HC Deb 08 November 1991 vol 198 cc754-62

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]

2.30 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)

This debate follows naturally on from the one that we have just had.

Today, in east London, the public are cheering the Environment Commissioner of the European Community, Carlo Ripa di Meana, for issuing a directive that no work should be undertaken on the channel tunnel rail link because the Government have not carried out an environmental assessment. Carlo believes, and rightly so, that the British Government should have carried out an environmental study before the route was chosen, not afterwards. He has exposed our Prime Minister as the leader of a Government of environmental law breakers whose leading environmental criminals are to be found at the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment.

The first misunderstanding that I should like to clear up is the assertion that the Government have chosen King's Cross as the terminal for the channel tunnel link and that Stratford will be merely a station along the route. That is far from the truth. Effectively, the Government have said that there will be two channel tunnel terminals—one at King's Cross for passengers using public transport, and the other at Stratford for those using cars. It is clear that Stratford will be a motorail terminal and a park-and-ride terminal. The likelihood must be that half the trains will terminate at Stratford.

British Rail has produced four excellent internal documents. I shall refer to each. They conclude that the easterly route does not give value for money and cannot be justified on any conceivable cost benefit analysis, or on any opportunity cost analysis, or on any orthodox accounting analysis.

The environmental report prepared for British Rail—I have a copy here—shows that the Ove Arup route chosen will cross and ruin more land than any other scheme in areas of special significance for agriculture, a designation identifying the most valued high grade agricultural land in Kent. In particular, millions of pounds of market garden produce will be destroyed by dust during the construction period. For a time it will be as though the locusts had invaded parts of the heart of the garden of England. The route chosen will cross a number of highly-prized marsh areas of high ecological value, some of which have been designated by the Nature Conservancy Council as sites of special scientific interest. It will destroy sites with a wide variety of habitats. The gault clay woodlands in mid-Kent are of particular concern.

The chosen route will pass through more high-risk contaminated land sites than any other scheme and it will pass through more areas currently in business or industrial use, including the Ford works at Dagenham. Amazingly, no one has yet worked out what the effect of that will be on Ford's operation.

Newham council says that its residents are in favour of the scheme, but will they still support it when they learn that 1,000 homes in Stratford will be at risk from settlement when the railway line goes into a shallow tunnel because of the geological conditions in the area? Although it should be possible to repair the external and internal cracks in these 1,000 homes, they are bound to be blighted once they have been identified. Newham council has kept strangely silent about that.

We are told by the Government that we must be prepared to tolerate environmental devastation and a senseless waste of more than £1,000 million worth of extra public money because the Ove Arup route is necessary if prosperity is to come from the regeneration of east London and the east Thames corridor. Alas, British Rail's reports demolish this central plank of the Government's argument. The British Railways Board concludes: Regeneration of the East Thames Corridor may be better promoted by other measures, eg provision of domestic rail services, improved road access, site preparation at public cost. The report of Planning, Industrial and Economic Development Advisers, which was prepared for British Rail, goes into more detail on that critical point: Stratford is not strongly placed to attract high quality uses, such as corporate headquarters or European Community institutions. The draw of central London is still very considerable, and it is doubtful that the pull of an international rail terminal itself is sufficient to significantly alter patterns of business location … The Rail Link would not be sufficient to achieve this change in the image of and prospects for the Lea Valley implied by the Gateways scenario: it may not even be necessary. It is certainly less important than central government commitment to investing in road and related infra-structure and dealing with the problems of land contamination and improving the environment. If the Government disagree with the conclusions of the PIEDA analysis, will they tell us what reports they have carried out to suggest that British Rail and PIEDA are wrong, or are they preparing to spend £4.5 billion, not on the basis of sensible planning, but by hunch, guess and God?

The Government's problems have been compounded by the crazy suggestion of the Secretary of State for the Environment that the Ove Arup route via Stratford will act as a springboard for the creation of a new linear city from Stratford to Southend. This proposal is sheer fantasy and the product of a feverish mind. Already it is being dubbed by planners as "Tarzan's folly".

No one who is serious about urban planning believes that a linear city stretching for mile after mile on both sides of the Thames will ever be built. It is more likely that the Secretary of State for the Environment is preparing us for what used to be called ribbon development and pock-marked urban sprawl stretching from Stratford to Southend, with unfettered market forces destroying the flora and fauna and every living thing that gets in its way.

I understand that the Secretary of State for the Environment is to develop the concept of "Tarzan's folly" at a London Weekend Television seminar in a few weeks' time, but the right place to develop the concept is on the Floor of the House. Perhaps I could tempt the Minister to upstage his boss today and tell us exactly what the Secretary of State for the Environment has in mind.

Nor does British Rail enthuse over job prospects. Speaking of the maximum number of jobs of 21,000 that could be associated with the Ove Arup proposal, British Rail says that these jobs would largely represent a redistribution of economic activity in Kent and London rather than the creation of new economic activity. When Newham's councillors talk of 40,000 jobs coming to east London, they are conning not only their own people but the rest of us, including, I regret to say, the people of Hackney. There will not be many jobs for the people of Hackney in any of these proposals.

We should take note of reports that the Ove Arup route chosen by the Government will wreck a £1 billion scheme for 7,000 jobs and 6,500 new homes, which apparently have already been approved in principle by the Department of the Environment, in the Barking reach area of the Thames.

Worries about the rape of Hackney led the London borough of Hackney to oppose the idea of the easterly route and a terminal at Stratford. First, the use of Stratford as a motorail and park-and-ride terminal will necessitate increased road capacity from the west. This probably means a motorway or fast-track dual carriageway to Stratford, running through the heart of Hackney from Highbury corner to the Lea interchange. That would mean the resumption of the heroic and successful anti-motorway battles of the past two decades.

Secondly, traffic levels in east Hackney, with more juggernauts and heavy goods vehicles, would rise considerably, bringing noise, fumes, dirt, accidents and nightmarish living conditions to a wide area.

Thirdly, the accompanying redevelopment of Stratford town centre could draw trade and investment away from Hackney and sap the vitality of our existing shopping centres in Mare street and Kingsland road.

Fourthly, a successful terminal at Stratford would inevitably and inexorably encroach on the Lea Valley regional park and reduce leisure facilities. I live on the banks of the Lea and I cannot properly tell the House what an amazing joy it is to wake up every morning and look over the marshes. The Lea valley is probably Hackney's most precious environmental assets, and there is a paramount need to keep it away from development-mad Newham at all costs.

As someone who once worked full time for two years in one of the most high-powered urban planning teams ever assembled in this country, I see those four points as virtually certain consequences of the Government's proposals. But I am a modest man and I would welcome a second opinion from the Minister: does he agree or does he disagree? In particular, can he tell us whether the continental gauge will finish at Stratford rather than King's Cross, and will there be a freight depot at Temple Mills in Stratford?

There are other problematic possibilities. Is the 8.5 mile tunnel from Barking to Stratford and then to King's Cross feasible? People in the City to whom I have spoken say that private enterprise will never finance it. If the line were to go overground from Stratford—presumably along the north London line—that line might have to be upgraded from two to four tracks, with a loss of hundreds of homes in Hackney. Can the Minister give us a categorical assurance that that will not happen?

In the past, too many tunnel schemes have ended up on the surface because of the cost implications. Are we about to witness that again? Can the Minister confirm that, in any event, and even if the tunnel is built, rail traffic on the north London line will increase significantly, thus bringing pressure to upgrade it from two to four tracks? We need this threat to homes in Hackney cleared up urgently and preferably cleared away today. I beg the Minister to respond positively on that point.

One point is bugging me and, I am sure, everyone who has read the four reports produced by British Rail which I am holding in my hand. I have been through them in every last detail. I must ask the Minister: how on earth have the Government got to where they are today, with a scheme with no money, engineering study or environmental assessment in place, which produces a net loss in financial terms, compared with the southerly option, of a staggering £1.2 billion and which, on that account, has been described as perverse and part of pantomime and parody?

Why do the Government propose to dump a significant proportion of passengers travelling to and from Europe in Stratford? Do they really believe that the people of Rome, Paris, Venice and Vienna want to spend long weekends in the bed-and-breakfast hostels of Stratford, or is it the case that the cast of "The Goon Show" has been resurrected and installed a t the Department of Transport?

The answer to all those questions, of course, lies in the fact that the route chosen represents the biggest bribe in British political history. The sum of £1.2 billion extra is being spent in an attempt to save the Tories in six marginal seats. Each Conservative candidate in the election will have to declare to the returning officer, first, that he has spent £7,000 on his campaign and, secondly, that he has had a direct grant from the Government of £200 million. In the rotten boroughs of yesteryear, bribes consisted of buying the electors a few pints of beer; now bribery, corruption and cheating involve hitherto unimaginable sums. In the unlikely event of any of the six Tories being elected, they will, of course, face disqualification.

In the coming weeks, months and years, I shall call on people in Hackney of all political views and of no political views to join in the campaign against the easterly route via Stratford. We shall link up with Members of Parliament and others from the north of England who may feel that the £1.2 billion of extra public money which is to be squandered on this scheme could be better spent on other transport projects, the environment, the national health service or perhaps on educating our children. We shall link up with all those who believe in exciting, rational urban planning which meets the needs of Britain and Europe in the 21st century. We shall combine with everyone and anyone who wants to support a channel tunnel rail link that gives real value for money.

In Hackney, working-class people are intelligent and sophisticated. They do not understand why the Government should set out to protect the environment of the middle classes in Kent and south London only to transfer the problems to the working classes of east London and Hackney. Too many people think that they can ride roughshod over the citizenry of Hackney, which is the poorest borough in the land. They will soon learn otherwise.

How much better it would have been if a Minister from the Department of Transport had come to the Dispatch Box today to tell us that he was concentrating on bringing us the Hackney-Chelsea tube line and the east London tube line. Then we could cheer him as we are now cheering Carlo Ripa di Meana, the European Commmunity Environment Commissioner. Surely that is an offer that the Minister cannot refuse.

2.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin)

It is not unusual for the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) to be a lone voice. He might be a lone voice on this occasion, although he might attract a few followers. Listening to his description of the way in which the decision was reached, it would seem that there was a party-political divide in the House, the Opposition favouring the hon. Gentleman's arguments and the Government taking another line.

I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who, I understand, still leads for the Labour party on transport issues. He said: I welcome what appears to be the endorsement of Labour's policy on an east London-Stratford-King's Cross route which was published 12 months ago, and which was outlined in 'Moving Britain into Europe'".—[Official Report, 14 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 26.] He said that we should keep reading the documents because there was a lot to learn.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

He was fighting for his constituents.

Mr. McLoughlin

The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says that the hon. Gentleman was fighting for his constituents, and I appreciate that. I shall try to deal with the issue later.

The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch suggested that the decision had been taken solely on a party-political basis. I merely point out that it is the line of the official Opposition at the moment to support the route outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 14 October. We know what a great European the hon. Member for Bolsover is. He would like us to block the tunnel, but that idea would not find much favour with his colleagues. I wish to respond to the speech of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch rather than to the intervention of the hon. Member for Bolsover, who has a knack of getting his remarks on to the record.

The Government made it clear on 14 October why we prefer the easterly approach on the route to London for the channel tunnel rail link. He was critical of us for not choosing the cheapest route. The Opposition often criticise us by saying that we go for the cheapest option, but we are now being castigated for not doing so.

The route via Stratford to King's Cross satisfies our transport objectives for London and the rest of the country. A station at Stratford alone would not do that. At the same time, the easterly approach has the least possible environmental impact. Despite what the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said, there would be environmental consequences wherever we sited the route. We believe that the chosen route will have the least environmental impact and will spur development where it is wanted and needed in east London and in the lower Thames corridor.

To those concerned about the impact of the easterly approach on their constituents, it is worth saying that on the plans so far developed probably only two homes will need to be acquired over the entire length of line between Detling and King's Cross. There are also likely to be only about five homes within 100 m of the line. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch the line is proposed to be in a tunnel. The line has been specifically designed to have the least possible impact on people and the environment.

Having made our decision, the preferred route now needs to be worked up in some detail as a basis for full public consultation. This will be done by British Rail in close co-operation with the Government—both Transport and Environmental Departments—and the private sector. The first task is to consider the objectives for the work in terms of benefits to international passengers, commuters and freight, costs, environmental impact and fostering development opportunities in the east Thames corridor. A detailed preferred alignment, based on Ove Arup's proposals, can then be engineered. Only after that will it be possible to make a sufficiently full assessment of the impact on individual properties that is essential for proper public consultation. That will take some months, and in the meantime it is fruitless to speculate on the precise alignment and the fine detail of the environmental impact. I appreciate the concerns that people will feel during that period.

As I have said, one of the objectives of working up the route in detail is how best to foster business and development opportunities in east London and the lower Thames corridor. The hon. Gentleman should have welcomed that and should not have dismissed it in the way that he did. This is fraught with uncertainty, as British Rail's consultants PIEDA concluded. The hon. Gentleman said that he had gone through all the reports. As the Secretary of State said, those reports were made widely available and there was no attempt to hide them.

Nobody should be under any illusion that the rail link on its own can transform the attractiveness of east London for development, not that adding a station here and making a connection there to the existing network is necessarily the answer to the problems. The rail link has to be seen as one item in a package of infrastructure improvements to road and rail. In terms of public transport, the extensions to the Jubilee line and the docklands light railway, the modernisation of the Central line, and the east-west crossrail will make Stratford a major transport hub. It is this concerted effort to transform communications that will over a period of years help to shift economic activity to this part of London. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the extensions that we have made, and plan to make, to the transport infrastructure in the area.

Environment and Transport Ministers will play a full part in the development issue, in particular as the route is being worked up in more detail. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has already announced his intention to commission a study to consider the development potential of the lower Thames. He will shortly announce the name of the consultants who will undertake the study.

Local authorities and others concerned with the development issues will understandably be impatient to contribute to the selection of a precise route alignment, connections to the existing network, and stations. But, first, British Rail, the Government and the private sector must put our collective thoughts together if the consultation is to be productive.

The new line is needed primarily to cope with the growth of international passenger traffic, but the further work will also look at commuter and freight traffics. British Rail envisages the use of the rail link for express domestic services from Kent and perhaps Essex—up to 12 per hour in the peak period—as well as regular services during the rest of the day. Precisely what is provided needs to be considered hand in hand with the pattern of stations and connections on the new line.

We want to look again at whether it is desirable, feasible and viable to carry freight on the new line. This is a complex issue. For example, is there an advantage in carrying continental loading-gauge freight, bearing in mind that there might have to be a railhead in the Stratford area? I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point about the continental rail gauge. That needs to be fully considered and that will be done. We cannot give instantaneous answers, and I am a little surprised at the Commissioner's response. It is not surprising for the Government to announce their route and then carry out the necessary work on the environmental implications. There is not much to be gained by saying that the Environment Commissioner has saved us and stopped the project. That is to overstate the case, as was explained in the previous debate.

The alternative to such a railhead would possibly be the expensive upgrading of other lines. Whatever the decision, Stratford will still be an important rail freight hub. It already features in British Rail's plans as a regional centre for handling international freight once the channel tunnel opens.

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)

The Minister said that he could not predict the implications for individuals, but what about the larger environment? I have in mind the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) about Hackney marshes. Will the Minister assure us that, in the studies, protection will be afforded to Hackney and Walthamstow marshes?

Mr. McLoughlin

I have tried to explain that there is not yet a precise alignment. A number of the points raised in this debate—which will no doubt also be raised in future debates, as I see this subject coming back to the House on many occassions before the final plans and the final alignment go out to public consultation—will be taken into consideration. There is a desire to ensure that we adopt the best approach in terms of transport infrastructure and transport needs while being aware of individual concerns about places that are highly regarded for environmental reasons. There is always a balance—and it is sometimes a difficult balance—to be struck. In our earlier debate, the hon. Member for Bolsover spoke about the balance between the interests of industry and those of the environment. We all accept that difficult decisions sometimes have to be made on development, infrastructure and environmental questions.

I repeat that no decision has yet been made and that we still have a long way to go before the precise alignment is produced. Understandably, concerns will be expressed while the discussions are taking place, but I hope that people will be grateful that at least the route is now known. Many people have been relieved that one route has been excluded because that has allowed them to get on with planning their areas, and it is now the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch who is faced with making suggestions and representations on behalf of his area. Of course, we shall want to listen to them and both we and BR will take them fully into account when the time comes for the precise alignment to be decided.

When the precise alignment comes, a number of the questions now being asked will be properly answered. It is early days yet, and it is difficult to say too much, but I hope that, by the flavour of my response, I have shown that we feel that the route that we have selected is the route that will have the least environmental impact. That is not to say that the scheme will have no environmental impact, because no scheme could match that criterion. It is a matter of trying to get the balance right.

The potential is there for the rail link to be of enormous benefit to east London without there being an unacceptable impact on people and the environment. But more study and full public consultation are needed before the precise details are fully established. The project can then be taken forward by the private sector.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Three o'clock.