§ Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [21 October].
§
That the Promoters of the British Railways (Stansted) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think tit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
§ Question again proposed.
10.25 pm§ Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson (New Forest)I hope that the House will support the direction by the Chairman of Ways and Means about a carry-over motion on the British Railways (Stansted) Bill. I should remind hon. Members that the direction provides for the promoters of the Bill to have leave to stipend the proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament.
The Bill has had full consideration and was originally debated on 24 February. That debate was adjourned and resumed on 3 June when the Bill was given a Second Reading. It was referred to a Select Committee which sat for three days hearing evidence and it was reported and the preamble approved on 10 July. It now awaits its consideration.
As hon. Members will know, the Bill provides powers for British Rail to anticipate the development of the Stansted airport terminal and to make arrangements to ensure that a rail link is available when that development takes place in 1990. Much of the discussion about the Bill dealt not with the rail link itself but with the juxtaposition of the Stansted proposal and the proposal for Manchester.
In 1984, I spoke on the Second Reading of the British Railways Bill by which powers were given to British Rail to provide the rail link. There has been a great deal of discussion on this matter and hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed strong feelings. It is perhaps in everybody's recollection that a meeting took place on Friday 24 October between the British Railways Board, the Manchester passenger transport authority and representatives of Manchester International Airport plc to see whether a way out of this difficulty could be found. I am happy to be able to tell the House that an agreement has been signed which appears to break the deadlock and that there is every chance of real progress.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that British Rail has now told its investment board that there is a commitment by British Rail to put up its part of the money?
§ Mr. McNair-WilsonUnfortunately, I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question. This is essentially a planning Bill, and for that reason I am unable to give him the answer that he seeks. I have no doubt that British Rail will take note of the hon. Gentleman's point, and of course the Minister responsible is also in the House. In the letter of 27 October, it is made clear that the agreement that was discussed last Friday is now in being. I hope that it takes account of the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.
§ Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley)The hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) mentioned the relationship of the Manchester rail link to the Stansted rail link. If the carry-over motion is approved, hon. Members will expect by the time of the Third Reading in the next Session to see a financial commitment by the British Railways Board and positive progress on the Manchester rail link. Will we get that commitment?
§ Mr. McNair-WilsonClearly I should like to be able to say yes to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), and I am sure that British Rail would like to give the same answer. However, we have to see how this agreement works. As I have said, the first meeting was held last Friday and it seems that all sides are satisfied with the progress. I am sure that the board will take note of the hon. Gentleman's point.
After a somewhat difficult time, we are now making progress on all fronts. I hope that the House will therefore pass the carry-over motion.
§ Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)The House is aware, from earlier debates, of my interest in this legislation. I have opposed it on the very strong grounds that a Stansted airport rail link should not he sanctioned in advance of a firm agreement to proceed with a Manchester airport rail link. At last we have had some good news about the Manchester rail link, and I pay tribute tonight to hon. Members on both sides of the House who worked long and hard to make possible the agreement that was reached in Manchester last Friday between British Rail, the passenger transport authority, the passenger transport executive and Manchester Airport plc. It has the makings of a famous victory, and it is good news not just for Greater Manchester but for the northwest as a whole.
With many of my hon. Friends, I argued in earlier debates that it was palpably wrong to sanction new investment at Stansted in the south-east before meeting the prior claims of Manchester, in a region so very badly stricken by unemployment as the north-west. What we need to hear tonight is a positive response from the Minister to the agreement that was reached last Friday and that he will be meeting the parties at a very early date.
Two matters remain to be agreed and will need to be discussed with the Secretary of State. First, there are the difficulties facing the PTA in providing firm commitments on the future of supportive services from Piccadilly in central Manchester to the airport, notwithstanding the PTE's view that the rail link will strengthen the viability 269 of existing services on the Styal line. Secondly, there are British Rail's similar difficulties in giving commitments to the PTA on its services outside the PTA area.
It will also be necessary for the parties to discuss with the Secretary of State the need to exploit external funding opportunities— for example, from EEC grants. I hope that tonight the Minister will indicate his right hon. Friend's readiness to hold an early meeting with the parties and that we shall now be given a pledge of his practical support for our determination to see the opening of the Manchester rail link within the time scale envisaged in Manchester last Friday.
The Secretary of State has not so far met the parties to last Friday's agreement. It was his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) who met them, together with the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) and myself, at the Department of Transport in May of this year. A further meeting at the Department is thus now both very important and urgent.
It is on the assumption, based on his correspondence with me and the oral reply that I had from him in the House last week, of a positive response from the Secretary of State that I hope not to have to oppose the motion tonight. I know that British Rail understands my grounds for opposing the legislation so far, and I trust that it will now no longer be necessary to oppose it further.
§ Mr. Fred Silvester (Manchester, Withington)I do not intend to oppose the carry-over motion, for two reasons. First, the agreement is now in being. I understand that, although the agreement is not yet before the investment committee of British Rail, it is likely to come before it in the next few weeks. Therefore, we should be able to take further action against the British Railways (Stansted) Bill in time, if that matter is not pursued with the vigour that we all demand. Until we see the details and the whites of their eyes, we are quite happy to support the motion.
Secondly, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) was not quite right. The present Secretary of State also took part in discussions at Manchester airport on this matter more recently than the meeting to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
Ministers have been involved to a considerable extent, and they have given us a great deal of support. In the remaining issues that concern them—many do not, but instead concern BR and the local authority—I hope and believe that we can rely on my hon. Friend to give the Department's full support for seeing that the outstanding matters are settled.
§ The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell)The motion is strictly procedural, and I shall speak simply to advise the House of the Government's view.
We made it clear in the airports policy White Paper that we would be pleased to approve a rail link to Stansted airport if there was a commercial case. I reaffirmed that on Second Reading. British Rail has shown that there is a commercial case, and we have given approval. British Rail now needs powers to build the link so that it will be 270 ready by 1991, when the new terminal at Stansted is due to come into operation. The Government therefore support the motion.
It is correct to say that, in May, the parties to the Manchester airport link met my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State, now the Secretary of State for the Environment, and me and were asked to reassess the financial contribution that they were prepared to make and to come forward with proposals. I have been very pleased to learn that the parties concerned with the proposed rail link have recently made considerable progress on a possible cost-sharing arrangement. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have full details of the proposals, we will examine them urgently and be pleased to discuss them. We will, of course, have to examine the details carefully in the light of the normal criteria for public expenditure control. I cannot say more until we have the proposals in front of us. The House will note this indication of BR's good intentions, and I hope that that will be welcomed and not dismissed with ingratitude tonight.
If the motion is carried, the House will have further opportunities to consider the arguments for and against the Bill on the basis of the Select Committee on Transport's recommendations. I therefore urge the House to allow the Bill to be carried over.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettThere were rumours, at least on this side of the House, that the Minister would make this statement with enthusiasm. We fail to see much enthusiasm in this. Could he not show a little enthusiasm and draw attention to the considerable advantages not just to the Greater Manchester area or the north-west, but to the whole of the country, of having one of our most important international airports linked to the national rail network?
§ Mr. MitchellI have frequently expressed my support for matters that are of concern to Manchester and its Members of Parliament. It would be imprudent of me to give a firm blessing to something about which I do not have the details and when I have not yet received a formal application from the parties. They will come back to the Secretary of State and, when they do, we will listen carefully to what they say. I hope that it will be found that we can take the proposals forward.
§ Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stretford)The Minister asked us to accept with good grace what has been achieved, but it is difficult for us to know whether there is similar good grace in the Government, especially when the hon. Gentleman uses a phrase such as "subject to the constraints on public spending". He must be aware that such a phrase sends a chill down the spines of Opposition Members. Would he like to spell out the circumstances in which that would cause a problem?
§ Mr. MitchellIt is a straightforward matter, and the hon. Member need not get excited about it. BR has a normal procedure for investment appraisal, which comes to Ministers as part of their assessment of public expenditure control, to which the hon. Gentleman took exception. That is a standard part of the procedure and we cannot give detailed examination of this proposal until it is in front of us.
The parties will be welcome to come back to the Secretary of State, as suggested by his predecessor. When 271 they do so, they will be warmly welcomed, with whatever proposals they have for further examination. I hope that the House will allow the Bill to be carried over in the usual way and to agree the motion before us, especially in the light of the fair wind which I have described in regard to the Manchester proposal.
§ Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson), as this is the third occasion on which I heard him speak on the motion. If the motion is carried tonight, we will have something to look forward to after the Queen's Speech because, presumably, we shall hear a fourth speech from the hon. Gentleman.
Congratulations are due to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), to my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), and for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester). I do not believe that the motion would be accepted tonight, as I hope that it will, without their efforts on behalf of Manchester airport.
Without introducing a controversial note into the proceedings, I will fire a warning shot across the Minister's bows—if such a metaphor is appropriate in the railway context. The Minister said that we must not be guilty of ingratitude, but he has not given us anything yet. There is an implicit promise in what he has said hut, as they used to say in the Whips Office, "There is no cough."
§ Mr. David MitchellThe hon. Gentleman will appreciate that what is before the House is a British Railways Bill and it was to British Railways that I suggested that the gratitude might be appropriate.
§ Mr. SnapeIt is not for me to presume gratitude to British Rail on behalf of my hon. Friends.
It is significant that, although it looks as though we shall get the go-ahead — depending on the financial contribution or whatever the term is in the gobbledegook that is written for the Minister—for the railway line to Ringway airport, we are not exactly comparing like with like when we compare Manchester with Stansted.
I appreciate that this motion concerns Stansted but, without sounding too ungracious or giving way to the ingratitude which the Minister suggested may be implicit in my remarks, it is fair to say that, solely because of the opposition of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Withington, Manchester will get a railway line.
It will not he built on the same basis as that at Stansted because there will be a significant cost to the passenger transport executive in Manchester. No doubt the Minister will say that the final arrangements have not arrived on his desk. There will be a 50p supplement to every passenger using the line but the line at Stansted, which is the subject of the motion, a virtual greenfield site, is built courtesy of the taxpayer. As the Minister continually reminds us, the taxp ayer funds British Rail to a large extent.
§ Mr. David MitchellThe hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is a commercial proposition and not one funded by the taxpayer.
§ Mr. SnapeThe Minister may know that, but I do not. I am sure that there is a good bit of juggling and financial sleight of hand between the Department and British Rail to justify this.
272 The greenfield site at Stansted is an exaggeration but it is hardly the busiest airport in the United Kingdom. Yet proposals have been before the House for some considerable time to extend the airport.
I do not know how good a financial wizard the Minister is. Not too many miles from here is the biggest international airport in the world, and so far neither his wizardry nor British Rail's financial acumen has managed to prove a case for building a main line railway into Heathrow. If the Minister uses the same calculations as he uses to justify the financial case for a railway into Stansted, I have no doubt that there will not just be a two-track or a four-track railway into Heathrow, but that it will be like Clapham junction all the way from a major London terminus. If the Minister wishes to blind us with science on the financial aspects of the proposals, he should put some figures before us.
§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)I have listened to these Front Bench exchanges with some interest. There have been some interesting metaphors. The Minister talked about fair winds and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) followed that with threats of shots across the bows. May I offer a similar threat in connection with the Scottish airports? I sincerely hope that Prestwick, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen will be treated with similar sympathy when their infrastructural needs and expectations come up for discussion.
§ Mr. SnapeIf I followed my hon. Friend down that flight path, you might call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The best advice that I can give my hon. Friend, judging from our experience during the past year or so, is that if he is worried about the future of the Scottish airports, he should block a few Bills in the House. Who knows what financial sleight of hand the Minister would use to justify expenditure north of the border?
We give the measure a qualified welcome. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends will return to the matter in due course, and I hope that once we have heard yet another eloquent speech from the hon. Member for New Forest, we can complete the railway line into Stansted, one into Manchester and, if there is any financial sense behind those proposals, eventually a surface railway into Heathrow.
§ Mr. Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden)I begin to get the impression that I am an uninvited guest at my own birthday party.
I should make it clear that I am in favour of the motion. Although I have objected to the Bill, those objections have been removed and my feelings on the matter are reflected by the majority of opinion in my constituency. The decision having been taken on the development of Stansted airport, it is only sensible that the airport is planned and designed to the highest possible standards. There will be no excuse for failing in those respects_ It is sensible to build in a rail link at the beginning, because it will provide the most effective transition from rail to aircraft at almost any airport in the United Kingdom. On balance, it will probably be better environmentally if people can reach the airport efficiently by rail rather than by road.
One of my principal reservations was that the rail service might be unable to bear the added strain of extra 273 trains. I have no wish for the regular passengers in my constituency to be inconvenienced further, because they have had a bad time on that line for many years. British Rail has gone a long way towards satisfying me that the position will be improved, and I am persuaded that more investment in that railway line is the key to better services. Although I have not finished my discussions with British Rail about further improvements in the overall service, it must be right to establish the rail link into Stansted without further significant delay.
I should add, partly because of my former connections with the north-west, that I am delighted that there has been progress in the provision of a rail link for Manchester airport. I hope that the discussions will be completed without too much delay and that my hon. Friend the Minister will take a generous and broadly supportive attitude towards it. I hope that there will not be too much emphasis on the nitty gritty and the small print. The important principle of balance between the north and the south must be satisfied. The Government will be thankful if the extra capacity that Manchester represents can be used to the full. There have already been warnings that the south-eastern airports system may be under strain.
Many of us believe that there has been a bias towards the south-east, and if that can be relieved by the greater exploitation of Manchester we would welcome that as being in the national interest. I hope that this matter can go ahead, that the House will agree that we can come back to this in the next Session, and that the Bill is not lost, so that we can tie up the matter satisfactorily. I hope that the Government will regard it as a happy situation that they have the approval of those concerned with the Stansted end of things and are now close to getting the approval of hon. Members on both sides of the House representing the north-west area, and that they will think that that is a job well done and be thankful.
§ Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)I wish to put on record my support for the Stansted link. I agree with the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) that this is right, and it is common sense to put in that public rail link now. I hope that the Bill will go through with alacrity in the next Session.
I congratulate those hon. Members representing the Manchester area, who have pulled off a coup. I hope that the negotiations for getting the rail link into Manchester, which I support, will quickly be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.
I agree with the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) that we must put in a public rail link to Heathrow as soon as possible. It will be complicated, but there is no point in trying to deal with the traffic problems of London, with all the difficulties in getting out to, and back from, Heathrow, if we are not serious about getting a major public rail link into Heathrow. I am sure that the Minister has taken that on board. I realise that that will be extremely expensive, and there will be problems, such as where it is brought into, which are being reviewed. However, it would make a great deal of sense if this were pulled off as well.
When Heathrow was first developed, such a rail link was planned, but it has never been developed, although we built an airport at Gatwick that happened to be a great 274 success. I never thought that the Stansted link should have been held back because of Manchester, but hon. Members representing that area have managed to pull off a deal. All power to their elbow.
§ Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North)My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) has fought hard to protect the interests of his constituents, and those of us who have difficulties with proposed new transport systems will have a great deal of sympathy with him, and hope that he will get the safeguards that he requires. It is interesting that he has been big enough to support this proposal wholeheartedly.
The decision on Stansted airport was taken because many hon. Members desired to create jobs in the United Kingdom and not in Schiphol. That being so, it is unthinkable that we should even contemplate building a modern airport without the facility of a rail link to it. I am delighted to hear that progress has been made on the Manchester link, and I wish that well. It would clearly be foolish not to take steps now to provide the necessary link for a future expanded airport at Stansted. Those of us who have occasion to use both Heathrow and Gatwick airports know the considerable difference between trying to get to the one and trying to get to the other.
I hope that if I have the privilege to introduce a Bill to promote a rail link with the new Kent international airport, that will also have a fair wind, and I hope that this Bill will have the carry-over right.
§ Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stretford)The Minister asked us to be gracious in our acceptance, but we are still in the position that we should almost bite his hand off, if it were there to bite. His remarks were less than fulsome, although we can read between the lines. I agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) that we shall be returning to this should matters not work out, although everybody hopes that matters will progress smoothly.
The Minister may find himself in difficulty in committing himself wholeheartedly to what I am about to say. It seems logical to those of us from Manchester that, if the Manchester rail link is approved, there should be no barrier to the Department of Transport wholeheartedly and fulsomely backing an application to the European Community for help under section 56. Is the Minister prepared to comment?
§ Mr. David Mitchellindicated dissent.
§ Mr. LloydWell, we shall return to that point. This is an important matter. It is unusual for a Minister, especially under this Government, not to take the opportunity to say that he is prepared to spend someone else's money. There will be no cost to the Exchequer because all the domestic money will be spent by either British Rail or local Manchester bodies.
I thank the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) because, as a lapsed northerner, he gave some assistance. That may be the only kind comment I make about him. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who could not be present because of another engagement, gave great assistance also. It is recognised that, if properly built and constructed as part of an adequate rail system, a rail link into Manchester will 275 benefit not just the Manchester area. We are talking not about a commuter line but about one that shows acceptance of the fact that Manchester is a national airport and opens it up to national traffic. Your role, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should not go unrecognised, but perhaps I should not say more on that.
We hope that there is good will on all sides so that the link goes ahead. We look forward to seeing what happens in the next few weeks and to ensuring that the north-west has an airport fitting to the region. The area is certainly in need of the link.
§ Mr. Patrick McNair-WilsonI thank the hon. Members for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) for their support. I assure hon. Members from the north-west, including my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester), that the board recognises that it is important that a proper decision is made before Third Reading. We want to make progress. I assure hon. Members also that account will be taken of their message and that there will be no undue delay. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his remarks and I hope that the House will approve the motion for the carry-over.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§
Ordered,
That the Promoters of the British Railways (Stansted) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date he paid;
§
Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
§
Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
§
Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
§
Ordered,
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
§
Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
§ To be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.