PROTECTION OF NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES

HC Deb 13 January 1992 vol 201 cc723-63

'(1) It shall be the duty of the Board, if required to do so by the relevant owner of a specified property, to carry out the act or acts, referred to in subsection (4) below, required by that owner.

(2) A "specified property" means any property—

1. (a) in the London Borough of Camden within the land bounded by Euston Road, Midland Road, Goodsway, York Way. Pentonville Road, King's Cross Road, Swinton Street and Gray's Inn Road; and
2. (b) in the London Borough of Islington within the land bounded by York Way, Wharfdale Road, Caledonian Road, Northdown Street, Collier Street, Calshot Street, Lorenzo Street, King's Cross Road and Pentonville Road.

(3) A "relevant owner" means—

1. (a) in relation to subsection (4)(a), the freeholder or long leaseholder;
2. (b) in relation to subsections (4)(b), (c) and (d), the residential occupier; and
724
3. (c) in relation to subsections (4)(b) and (c), the business of commercial occupier.

(4) The acts referred to in subsections (1) and (3) above are——

1. (a) to purchase the property;
2. (b) to do works to the property to mitigate the impact of the works on the occupiers;
3. (c) to compensate the occupiers for the impact of the works; and
4. (d) to provide temporary rehousing during the works.'.—[Mr. Chris Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Smith

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker

With this we may take new clause 6—Environmental Code of Practice—

'(1) it shall be the duty of the Board and the Company to comply in all respects with the Environmental Code of Practice for the construction of the works.

(2) The Code shall set out—

1. (a) general and specific requirements for minimising nuisances during the works;
2. (b) procedures for agreeing work method statements before the works commence;
3. (c) provisions, including works, rehousing or compensation for owners or occupiers, to mitigate unavoidable nuisances arising from the works;
4. (d) procedures for enforcing the requirements of the code and ensuring compliance with the work method statements; and
5. (e) any other appropriate matters.'.

Mr. Smith

The new clauses relate solely to the protection of my constituents. In no way do they seek to prevent the carrying out of the works involved, or the implementation of the Bill as a whole. Hon. Members on both sides of the House who want the Bill to succeed can thus happily support the new clauses, securing thereby the protection of people living immediately adjacent to the proposed works. The new clauses should not be regarded as an attempt to prevent the Bill from proceeding, or to make its completion more difficult than might reasonably be expected.

I stress that point because in the past few days a mythology has grown up about tonight's debate. The debate is about the detail of the Bill—the works that are proposed, and their impact on neighbouring residents. It is not about whether King's Cross is the right location for the proposed development.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

My hon. Friend may well be a thoroughly honourable gentleman; I would not lay claim to such a reputation. I am sure that the House has heard what my hon. Friend has said, and that may be his intention, but some Opposition Members consider that the argument should be about the location for the development. I hope that my hon. Friend will not entirely lose sight of that issue—while remaining in order, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Smith

As ever, my hon. Friend has been extremely helpful: his intervention has set our discussion in context. He has been an untiring advocate of the interests of Stratford in connection with channel tunnel traffic, and I agree wholeheartedly with his views.

My hon. Friend has reminded us of the background to our debate: the real controversy over whether King's Cross is the right location. For once, however—to ensure that I remain in order—I shall not dwell on that at too much length.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford)

Would not the King's Cross site benefit the whole country most? Rather than concentrating on the advantages to London and its outskirts, should we not consider what will benefit the country as a whole?

Mr. Smith

I entirely agree. If we were approaching the matter sensibly and rationally, the only important criterion would be how to ensure that the benefits of the tunnel applied to Great Britain as a whole—including Scotland, Wales and the north.

King's Cross, however, is not the perfect location. It provides for existing links with the north-east, but it currently provides for no direct links with the north-west. We have discussed with British Rail the possibility of links between King's Cross and Euston—perhaps by means of a travelator or, indeed, a bus. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) mentioned that in our last debate. Certainly, there is no provision for links between King's Cross and Wales or the west country.

King's Cross is therefore not the ideal location for the provision of access to the entire country. It is, however, a good location for the provision of access to substantial parts of the country—a fact which must be borne in mind.

Mr. Robert Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)

Does not my hon. Friend agree that, despite all the difficulties that he has mentioned, King's Cross is an immeasurably better location, given that the high-speed rail link will be connected with King's Cross by the year 2005 or, one hopes, long before that? Does he not agree that any alternative would be infinitely less likely to secure for people in the north-west of England, including my area of Merseyside, economic benefit from the channel tunnel? The only alternative that has been mentioned so far is Stratford.

Mr. Smith

My hon. Friend is not necessarily right in making that assumption. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) may want to comment at greater length on that. It would be perfectly possible to link up a new international interchange at Stratford with lines both to the north-east and to the north-west by using the north London line or the Tottenham-Hampstead link. There are alternative possibilities, to which British Rail has not given sufficient thought.

During the debates on the Bill and on the issues surrounding it, I have been saddened by the tendency of some people to portray this as a north-south argument. It is not, and does not have to be, a north-south issue. Obviously I want to stand up for the interests of my constituents, and in a moment I shall explain further how the two new clauses seek to achieve that end. I am acutely aware of the impact that the works proposed in the Bill would have on my constituents who live in the King's Cross area, but I am also acutely aware of the need to ensure that channel tunnel traffic is enabled easily to get through to the north, the west and other regions of the country.

What I have constantly sought to achieve is a situation in which we do not pile everything into an already congested King's Cross—at present the busiest London terminal—in seeking a means of getting through traffic to all parts of the country. I believe that it is possible to achieve that without insisting that King's Cross is absolutely essential as the location.

In this morning's Yorkshire Post, there is an article which reiterates a number of misapprehensions about the King's Cross Railways Bill. For example, referring to those who support King's Cross as the terminal, the article says: Without it, they claim, there will be no direct, high-speed passenger and freight rail link from the channel tunnel to Yorkshire and Humberside, robbing the region of the chance to trade successfully with the rest of Europe. For a start, no one has proposed—British Rail has not proposed, and this Bill does not propose—that freight should go through King's Cross. The question of freight is entirely irrelevant to this Bill, which deals only with passenger traffic, as the Government have confirmed in answers over the past few months.

The Yorkshire Post article then quotes the director of the Yorkshire and Humberside partnership, a Mr. George Smurdon, as follows: We have contacted all MPs in our region, urging them to be in the Commons tonight supporting the Bill. That is fair enough. If one adopts the attitude that King's Cross is the only possible means of providing the north of the country with benefits, one is acting fairly by lobbying in support of it. Mr. Smurdon goes on: I am advised there have been a number of amendments tabled by Mr. Chris Smith, the Labour MP for Islington, South and Finsbury, and these are likely to be viewed as a means of frustrating the Bill. I hasten to put the Yorkshire Post right. On a number of occasions I have made it clear in the House that I regard this as a bad Bill. By the amendments that I have tabled, however, I seek to make it a better Bill and to make it rather more amenable to the interests of my constituents. The purpose is not to frustrate the Bill.

Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton)

My hon. Friend has referred to a report in the Yorkshire Post. I do not agree entirely with that report, but I should like to refer to the freight issue, although it is not covered by this Bill. There has not yet been any decision as to how freight will get from the north to Stansted. It should be remembered that freight, too, is an issue. I cannot allow this occasion to pass without referring to the concern of people in the north of England about the question of freight. Although I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, I believe that we ought to express concern with regard to the lack of information about how freight will get from the north to the channel tunnel.

7.15 pm

Mr. Smith

My hon. Friend has identified a very real problem. We have been provided, either by British Rail or by the Government, with very little information about the provision for freight coming through the channel tunnel. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for trespassing a little beyond the scope of the two new clauses, but this is an important question. At the moment, we do not have sufficient information or satisfactory assurances about freight. Concern about the ability to ensure that freight can be transported as rapidly, smoothly and effectively as possible from any part of the country to and through the channel tunnel is far more important even than concern about passenger traffic.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

We all accept that my hon. Friend desperately wants to protect the interests of his constituents, and it is right that he should do so. Indeed, anyone in his position would do likewise. I hope, however, that he accepts that the objections from the north-west and from other areas of Britain are fundamental. if a proper terminus—with all that that implies—is not established at King's Cross, the cost to the rest of the country of choosing Stratford as an alternative, irrespective of the facilities provided, will be very high for people outside the London area. That is what concerns us. We accept that my hon. Friend's concern is genuine; I hope he accepts that we are desperately worried about the possibility of setting a precedent that would be extremely costly to the rest of the country.

