14 Jul 2003 : Column 1WS
Written Ministerial Statements
Monday 14 July 2003
TRANSPORT
London Underground
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): In my written statement of 4 June I said that I intended to transfer London Underground to Transport for London on or about 15 July, subject to the passage of the Railways and Transport Safety Bill which was then before Parliament. The Railways and Transport Safety Bill received Royal Assent on 10 July.
I have accordingly approved, with amendments, the transfer scheme for the transfer of London Underground Limited from London Regional Transport to Transport for London that London Regional Transport sealed and submitted to me on 4 June. The London Underground will transfer to Transport for London on 15 July 2003.
This transfer will give effect to the wish of Parliament originally set out in the Greater London Authority Act 1999. It will transfer all of London Regional Transport's remaining property, rights and liabilities to Transport for London. I intend to wind up London Regional Transport shortly afterwards.
Crossrail
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): I have now received from Cross London Rail Links (CLRL) their business case proposals for the East-West London Crossrail project. The House will find it helpful to have an indication of what these proposals involve and how the Government plan to take them forward.
The purpose of Crossrail is to provide a significant increase in the capacity of the present rail networks into and across London so as to relieve congestion and over-crowding, to cater for the expected substantial growth in demand for travel into and across the capital over the coming decades, and to improve accessibility.
I am grateful for all the work which has been done by CLRL and their shareholders, the SRA and TfL, in developing the latest proposals for Crossrail, and in refining the analysis in the interim business case which they submitted to me in February.
Following analysis of a range of route options, CLRL have now proposed the adoption of what they have termed the benchmark scheme, involving a central East-West tunnel across London, with services extending to two branches to the East and two to the West.
In more detail, CLRL's proposed route option would involve a central tunnel following closely the currently protected alignment across London, from west of Paddington to east of Liverpool Street. From Liverpool Street, the line would be extended through Whitechapel,
14 Jul 2003 : Column 2WS
beyond which it would divide into two branches both serving the Thames Gateway—one going to Stratford and joining the existing Great Eastern lines to Shenfield; the other going down through the Isle of Dogs and the Royal Docks, crossing the Thames to join the North Kent lines at Abbey Wood, with some services continuing to Ebbsfleet.
To the west of Paddington, the line would join the Great Western main line before dividing into two further branches. One would join up with the North London Line providing services to Richmond and Kingston. The other would be via Ealing and Hayes to Heathrow along the existing branch served by Heathrow Express. This would be subject to the Crossrail promoters securing a satisfactory agreement with BAA, which owns the Heathrow access rights to this branch.
CLRL have advised that they believe implementation of the benchmark scheme would cost some £10 billion in 2002 prices, including an allowance for contingencies, although the actual cost will depend on final decisions on the route and construction phasing, following appraisal and public consultation. Their analysis indicates that the project should produce benefits significantly greater than this, taking account of the anticipated levels of growth in employment and population in London in the Mayor's draft London plan. CLRL's transport and economic case for the project rests on this positive assessment of likely benefits over costs. There are also potentially significant regeneration benefits, particularly to the east of London, and to the longer term development of the Thames Gateway.
The Government continue to support the principle of building a new East-West Crossrail link. We see merit in the arguments for such an increase in capacity to support London's continued growth and success.
CLRL itself suggests that an all public sector funded option is unlikely to be affordable. We agree that the very high cost of the Crossrail project has major resource implications at a time when there are many other pressures on the transport budget, and on the public purse in general.
So if the project were to go ahead there would need to be a very substantial contribution to its costs from those who would benefit most from it. First, we envisage that there would need to be a very substantial contribution from London's business community—indeed I welcome the indications already made by London First and others of their willingness to contribute. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I are examining options here and we intend to consult the various London interests in the autumn.
Secondly, we shall be looking to ensure that where there are specific development opportunities arising from the project, we take full advantage of these and secure an appropriate contribution to the cost of the project from the developers concerned and thirdly, there is an issue over the appropriate level of fares, given the benefits which will accrue not only to users of Crossrail itself, but also from the reduced congestion elsewhere on London's transport networks.
14 Jul 2003 : Column 3WS
Given the importance and high cost of the project, the Government now need to evaluate the CLRL proposals for value and affordability. We need to be sure that we have a robust plan for delivering and funding the project, with effective mechanisms to ensure those who benefit from it contribute as fully as possible to meeting the costs and bearing the risks.
In order to give the project the best chance of success, I am assembling an expert team to assess the proposals so that I can be assured that they offer good value for London, and are deliverable to budget, to time and to scope. This assessment will be carried out as quickly as possible consistent with the scale and complexity of the proposals and the extent to which key components of them are still under development.
I have also been considering proposals for an alternative scheme for Crossrail put to me by the London Regional Metro (LRM) consortium. While their proposals have some attractions, it would not be appropriate to proceed with LRM without an open competition. So we will seek to ensure that if and when Crossrail proceeds, the terms of any competition for its development would allow scope for LRM and other interested parties to bring forward their innovative ideas.
I have also concluded that the most appropriate way to seek powers for the project would be by way of a Hybrid Bill which the Government would be willing in principle to promote at an appropriate point once the evaluation is completed and a comprehensive funding package agreed. I am asking CLRL to continue work on development of their detailed project proposals so that they would be ready to support a hybrid Bill.
I am also inviting CLRL to advise me on updating the safeguarding for the route, and to undertake a public consultation exercise in the autumn to explain in more detail their proposed scheme, and to canvass views on their route proposals.
I welcome the proposals for the East-West London Crossrail and want to move forward. When the Department has carried out a thorough review of the project, and we have the results of the consultation exercise by CLRL, as well as the outcome of the consultation with business on funding options, we will be in a position to take firm and soundly-based decisions on the way forward for the project.
HEALTH
Meat Hygiene Service
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): The 2002–03 annual report and accounts for the Meat Hygiene Service was laid before Parliament today.
Copies will be placed in the Library, but formal printing and publication will not occur for another six to eight weeks, pending preparation of a version in Welsh as required by the Welsh Language Act 1993.
14 Jul 2003 : Column 4WS
HOME DEPARTMENT
Riot (Damages) Act 1886
The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): We have today published a consultation paper that looks at the origin and past operation of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 (RDA) and seeks the views of stakeholders on the future of the RDA.
The RDA is more than 100 years old. Both society and the nature of policing have changed dramatically in that time. In particular, in the light of the Government's radical police reform programme, we need to look at whether the Act is still appropriate in the 21st century.
Currently the RDA makes a police authority in England and Wales liable to pay for damages to buildings and their contents when a riot has taken place. Police authorities, the police service and others have argued for some time that the principle underpinning the RDA—that a riot presents a culpable failure to provide adequate policing—is no longer appropriate to modern conditions. There is also concern that police authorities are subject to unlimited liability for riot damage under the RDA.
It is also argued that the RDA provides a safety net for businesses and households—particularly in inner city areas, which have traditionally been more at risk of civil disturbances—and where property owners may have difficulties obtaining insurance, at least at affordable rates. Without the protection provided by the RDA, vulnerable communities could be at risk of further economic decline.
At a time when the police service is engaged in a programme of major reform it seems appropriate to consider whether the RDA remains appropriate to 21st century needs. We are therefore inviting views on the future of the RDA and, specifically, whether the RDA should be
- Retained as it stands;
Repealed entirely; or
Reformed to limit liability for claims
The Government haVE an open mind on the options and look forward to hearing the views of interested parties.
We hope that the consultation will improve the evidence base to help develop a more detailed impact assessment.
Options 2 and 3 would require primary legislation.
Responses to the consultation paper are requested by 9 October 2003.
A copy of the document has been placed in the Library and is available at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/inside/consults/current/index.html.
14 Jul 2003 : Column 5WS
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |