RAILWAYS BOARD'S PLAN FOR INTERNATIONAL THROUGH SERVICES (Hansard, 21 July 1987)

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we shall consider the following amendments to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 23, at end insert— '(aa) shall take account of the social and congestion costs arising from excess use of Waterloo as a terminal; (b), in line 26, leave out 'in such manner as they think fit' and insert 'and laid before both Houses of Parliament.'.

§ Mr. Holland
I trust that the Minister will seriously consider the amendments. I appreciate that clause 38A(9) is concerned with provision for the improvement of international through services serving various parts of the United Kingdom. The amendment is clearly related to that, inasmuch as improvement of the international through services would, I believe, be very likely, given the degree of congestion which will probably occur at Waterloo. I also feel that the plan required by the new clause, which the British Railways Board should prepare not later than 31 December 1989, should not be published simply in such a manner "as they think fit", but should be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
I shall not detain the House for long, because I know that other pressing matters command the attention of those hon. Members who are not in the Chamber to consider congestion at Waterloo. However, this is a serious issue. We debated earlier the question of traffic flows, and what kind of traffic is likely to be generated. I have raised the point that the Gibbs report was based on a past assumption of passenger use at Waterloo, and that several of the projections now given involve a considerably increased traffic flow. Therefore, while the Gibbs report declared itself satisfied that there would not be undue congestion around Waterloo, it is clear that, if we have anything like the projections given by the higher Eurotunnel figures — and, indeed, the 50 per cent. increase made possible by resignalling of track, there could be considerable congestion. One estimate is of at least an additional 4 million vehicles a year in or around Waterloo.
I said earlier that already some hon. Members crossing Westminster bridge have to negotiate their way past tourist buses which are parked there — not simply to obtain a better view of this place, but because there is nowhere else in the immediate vicinity in which to park such a vehicle. It is not entirely a facetious remark when I say that hon. Members may find the congestion around Waterloo caused by several million additional vehicles a year to be considerable. Attention should also be given to the social costs of undue congestion. The Waterloo area contains an inner-city community struggling to resist commercial development pressures and to safeguard and restore community services and facilities. There is a considerable, if not acute, threat to that from the imposition of a single terminal, rather than dispersal of a higher degree of traffic than the 30 per cent. now estimated by British Rail.
I appreciate — as I said earlier — that the Minister came to see the position for himself. I know that he is concerned, and realises that there is a viable local 284 community in the Waterloo area. However, I submit that the assessment should take account of railway operational matters as well as traffic generation, pollution and other environmental effects, the benefits to international and domestic public transport passengers, including commuter passengers, and the integration of transport facilities.
British Rail has brought out a conveniently designed cross flow system for escalators designed to separate commuter traffic from international traffic. While the principle is no doubt a good one, in practice the strain on the service is likely to be considerable. It is clear to those of us who are familiar with Waterloo station that the idea of converting what is now a one-way road system, in which taxis have access to the station, to a two-way system will lead to considerable congestion. Those of us who use Waterloo know that if one taxi pulls out the traffic pile-up can involve up to 15 vehicles. On a random representative occasion, I found 15 cabs waiting because one was unloading and the others were piled up behind it.
The environmental consequences will be considerable. British Rail's original proposal was for the terminal to be at the other end of the station, because it was recognised that increased space might well be needed to avoid congestion. Use of the other side of the station would involve building over areas which at present have housing, and a street market of the kind that the Minister has seen.
As it has not been possible in the fullest feasible detail to examine these proposals in a Committee of this House, or in the other place, I submit that little would be lost if the amendment were accepted. I cannot anticipate the advice that the Minister may have taken from officials, but I know that he is a man with an independent mind. Were I an official, I might even advise him that the definition of "excess" provides room for manoeuvre over what British Rail might or might not have to consider.
The Minister has expressed his concern for the community at Waterloo. Earlier he referred to the unwillingness of representatives of the local community groups to take part in the committee that he offered them. I appreciate his disappointment about that, but that issue is now in the past. The Minister has expressed concern and has permitted himself to be better informed about the possible congestion of Waterloo as a flagship terminal. That would imperil the economic viability of the fixed link traffic, if there were not consequential expenditure to facilitate the dispersal of traffic. That might lead to legislation having to be considered on the Floor of the House. Therefore, I urge him to accept both my amendments.

§ Mr. David Mitchell
British Rail's choice of Waterloo as an international terminal has been debated exhaustively at all stages of the Bill's passage through both Houses. The misgivings of the Waterloo community about the effect of this development on them are understandable. If, however, the council that they elected to represent them had been prepared to respond to British Rail's repeated offers of consultation, or if they had not made the futile gesture of walking out of the meeting that I had convened to bring them and British Rail together, it might have been possible to put some of these misgivings at rest.
285 Critics of the Waterloo proposal have now had every opportunity to put their views before Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament. After considering their views carefully, both Select Committees considered that there was no reason to question British Rail's decision, or to remove the Waterloo provisions from the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman's first amendment would require British Rail to take account of the social and congestion costs arising from the excess use of Waterloo as a terminal. It would not require British Rail to do this when drawing up its plans for dispersal under the new clause, but I assume that that is the hon. Gentleman's intention. The plan would provide a basis on which local authorities and other interested parties in the regions could discuss with British Rail its plans for the dispersal of services. I do not think that it would be helpful for the plan to be cluttered with discussions about the adequacy or otherwise of Waterloo. That is a separate issue.
The hon. Gentleman's second amendment would require British Rail's plans to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. The approach to publication that we have adopted is once again inspired by the approach of the original Opposition clause. That clause required the board to publish its plan in such a manner as it considered best calculated to bring it to the attention of those who would be affected by its implementation. This clause uses different words to achieve the same purpose.
There is no question of the board publishing the plan in a surreptitious manner so that nobody knows about it. The board would have every interest in letting its potential customers know what sort of services it was planning to provide. I have no doubt, therefore, that it will publish its plan widely. However, in response to the hon. Gentleman's request, I am happy to undertake that when the plan is published copies will he placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

§ Mr. Holland
I am most grateful to the Minister, and I know that the local community will also be grateful to him for what he has said. Nevertheless, it is important to have an opportunity to discuss the issues. Public display boards at Waterloo gave information that proved to be misinformation. It had to be withdrawn. Consultation chats with British Rail management and members of the local community have not addressed detailed questions such as the mix of private car, taxi and coach use and the congestion during holiday periods and in the week. However, I say again that I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.