HC Deb 13 March 1989 vol 149 cc2-4
3. Mr. McCartney

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the north-west regional managers of British Rail to discuss the implications of the Channel tunnel for the north-west.

Mr. Portillo

I meet regional managers from time to time on regional visits. I look forward to the plans for freight and passenger services from the north-west to the Channel tunnel, which British Rail is obliged to publish by the end of the year.

Mr. McCartney

Is it not disgraceful that, in the run-up to 1993, the Minister cannot announce an overall plan for infrastructure in the north-west to take advantage of job opportunities and the improvement in transport infrastructure? Given his failure to make a statement, does he share Lancashire county council's commitment, which it expressed at its conference in January when it called for a bridge head between Europe and the United States via a free port at Liverpool and for the construction in the Liverpool-Manchester area of a freight terminal capable of improving links between the Channel and the north-west? If such a link is not introduced by 1993, does the Minister agree that there will be a reduction in jobs and job opportunities in the north-west and a train drain from the north-west to the south-east and Europe?

Mr. Portillo

British Rail has already invested £600 million to improve services between the Channel tunnel and every region of the country. I have made it clear that the Department is happy to co-operate with the Liverpool land bridge concept. It is appropriate to produce plans by the end of the year—the tunnel will not open until 1993—because otherwise there may be a danger of plans being made too early. British Rail has make it clear that the first international site will be at Leeds and that there is a clear need in Strathclyde, Birmingham and Teesside for other freight facilities. It is also considering south Wales and the north-west.

Mr. Tredinnick

Bearing in mind the £500 million that British Rail is spending on the Channel tunnel in Kent, does my hon. Friend agree that for only £23 million the line from St. Pancras as far as Leicester could be electrified?

Mr. Portillo

I do not know whether my hon. Friend's figure is correct, but if a sound investment case were put to Ministers for the electrification of that line, or any other, Ministers would be happy to approve it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Is the Minister aware of the traffic chaos on the M1, M6 and other roads leading from the north-west? Would it not be logical for the Government to put some money into establishing a major freight depot in the Greater Manchester area, possibly at Tameside, where the Secretary of State has seen a good site? Such investment would not only bring jobs to the north-west, but would relieve traffic congestion on the roads by ensuring that freight travelled by rail, which would be much more suitable for it.

Mr. Portillo

I am not at all sure that Government investment is needed to achieve those purposes. As the hon. Gentleman says, there are already pressures pointing in that direction. Section 8 grants are available for establishing freight facilities where they would take freight lorries off sensitive roads in unsuitable areas.

Mr. Favell

Of course, every north-west hon. Member will want to endorse the plea by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) for a rail freight terminal in the north-west. However, is there not a danger of thinking that all the country's freight will disappear down the Channel tunnel? How much will be able to get down there? Is the lack of proper road links developing between the north-west and the Channel, the East Anglian ports and Immingham in East Yorkshire not an even greater danger? Clearly, all freight will not be able to get into the tunnel.

Mr. Portillo

I can assure my hon. Friend that Ministers are aware of the pressures on roads and he has made a perfectly valid point. It is true that the amount of freight passing through the Channel tunnel, although significant and an important psychological change for the country, will be only a tiny proportion of the total freight moved in this country.

Mr. Tony Lloyd

Is the Minister aware that British Rail's present plans allow for only four trains a day in and out of the north-west, which is equivalent of about 280 lorries a day? Does he realise that that would not effectively clear one large international container ship? Is he aware that that would displace almost no worthwhile traffic from the motorway system? What does the Minister intend to do to ensure that we have a system that will take goods and people from the north-west?

Mr. Portillo

I cannot confirm the hon. Gentleman's figures and the figure of four trains a day is not familiar to me. I am still waiting for the plans to be brought forward. However, from British Rail's document on the new proposed rail link published last week, I know that in 1993 there will be 35 train paths available daily each way through the Channel tunnel and that 75 per cent. of freight using the Channel tunnel is expected to come from beyond the south-east or to go beyond the south-east.

Dame Peggy Fenner

I appreciate that the proposals are still at an early stage and that they will not proceed until 1993. However, is my hon. Friend satisfied that the King's Cross connection and terminal is the right choice, as that is the choice that the House will be asked to make early?

Mr. Portillo

British Rail has made it clear that it believes that King's Cross is the right choice and a number of hon. Members from various parties have said that they believe that that is right because of the superior connections from King's Cross to the north of England. However, the investment proposal has not yet been put to the Government, so the Government have not taken a firm view on that yet.