight to which my hon. Friend referred, the company has assured us that it has the means to meet any statutory blight obligations that it might incur.
Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting):
The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) has just referred to the crucial issue that concerns many of our constituents. Why should they suffer years of blight on the property they have worked hard to buy and on which they may still owe a considerable amount of mortgage repayment? Why should they suffer an on-going unawareness of what will finally happen? That is the crux of the issue that unites hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Watts:
As I said, the company has given us assurances that it can meet any statutory blight obligations that it incurs. If we were to find that it was unable to meet such obligations, we would determine against the application.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire):
I had not intended to speak, but I am becoming increasingly bemused. Has my hon. Friend met the promoters? Is he totally satisfied that they really are people of substance and that they can carry out the project? If he is not, why are we wasting our time?
Mr. Watts:
At this stage of the application, it is not for me or my Department to determine whether the company would be able to raise £3 billion. That is a matter for the company. Our legitimate interest is in whether the company could meet blight obligations. That is obviously a concern to every constituency Member affected by the project. As I have said, the company has given us undertakings that it can meet any such obligations. If we were to find that it was unable to do so, we would refuse the application.
Ms Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood):
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that Ove Arup commented:
Mr. Watts:
I am aware of that opinion, which is taken from a report that was prepared in support of some of the objectors to the project. However, until it could be shown that the company's undertakings cannot be honoured, we would be wrong to make a judgment on that.
As to the funding of the public inquiry, as I said in my opening remarks, the company intends to raise the additional funding required to take the project to a public inquiry in the light of a decision made in the House.
Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith):
I have already inquired in a letter whether the company could pay compensation for blight if the House approved the order tonight. My understanding is that there is no such guarantee. However, is there not something fundamentally wrong with the 1992 Act if a company without evidence of financial viability plus the lack of coherent planning
Mr. Watts:
There may well be lessons to learn from this case as to the way in which such matters are dealt with, but as this is the first time that the powers have been used, it would be premature--certainly in tonight's debate--to conclude that the procedure is flawed. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it may be appropriate for us to examine the procedures in the light of experience of this case.
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham):
The old system required the Government to be neutral if they were in support of a proposal. They state in their paper of 19 July:
Mr. Watts:
No. Being neutral means what it says. We have adopted a neutral stance at all times in our dealings with the company. However, there is a question as to what might have shifted the Government from being neutral to supporting or opposing the project. For the Government to support such a scheme, they would need to be persuaded that the merits of the proposal were so overwhelming as to justify unequivocal support. I did not reach that conclusion. That is why the position of the Government tonight is still one of neutrality--of neutral neutrality.
Central Railway estimates that the project would capture and retain 25 per cent. of the United Kingdom and continental market within four years of opening. By 2010, the midlands terminal would be catering for 16 million tonnes of freight and the New Denham terminal for 10 million tonnes. The average number of freight trains required to deal with that volume would be 98 per day.
Central Railway is seeking to keep compulsory land acquisition to a minimum, but recognises that realignments of existing tracks will be required at some locations. It believes that most work could be carried out within normal maintenance schedules, but some may involve temporary closures with replacement bus services. It says that no significant interference with services will be required during the upgrading of the Chiltern line but that the company will liaise with Railtrack and London Underground to co-ordinate the construction programme so that disruption occurs during periods of minimal railway operation.
Mr. Tim Smith (Beaconsfield):
As my hon. Friend has referred to the fact that Central Railway proposes to adapt the existing Chiltern line, what assessment has the Department of Transport made of the likely impact of the scheme on the commuter services that my constituents use every day?
"They have clearly not demonstrated that they have adequate funds available to meet their obligations for compensation for blight and to fund the public inquiry".
The House should be aware of that.
"The Government is not however persuaded that the proposals have such substantial merit as to enable it to commend the application to Parliament. It has therefore decided that its stance on the scheme should be neutral."
Can I take it that under the new procedure, being neutral basically means being unconvinced and probably being against?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |