| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
27 Jun 2007 : Column 116WH—continued
3.25 pm
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Battersea (Martin Linton), for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), who have made an articulate case on behalf of their constituents for the East London line and extension. I thank the hon. Member for Battersea for initiating the debate and drawing the matter to the attention of the House. Clearly, he regrets that Battersea is not on the map, but I think that today’s debate has, if nothing else, put the Battersea arts centre on the map.
The hon. Gentleman has done a good job of drawing the attention of the House to the fact that the cost of the phase 2 extension is relatively small. When I say that, I note that it is clearly the prerogative of Labour Back Benchers to request from the Government additional funding that is not currently supported by the Government, in a way that the Opposition may not be able to do. We must be much more serious in our approach and cost our budgets accordingly. However, I hope that the Minister will respond positively and identify how the funding will be secured.
We have heard a lot today about the Dalston curve. I was wondering whether it had anything to do with the bagel shop at the end of Reighton road where I used to live in the late 1980s. I am pleased to hear that it is actually about extending the East London line to Highbury and Islington station. I know Dalston very well, having represented the area as a councillor in the late 1980s when there was a campaign to extend the tube line, rather than the train line, to Dalston. That was 21 years ago, and I am pleased that 21 years on we are nearly there—albeit that the destination is slightly less than four years away; it has taken some time.
We campaigned for it then mainly because of the regeneration benefits and improved transport links that would result. Those arguments are still extremely valid today, and the hon. Member for Battersea has made a very good case both for the transport benefit, including reduction in the pressure on key stations such as London Victoria and London Bridge—something that my constituents, who use both stations, would appreciate—and for the orbital rail routes. I only regret that in my part of south London, where there is no tube—there is no tube station in my constituency or in the borough of Sutton where I live—we do not, either, have the orbital rail links that would be needed, ideally to places such as Kingston and Richmond or Beckenham and Bexley. There is a need for those routes and I hope that if the East London line extension proves successful and London overground can get it on the map and make people use it, so that it becomes a central feature of the transport network in London, that will strengthen the case for extending orbital routes in south London through to west London.
The hon. Member for Battersea highlighted the regeneration impact of the developments; 80 per cent. of the most deprived parts of London would be served. That would be a fantastic opportunity for creating ease of travel for people who wanted to find jobs in other parts of London, and would be extremely welcome.
It is worth briefly considering the wider London transport context. The East London line would contribute significantly, but we are awaiting a big decision on Crossrail. I agree that the cost of Crossrail is of a different order of magnitude, but it would create 40 per cent. of the additional rail capacity that London will need by 2015 to accommodate the extra 800,000 people who are soon going to be living in London. That would be a huge contribution. The relatively small-scale improvements that will come from the East London line extension could be swamped if those 800,000 people were trying to get on to that line and we
did not have the capacity that could be provided by extra routes such as Crossrail. We will need Crossrail as well to support the project.
Hon. Members have set out clearly the time scales for the project, both phase 1, which, as the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said, will be complete by 2010, and the proposed phase 2, which would provide an additional link from Clapham Junction to Surrey Quays. That would be welcome and mean that a lot of the commuters going principally to London Victoria would be able to avoid the centre of London. As someone who travels almost exclusively by public transport, I would welcome being able to go through to London Victoria or London Bridge.
Meg Hillier: At the beginning of his comments the hon. Gentleman said that in his position he cannot plead for extra money as firmly as Labour Members have. He said that he has to be more careful. He is about halfway through his comments. I stressed to the Minister that there was good cross-party support, so will he make his party’s position on the funding of the scheme a little clearer?
Tom Brake: The hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that I am certainly going to do that in a way that I hope will satisfy her. It will relate to ways and means of funding other projects such as Crossrail.
Phase 2 of the project would make a huge contribution and provide an additional link. To pick up on the hon. Lady’s point, an opportunity has been missed in London in such projects as the Jubilee line extension, from which huge benefits have been derived by businesses and commercial premises along the route. They have benefited from the increase in the value of properties, which have become that much more attractive because of the improved transport connections. Whether in relation to Crossrail or projects such as the East London line, it is surely not beyond the wit of man or woman to identify a way of capturing the increased values of properties. That might be by asking businesses to contribute over a period of time—
3.33 pm
Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.
4.12 pm
Tom Brake: We were discussing finance and I was touching on the point that many freeholders and businesses clearly benefit very substantially from infrastructure improvements in the vicinity of where they operate. It is high time that the Treasury showed some flexibility to allow some of those profits to be captured. Whether it is through businesses in a voluntary way, as with Crossrail, supporting the concept of a supplementary business rate or through land value taxation, we need to capture those profits. At the moment, the taxpayer pays but sees no return; others make the profit. I hope that that addresses the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch about how the project would be funded.
The Minister may have had an opportunity to consider the report that the RMT—the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—commissioned from Peter Raynor on the East London line and its concerns about the privatisation, as the RMT put it, of the line. I do not necessarily share those concerns and that is clearly not the subject of the debate, but I hope that the Minister, if she cannot deal with the point now, will consider writing to hon. Members present to inform us of the Government’s view on that report.
Clearly, the East London line extension and phase 2 would contribute very significantly to the transport infrastructure in London. We have seen the potential for increasing the number of passengers on that line from 10 million to 50 million. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the requests that have been made and perhaps confirm that if the Treasury is not willing to fund the proposal itself, it might show some flexibility to allow other means to be used to raise the funding needed for this important transport project.
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): Order. The question has quite reasonably been asked, in the light of the Divisions, when the debate will finish. The answer is 4.39 pm.
4.14 pm
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale, and to participate in this important debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) for introducing it and for making the case so clearly for his constituents and for the line. I enjoyed immensely the contributions by the hon. Members for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). I enjoyed the hon. Lady’s insights into a number of things, but particularly into the shopping habits of her constituents, which I am sure were interesting to us all.
I have to declare an interest up front. I am the Member of Parliament for Wimbledon, and the East London line extension was originally designed to come to Wimbledon in phase 2. It would have made more sense for it to come to Wimbledon. Wimbledon should be the secondary transport hub in south-west London to Clapham Junction. It was unfortunate that the Mayor, with a lack of wisdom, vetoed that on the basis of cost—that point is highly significant and I want to return to it.
The withdrawal of the proposal to take the East London line to Wimbledon led to Merton council withdrawing from the East London Line Group. I note that the Mayor has said that, with the East London line extension, it will be easier for people to get quickly and safely to Olympic venues. I was just thinking, “Isn’t it a shame that my constituency doesn’t have some sort of summer sporting event that 100 countries around the world televise, that 1 billion people watch and that 400,000 attend? Isn’t it a shame that my constituency won’t be one of the major Olympic venues, hosting—I don’t know, perhaps the Olympic tennis tournament or something?” Perhaps then the Mayor would consider that bringing the East London line extension to Wimbledon had some merit.
Wimbledonians are, understandably, pretty angry about the situation. I have already made the point that we consider that Wimbledon should be the secondary transport hub in south-west London to Clapham Junction. That would have the great advantage of relieving pressure on Clapham Junction. The example has already been cited: people could get off at Wimbledon and go round the orbital side, particularly if they were coming from the south. It would also increase capacity. In addition, thousands of my constituents travel every day to jobs in east London, principally at Canary Wharf and in the City.
Martin Linton: I cannot pretend to sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s view that the line would be better routed to Wimbledon through Dulwich, but I suggest to him that the interests of his constituents might equally be served by pressing for the extension to Clapham Junction to be extended through Southfields to Wimbledon. Under plans for Crossrail 2, that route has already been investigated, taking trains up through Southfields, East Putney and Wandsworth Town to Clapham Junction. Surely that could be started at the time of the Olympics, to create a quick link between the events in Wimbledon and the main arenas.
Stephen Hammond: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Certainly that is one of the things that we considered. Equally, I believe that TfL is considering again the Hackney-Chelsea line; a minor consultation document has already been issued. However, none of that takes away from the point that the East London line extension could as easily have come to Wimbledon in phase 2. I am not asking the hon. Gentleman to support me in that case at this stage—I am sure that he is very happy with where it is going at the moment.
To return to my point, a number of my constituents travel to work in the east. The Mayor, in his initial plans for housing for London, designated the borough of Merton as an area of housing development. We have talked about populations that would benefit. The populations that would benefit include those of Longthornton and Colliers Wood, which are not technically in my constituency, although part of Colliers Wood is, and of South Wimbledon, which is.
We have heard the arts tributes. Wimbledon theatre has the seventh largest stage in London. The Polka theatre is the only south-west London theatre dedicated to children. The area also has the Cannizaro festival, the Wimbledon literary festival, which I am pleased to be attending the opening of this evening, and Wimbledon college of art. All those and other places in south-west London indicate a thriving arts community.
Tom Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman advocate that the extension to Wimbledon should be pursued? If so, is he adopting that position in his capacity as the Member of Parliament for Wimbledon or in an official capacity? If it is in his official capacity, is it an officially funded bid?
Stephen Hammond:
I declared an interest at the beginning of my speech. I am speaking as a constituency MP before I move on to my comments as
a Front-Bench spokesman. I accept, with great disappointment, that Wimbledon will not be part of the phase 2 extension, so there is no funding implication to my remarks. I am deeply upset about this matter, but am not embittered and certainly am not blind to the benefits of the scheme.
The phase 1 extension of the East London line north to Dalston Junction and south to New Cross should be open by June 2010. The further extension to Highbury and Islington will open in February 2011. It is proposed that phase 2 will extend services further west to Clapham Junction via Surrey Canal Road, where a new station is to be built. We have heard from hon. Members that there will be an extra four trains an hour, thus increasing dramatically the frequency of the core section.
We have talked about funding for all that, but we have not yet had the timetable, part of which is inextricably linked to funding. The June 2007 briefing note from the East London Line Group says that phase 2 could be operational by the end of 2011, but according to the TfL investment programme, it is planned to follow the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics. One answer that I seek from the Minister is which of those is correct. I expect that the answer will depend entirely on whether she can give us any comfort regarding funding.
I accept that the scheme will bring great benefits: 168,000 people will potentially benefit from living within 15 minutes of a station, as will the 80,000 people who work within 15 minutes of those stations. The ridership is expected to grow to an estimated 8.7 million within five years. It is estimated that the environmental benefits will be a reduction in total traffic congestion of 400,000 vehicles and in carbon dioxide emissions of about 470 tonnes per annum. Those are significant benefits.
If our capital is to continue to be the world’s greatest city, we must continue to expand and invest in our public transport network, but we must also ensure that those schemes offer value for money. The East London line extension is one such scheme—London needs it in order to continue to be the economic powerhouse of the UK, and it offers value for money—but it is not the only scheme.
I accept that it is difficult to group priorities, but the scheme is predicated to have a cost-benefit ratio of 1.7:1, which is lower than that of several other schemes. It is impressive, but not as impressive as others. Will the Minister tell us about the scrutiny of those sorts of cost-benefit ratio, and what part such scrutiny will play in the consideration of various London schemes? Notwithstanding that, the important point is that which was made by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch—40 per cent. of those who live within 1 km of several stations involved in the scheme live in some of the most deprived areas of London, so the scheme will have a huge overall benefit for social inclusion.
By the time it is finished, the London overground service, which is a combination of the North London line and the East London line, will have involved a total
investment of £1.4 billion. Obviously, that is going on infrastructure such as new trains, new staff and new stations.
I shall dwell on stations for a moment, because it would be interesting to get a commitment from TfL about stations. The Mayor has said that every station should be manned during its hours of operation and should have improved CCTV, but that is proving to be something of a hollow promise and a joke in many parts of the underground system. No one was manning my local underground station, which I use on most days if I come via the underground, rather than the overground, during the later hours of operation on Monday night. One supposed benefit of the scheme is that all the stations will continue to be manned; along with the funding promise should come a promise from TfL that it intends to do that.
Jeremy Corbyn: I understand from TfL that the London overground will have staffed stations that are secure, which is a great improvement on the current situation.
Stephen Hammond: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman will accept my premise that London Underground says that it has that at the moment, and that simply is not true. Indeed, it is shutting 40 more ticket offices, which will inevitably mean that there is a threat to passengers and staff. I accept that that promise is in the London overground document, but it is not being met at the moment, and we need to be absolutely certain that it will be kept.
Meg Hillier: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a difference with underground stations? I have been in the control room of underground stations and have seen how effective CCTV can be. One can see everything that is going on at the station from the control room, so people are not needed in every part of the station. There might be concerns about access to tickets, but more people are using Oyster and the number of people who need to purchase tickets is reducing. It is right that TfL should look into that matter, although we might not agree regarding the outcome.
Stephen Hammond: I take the hon. Lady’s point, but there is, none the less, a commitment for stations to be manned. One can look at CCTV pictures all one likes, but if there is an incident and one is in the control room and there is no one on the station, and the transport police are some way away, then one cannot get to the incident.
Going back to funding, TfL—or, more properly, the Mayor—spent sums of money last year that did nothing to improve the lot of the travelling public. It is particularly important to consider a few things that he spent money on and whether that money might have gone some way towards alleviating the request for Government funding. For example, the Mayor gave the previous chief executive of TfL a golden goodbye of £1.165 million and a consultancy contract worth £737,000, but no one at TfL knows how often he turns up or even whether he is turning up.
That is only £2 million, but let us consider other elements of the Mayor’s profligacy. Last year, he spent
£210 million on consultants. That is twice the cost of the East London line phase 2 extension. For that £210 million there has been not one extra passenger, metre of track or new train. That £210 million profligacy could easily have funded the extension to Wimbledon or built the scheme that we are discussing twice.
However, let us concentrate, because phase 2 is unfunded and currently has no time scale. It is expected to cost about £100 million, of which, we have heard, about £70 million is for the infrastructure. I have three or four questions for the Government, and therefore the Minister, which I hope will bring some clarity at the end of the debate. Will the funding for the phase 2 extension be included in the HLOS—high level output specification—which involves Network Rail, and inside the comprehensive spending review? Will she confirm that the HLOS is due on 18 July?
Will the Minister also confirm that the East London line extension is one of several other south-east schemes, including those involving Thameslink, Reading station, Crossrail and Waterloo station? Will she give some indication of the criteria that she is using to assess those schemes, particularly in relation to the total funding requirement and value for money?
Will the Minister confirm that any announcement on the East London line extension will not be one similar to that on Thameslink, which simply contained the Transport and Works Act 1992, but will be accompanied by funding announcements? Finally, will the Minister look at the total cost of the scheme, which is a mere £100 million? It is an extremely manageable sum in terms of the overall budget for the railways. Will she therefore assure us that the Department for Transport will press the Treasury to find the money?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |