---

After Clause 1, insert the following new clause--

Rail freight terminal
(". The nominated undertaker shall make available a site of not less than 12 hectares for use as a rail freight terminal on land held or to be acquired by it for the purposes of this Act at Temple Mills in Stratford.").

The noble Lord said: Before I introduce the amendment, I should like to declare an interest. I was concerned with Eurotunnel (my last day) and the piggyback consortium. I shall deal with the need for a rail freight terminal in east London today. I have no desire to delay the Bill. I add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords as to the way that the Select Committee has undertaken its business.

I believe that it is the policy of the Government to encourage freight on rail. They have recently announced a most welcome increase in the environmental benefit calculation for freight facilities grants from 5p to 20p per mile. One is very pleased about that. The Channel Tunnel was seen as having great potential for long distance rail freight by BR. Old BR carried out many regional consultations and set up terminals around the country. Some were built and some were not. One was built in Stratford. It has never been used but has been mothballed. One or two have been committed but not built. Since then rail freight traffic has built up. Forty per cent. of unitised freight going to Italy now travels by rail.

UK rail freight was in decline but that was probably because it was not given investment, rates were hiked and reliability was poor. What has changed? Rail freight distribution is being privatised. English Welsh and Scottish Railway has brought in US and New Zealand experience and committed itself to a good deal of investment in growth potential. We also welcome the

31 Oct 1996 : Column 450

introduction by the Government of a more flexible cross-Channel rail freight security regime. We are sure that it will help a great deal. There is general political encouragement given to rail freight. Because the motorways are clogged that is hardly surprising. In particular, English Welsh and Scottish Railway has restarted wagonload business by rail, even from the north of Scotland up to Wick. Fridges are made in the north of Scotland, which may seem strange, but it is a very successful business and much of it comes down by rail. There is also a widening of inter-modal services: containers, swap-bodies and, perhaps eventually, piggyback within the UK. There is an expectation that other operators will come in, Freightliner, RFD and perhaps others. Rail freight needs terminals. They do not have to be elaborate or expensive, but they have to compete with road. Those terminals need road access, obviously rail access and an acceptable planning environment. They can be private or open to all. However, if there are no terminals there will be no rail freight.

If one looks at the facilities available for public use in the Stratford and east London area, there was an RED terminal, as I have just mentioned. There is still a London international freight terminal for small operators. But they have all been given notice to quit and no real alternative location has been offered. They have been given notice to quit by Union Rail quite rightly because of the Channel Tunnel rail link development. They cannot develop their business anywhere unless they have security somewhere. EWS Railway believes that there is a business to be had in east London for rail freight. It is primarily a business within the UK. That is inter-modal and wagonload business. There may also be some small local cross-Channel business. It is very close to a fruit and vegetable wholesale warehouse in east London. They and others have looked round--as I have--for other suitable terminals that will fulfil those criteria. Willesden has been suggested, but that is not really in east London. Cricklewood certainly is not. Thurrock is a long way away but a good place, and Barking and Ripple Lane have been rejected by the Select Committee, quite rightly, as unsuitable.

One must accept that the square box in Stratford is required for development and is not suitable for rail freight, because one must encourage as much development there as possible. Where else does one go apart from Temple Mills which is a long, flat, wide strip of land just north of Stratford? I believe that the Select Committee located a rail freight refuelling depot there. There is a requirement to maintain Eurostars there and probably to provide stabling of domestic Channel Tunnel rail link trains. I have had discussions with London and Continental on the question whether there is a possibility of locating a small rail freight terminal in that area. I have received several different answers, but the latest one is that there is no space for it.

About 15 years ago I worked on the Channel Tunnel. If I had then been asked the question I would have given the same answer. Let us look at the Channel Tunnel

31 Oct 1996 : Column 451

terminals. The French one is three times as big as the English terminal, but the English one was built. I believe that at this stage engineers can find solutions to any problem at minimal cost if they really want to. I accept that the design needs to be developed. I have suggested various different ways in which it can be done. I also asked whether it would be possible to allocate the whole of the Temple Mills area only for rail-related purposes. The answer that I received was no. That leads me to suspect that if it is not used for rail it will be used for property development. I believe that to be strategically unsound. I am sure that Stratford is to be allocated property development, and quite rightly too. Temple Mills is not the centre of a protected universe. It fulfils a useful need, but I believe that rail fright in east London is a strategic issue. I do not want to do anything that will hamper construction of the rail link or the construction site, but there are good strategic reasons for having a small rail freight terminal in east London.

Therefore, I seek some comfort from the Minister that he will ask London and Continental to develop the overall design for the site as quickly as possible and enter into negotiations with EWS and any other operator who wishes to go there--I would be happy to participate in it--say within the next three months, with the objective of seeking a solution acceptable to everyone to allow a little bit of rail freight in east London. I beg to move.

Viscount Goschen: If the Committee will permit it, I shall go straight to the direct consequences of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, although no doubt noble Lords have been very interested to hear his more general remarks about rail freight distribution in this country. It may assist if I explain the current position regarding Temple Mills Yard.

The site is part of the Stratford railway lands, ownership of which was transferred from BR to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State earlier this year because the land will be required for the CTRL project and related development. Most of the site is currently occupied by English Welsh & Scottish Railway (EWS) and the former BR southern track renewal unit now owned by Balfour Beatty. These occupations are under an agreement for lease with the Secretary of State in the case of EWS and a lease in the case of the STRU. Both of these provide for the current occupants to be relocated elsewhere in the London area at LCR's cost if Temple Mills is required by LCR for an alternative use. The intention is that EWS would be relocated to a site that it has identified at Cricklewood.

Under the development agreement between LCR and the Secretary of State, LCR has a number of options for the site. During the CTRL construction period it may well wish to use it as a major construction site for the London tunnels which will be bored from Stratford. In the longer term, part has to be reserved for stabling sidings for domestic passenger trains on the CTRL. LCR may wish to use the rest for an international passenger train maintenance depot as an additional facility to the existing North Pole depot at Old Oak Common in west London. It could retain the existing uses, either alone or together with EWS's Stratford traction maintenance

31 Oct 1996 : Column 452

depot, which might need to be relocated from its present site, or it could use it for commercial or other development. The noble Lord's proposed amendment would mean that at least 12 hectares of the site would have to be made available for use as a rail freight terminal.

I do not believe that the amendment should be adopted for the following reasons. First, it could leave LCR in an impossible position. It may well be that there will simply not be enough space at Temple Mills for 12 hectares of land for freight if an international depot has to be provided there as well as the domestic sidings and the Leyton relief road. Secondly, it would not be right to constrain LCR's options in this way. LCR needs the maximum flexibility over the use of the Stratford railway lands in order to maximise the benefits from the project. It is only by safeguarding that flexibility that the regeneration opportunities which this project offers and of which the new international station will be a significant part can be maximised. As recognised by the noble Lord, the area has exciting regeneration opportunities and those now available enjoy wide support, both locally and nationally.

Thirdly, while there could be a loss of freight facilities on the Stratford Railway Lands, under the proposed arrangements there will be no overall loss of freight facilities in the London area because of the relocation provisions in the proposed and existing leases to EWS and the STRU respectively.

Fourthly, rejecting the proposed amendment would not necessarily rule out the development of a rail freight terminal at Temple Mills even if LCR does not wish to retain the current freight use. It would be for the promoters of such a terminal to approach LCR.

I hope that with that detailed explanation of the situation regarding this area of land the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

---