Mr. Smith

Of course I accept that my hon. Friend is concerned. Indeed, if I were convinced that locating the terminus at Stratford—or, indeed, anywhere else—would deny the regions, especially the north and the north-west, opportunities that would be likely to be provided by location at King's Cross, I would recognise that there was a national strategic need to ensure that channel tunnel traffic could get through to the north and the north-west. I would do that despite my willingness to fight hard for my constituents and their protection, but I do not think that British Rail has effectively made the case that King's Cross is the only option that would achieve that goal.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said about the need for my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) to defend his interests. In addition to all the arguments which have been employed, there should be no mistake about the fact that this project is seen to be of supreme importance to the midlands, the north-east and the north-west. But there is another argument. We are heading into a major recession—a slump. Major public investment, especially in infrastructure, is one of the ways to effect a recovery. King's Cross would provide some of the employment required but, by opening up more rapid access to other parts of the country for channel tunnel traffic, it would create jobs in areas where unemployment is rising already.

There is always a balance of advantage. I am not saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury should not have said what he did, but he underestimates the extent to which the link is viewed as a lifeline by people for whom a deep slump is a serious and immediate prospect.

Mr. Smith

I do not in any sense underestimate the importance attached by many of my parliamentary colleagues to the King's Cross issue. I accept the argument made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) about the recession facing many of our citizens. Indeed, we have been in recession for well nigh a year and there is precious little sign of any amelioration. My right hon. Friend may well be correct in believing that things are likely to get worse rather than better. There is no difference between us about the importance of facilitating business and trade and of ensuring that public works programmes can be undertaken properly.

As regards the Bill, the difference between us is whether King's Cross is the only possible location, whether it is the right location, or whether it may cause more problems than it solves.

Mr. Tony Banks

Before this turns into a domestic row or a family dispute, I remind my hon. Friend and my other right hon. and hon. Friends through him that a proper assessment is one of the things that we lack. That is all that we are asking for. No doubt the Labour Front Bench will be giving us details of that later.

I am no more fighting for the interests of Stratford over those of the rest of the country than my hon. Friend is fighting for the interests of Islington over those of the rest of the country. I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that if on this occasion they support the Labour Front Bench on the need for a full inquiry, at least we can ensure that the decision eventually taken is in the interests of all of our constituents and that we are not divided because British Rail will not carry out a proper assessment of where in London the country needs that international station.

Mr. Smith

As ever, my hon. Friend is right. Consider the way in which we have gone about making the decision—use of the private Bill procedure—the changes of mind exhibited by the Government, and the fact that the Government's provisions for the eastern approach and the potential role of Stratford are still unclear. For example, we have not heard what the Government envisage at Stratford other than a station. We do not know how big it will be, what links will be provided to it and how the Government envisage that the station will develop. Many questions are unclear. Had there been a sensible approach to such issues, all those questions could have been put into the public domain from the start. We could have found a sensible way to plan what ought to be a major, strategic, national decision. The private Bill procedure is not a helpful way to do that.

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)

I agree with the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). We appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has a duty to defend the interests of his constituents. However, before he or my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) completely rewrite our party's policy, I must tell them that the commission of inquiry that we envisage setting up after the general election will consider the route from the channel tunnel.

For many of us, there is no dissension about the fact that there is no alternative to King's Cross. It is not the railway management making that statement; I am making it, on behalf of our party. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that I do not do so at the behest of railway management. I spent too many years working for British Rail to be over-impressed with the supposed infallibility of that organisation.

If my hon. Friend feels that there is an alternative, it is his responsibility to tell us how much it will cost, how it will be possible to get from Stratford to Chesterfield, Liverpool, Manchester and all the other parts of the United Kingdom that this great project must serve, and what route the trains would take if we were unwise enough to accept Stratford as an alternative.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. Those are tall questions which leave the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) far away from his new clause.

Mr. Smith

I shall be ruled by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, although there are answers to the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). I alluded to some of them earlier when I mentioned possible routes from Stratford to the main east and west coast lines. The answers to questions of cost are included in the studies made by Colin Buchanan and Partners on behalf of the London borough of Newham. The figures that they have come up with show a remarkably cheaper project than the one envisaged by the Bill at King's Cross, where we are talking about a grand total of about £1.5 billion. I must question whether that is sensible expenditure, given potential competing priorities.

I do not wish to trespass outside the provisions of the new clauses which relate to environmental codes of practice—although such issues are not totally unrelated—but my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield made a valid point about public works during a recession. I remind him that, in the London region of British Rail alone, Network SouthEast says that it cannot afford £140 million to fund the renewal of the north Kent line, the £300 million Thameslink 2000 project has been blocked by the Government, £300 million is needed for new Networker rolling stock and £260 million is needed to modernise the London-Tilbury-Southend line.

Elsewhere, £750 million is needed to upgrade the west coast main line, £315 million for electrification of the midland main line, and £400 million for electrification of the trans-Pennine routes. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield is concerned about the importance of getting public works under way and investment in British Rail projects, I rate all those projects above the provision of a new low-level station at King's Cross.

I fear that, if the King's Cross project goes ahead, the £1.5 billion of expenditure will pre-empt a vast amount of other essential work needed elsewhere on the British Rail network.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

I represent the other half of Islington. Is my hon. Friend aware that, in our borough, about 17,000 people are unemployed and that there is a massive housing waiting list? There are opportunities for social and housing developments in the area to the north of King's Cross station.

I should be grateful for my hon. Friend's confirmation that the real motive for British Rail's development of the channel tunnel terminal at King's Cross is mainly the mistaken belief that it can gain a great deal of money from increased land values to the north of the station for land which will be used primarily for office development.

Does my hon. Friend not think that it would he better if that money and those resources were used to develop the rail infrastructure? Does he agree that the Stratford option provides rail connections which are just as good, if not better, to the whole country rather than merely to specific parts of it?

Mr. Smith

My hon. Friend is correct. Stratford has the potential to provide links through to Wales and to the south-west which are impossible from King's Cross—if we go ahead with the east-west cross rail proposal from Liverpool Street to Paddington, as I hope that we shall.

I fear that we have strayed from the specific issues of the protection of neighbouring properties and the need for an environmental code. I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will forgive me if I have been responsible——

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I am responsible for allowing the hon. Gentleman to stray from the new clauses. I hope that, as we have had this preamble, he will now speak directly to the clauses before the House.

7.30 pm

Mr. Smith

I shall accede to your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought it important to ensure that a debate on the new clauses and later amendments did not become a north-south debate. Sadly, that appears to have happened, especially in the pages of reputable newspapers such as the Yorkshire Post.

In the debate on the carry-over motion, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who sponsors the Bill, commented on the work of Alan Baxter and Associates, who had made alternative proposals showing that, even if King's Cross were chosen as the location for the new terminus, it did not have to be located in the area of King's Cross identified by British Rail. I hold no brief for the detail of the proposals of Alan Baxter and Associates, but they should be given a fair hearing. The hon. Member for Keighley made a number of comments that were sharply critical of Alan Baxter and Associates. He said: It might be considered surprising that the firm refused to supply British Rail with a copy of its report prior to publication, even though much of the information it used was obtained in its capacity as consulting engineers to the BR board in relation to a planning application for a location to the north end of the King's Cross site. One may ask what account the firm took of the duties it owed of confidentiality and good faith, bearing in mind that, far from inquiring whether the BR board would object, it did not even say what it was doing." [Official Report, 25 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 686.] The clear implication was that the hon. Gentleman believed that Alan Baxter and Associates was not acting in confidentiality and good faith.

Knowing that this debate was to be held, Alan Baxter and Associates wrote to me on 8 January as follows: In the 25th November debate. Mr. Gary Waller, in proposing the motion, made certain aspersions about our professional conduct in developing and publicising an alternative strategy for King's Cross. These we wholeheartedly deny. In particular. Mr. Waller and those advising him seem not to have understood that our proposals are based entirely on information available in the public realm. I hope that that puts the record straight, and I trust that the hon. Member for Keighley will also put the record straight.

New clause 5 aims to put into statutory force the protection of neighbouring properties that British Rail has indicated orally that it is likely to be willing to undertake. It also seeks a small increase in the buffer zone of properties which need protection and which are accepted by British Rail as requiring better protection.

The purpose of new clause 6 is to set up an environmental code of practice for the conduct of the works. British Rail has said that it is prepared to undertake such a code, but it has not been agreed despite continuing discussions with the London boroughs of Islington and Camden.

New clause 5 provides statutory guarantees for the loose undertakings that British Rail has given to occupiers of homes and business premises directly affected by the noise and nuisance of the works. It deals with the voluntary purchase of blighted property. It places a duty on British Rail not to purchase all properties in the buffer zone, but only if required to do so by the owner of the property. The largest owner of property in the buffer zone is the London borough of Islington, which will not want to yield valuable housing stock. [Interruption.] The sedentary interruptions of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) about the enormous potential public cost do not carry the weight that perhaps he might think.

Mr. Snape

Will my hon. Friend clarify the costs? I draw his attention to new clause 5: Specified property … in the London Borough of Camden within the land bounded by Euston Road, Midland Road, Goods Way, York Way, Pentonville Road, King's Cross Road, Swinton Street and Gray's Inn Road; and"— in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)— York Way, Wharfdale Road, Caledonian Road, Northdown Street, Collier Street, Calshot Street, Lorenzo Street, King's Cross Road and Pentonville Road. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) rightly drew attention to the enormous cost of the King's Cross project, but new clause 5 rather undermines his economic case, as it would surely place a further enormous burden on the British Railways Board.

Mr. Smith

I fear that my hon. Friend is incorrect. The majority of the property within the boundaries prescribed by new clause 5 falls within the compulsory purchase powers of the Bill. The cost of purchasing the lion's share of the area covered by the new clause is included in the Bill that my hon. Friend so avidly supports. The new clause seeks to extend the boundary of the buffer zone by a small amount.

Mr. Snape

I apologise for intervening again, but my hon. Friend should read new clause 5. It demands of British Rail not only the purchase of property but to do works to the property to mitigate the impact of the works on the occupiers; to compensate the occupiers for the impact of the works; and to provide temporary rehousing during the works. My hon. Friend could mop up the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) about public works with this clause alone.

Mr. Smith

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is again incorrect. I shall explain in great detail in a moment specifically what the new clause would do. If my hon. Friend has studied the Bill and the issues surrounding it as carefully as I suspect he has, he must be aware that British Rail has already told people living in neighbouring properties that they may well have to be rehoused at BR's expense for substantial periods of time while the work is carried out. The new clause would merely put into formal statutory terms the verbal undertakings that British Rail has already given. Therefore, the costs to which my hon. Friend refers are already part of the overall cost of the work that British Rail is preparing to undertake.

New clause 5 would provide for the voluntary purchase of blighted property; for noise insulation of the property if the noise of the construction works exceeds certain agreed levels; for temporary rehousing if the noise of the works exceeds agreed higher levels; and for compensation of any costs or financial loss due to the works. As we are talking about people who will live on top of a long-term, large-scale building site, those are entirely reasonable requests to make of those carrying out the development.

Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley)

The hon. Gentleman would perhaps agree that the new clause goes much further than he implies. It is clear from the new clause that the relevant owner of a specific property may at a whim decide that he wishes the developers to purchase the property or to compensate him. There is nothing whatever in the new clause to qualify that requirement. The majority of people living in the area now are not living in a haven of peace and quiet. Admittedly, there will be a great deal of work going on, but when it is completed they will not only have an improved environment but there will be rather more jobs than before the works began—a matter that clearly concerned the hon. Gentleman when he spoke earlier.

Mr. Smith

I cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with that. First, he insults the King's Cross area by implying that somehow it is not a haven of peace and quiet, with all the implications that that remark carried. Of course it is an inner-city urban area, but I invite him to come with me to the communal garden area at the back of the houses in Northdown street, which was created some years ago by the Labour-controlled London borough of Islington. It is much appreciated by the people who live in those houses. It is an oasis of green space protected from traffic with provision for children to play where people can enjoy peace and quiet in the heart of an urban area. The hon. Gentleman is not living in the real world when he claims that the environment of the King's Cross area will be better after the new station has been built than it is now.

After construction, the project will comprise the biggest station complex in the world. The project will involve the clearance of a 10-acre site in south Islington and on the edge of Camden that is currently occupied by three entire blocks of city building. All the buildings will be demolished. A huge pit 40 ft deep will then be excavated across the whole site to take the eight-platform underground station. The foundations will be piled deep for the buildings to be constructed above the station. The walls of the station box will be driven into the ground in sections from one end of the site to the other.

The station will then be constructed. After it is finished. tall office blocks will be built over the whole area. The works will continue for eight years—six years for the construction of the station and two years for the subsequent superstructure work. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that all that and the end result will be a better environment for the people of King's Cross than the one they have now, he should come and talk to them. He will find that they do not agree.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

I support my hon. Friend's argument. Does he agree that no hon. Member has ever suggested when a motorway or link road has been built or extended that the people affected should tolerate the noise and disruption, that their feelings and comfort should be disregarded, that they should not have the right of insulation, which is enshrined in statute, and that they should not have the right of purchase by the Department of Transport when their homes are blighted by the proposal?

7.45 pm

Mr. Smith

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The case for people in rural areas who may be affected by a motorway being driven past the bottom of their garden should apply with equal if not more force for people in the midst of an inner city, such as my constituents who will have work of this magnitude carried out at the end of their back yards.

There are three long rows of terraced houses that back directly on to the working areas proposed in the Bill: Balfe street, Northdown street and Keystone crescent. Some 23 houses there have back yards directly adjoining the site boundaries. The pneumatic drills, excavators, dumper trucks, pile drivers and cement mixers will operate immediately behind their small back yards. It is exceptional to have such an enormous demolition, excavation and construction project immediately behind ordinary family homes. Moreover, British Rail is proposing that there should be seven-day-a-week, 24-hour-a-day working on the site. Anyone who claims that that will not have a serious impact on the people in the houses immediately adjacent to the site is not facing up to the awful realities of what the construction site will mean for my constituents.

Indeed, British Rail fell into precisely that trap. In its environmental statement, which was published in early May 1991, its consultants on construction noise said that it was not practicable to predict with any certainty levels of noise and vibration associated with the building works at such an early stage of a project. However, general construction and demolition work is unlikely to have a major impact. We cannot possibly accept that as an accurate assessment of the impact of the works. That was the British Rail position when the Committee of this House concluded its proceedings on the Bill on 8 May 1991.

Mr. Waller

I honestly think that the hon. Gentleman is distorting the position. Of course it is impossible to give precise predictions of how particular parts of the site will be affected at particular times, but British Rail has made it clear that it will include within its protection the purchase of certain types of property, double glazing and temporary rehousing where necessary and that it will respond as and when necessary to assist householders who are bound to be affected during such a major construction project. That is different from saying, as the new clause does, that every householder within the whole massive area should be entitled to require British Rail to purchase his or her property. That is a different and unreasonable proposal.

The hon. Gentleman also distorted the case when he spoke about what is proposed after the works are completed. Most of the works will be completed below ground. I accept that, above ground, an office development is proposed, but a new, generously sized urban park has also been proposed. I repeat that, when the works are completed, the environment will be considerably improved compared with the present acres of dereliction. Unless development takes place, there is no prospect of ameliorating that dereliction.

Mr. Smith

The urban park to which the hon. Gentleman refers is part of the London Regeneration Consortium scheme and it is well to the north of the site to which the Bill refers. That park has nothing to do with what will go on top of the low-level station once the box has been built. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps being disingenuous in citing the urban park in relation to the restitution of the 17 acres of property to which the Bill relates. The hon. Gentleman was wrong to suggest that the area to which the new clause relates is massive; I shall outline the specific area in more detail shortly.

The hon. Gentleman also criticised my new clause for including a right to enable the owner of a blighted property—we are not talking about an enormous number of people—to go along to BR and say, "I want you to purchase this property from me."

Imagine someone living in Keystone crescent who, for reasons of job or other pressing need, has to move. When he puts his house on the market he will have to tell any potential purchaser that in a year or 18 months BR will come along with bulldozers and dig a hole right up against the back fence of the property. He will also have to tell any potential purchaser that that work will continue for the next eight years and that, while it continues, those living in the property will require temporary rehousing. He must also reveal that the noise and vibration levels will be intolerable. In those circumstances, does the hon. Member for Keighley believe that that person will find an ordinary, private purchaser for his property? If he does, I challenge him to come up with the person who would be prepared to buy in such circumstances.

British Rail is the cause of the noise, disruption and disturbance, and I believe that it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that BR should carry the responsibility of purchasing such blighted property. BR could dispose of such property at a later date once the station works have been completed and the wonderful environment about which the hon. Member for Keighley has spoken has been created. In the long term, there is no real net cost to BR, and if it agreed to purchase property, that would offer assistance to individual owners now.

Mr. Corbyn

Does my hon. Friend agree that opposition to the new clause is equivalent to opposing the desire of people in inner-city areas who seek to protect or improve their environment? The hon. Member for Keighley seems to suggest that if the environment in which people live now is not very good, so be it—it can stay bad. People who live and work in the King's Cross area and who enjoy living there, want their local environment improved. BR is not intent on improving that environment, but the new clause will help to ameliorate the bad conditions in which many have to live now.

Mr. Smith

My hon. Friend is right. My hon. Friend will also be aware that the people of King's Cross have devoted a lot of time and energy in the past 15 years to improving their housing conditions and the sense of community. That effort has been coupled with the good work done by the borough of Islington. Those people have now discovered not only that their local neighbourhood and community will be destroyed by BR, but that their area has been dismissed airily by the hon. Member for Keighley. They will find no comfort in that.

Mr. Benn

I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says about environmental considerations. Everyone knows that big construction work brings with it environmental disadvantages. My hon. Friend should consider an area such as the north Derbyshire coalfield, which I have the honour to represent. For many years the local people have had to deal with the problem of mining subsidence without any of the rights that my hon. Friend is seeking to include in the Bill. The pits have been closed, and with the desolation of the coalfield the people now have to to put up with opencast mining, which presents the most appalling environmental hazards. The one lifeline open to those people is a connection through a rail link, without the congestion of road, to new opportunities. Apart from the development of the scheme proposed in the Bill, the electrification of the midlands line is of fundamental importance to the people of my area.

To raise the environmental arguments to the scale proposed by my hon. Friend would mean that all the work on the new station would be delayed for years and so would the creation of new jobs. The desolation of my area and the environmental disadvantages that accompany that would also continue for years. My hon. Friend is overstating his case. He should balance his argument more fairly between the interests of his constituents and those in the rest of the country who would benefit from the rail link.

Mr. Smith

Two wrongs do not necessarily make a right. I accept that important issues have been raised in my right hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere about the consequences of opencast mining, but that does not mean that we should blithely accept that the environmental disruption on the scale proposed at King's Cross should be allowed with just a few verbal assurances from BR about protection of the people affected. Some statutory protection should be offered.

The new clause would not delay the Bill's progress, but it would simply put into statutory force what BR has already said it is likely to do in connection with noise insulation and temporary rehousing. It should not cause any particular difficulty to BR to accede to the requirements of the new clause. I do not believe that that would disrupt the progress of the work. Such acceptance would provide my constituents who live immediately beside the affected area with the knowledge that they have some sure protection.

Mr. Cryer

Does my hon. Friend agree that the dismay and concern that has been expressed about subsidence and dereliction in the coalfields has led to legislation being presented to the House to provide the sort of guarantees for which my hon. Friend is now asking? If the new clause is accepted, everything will be all square. If there was no legislative provision for people affected by the disruption that will take place at King's Cross, the works could be subject to even further delays as residents and occupants mounted campaigns to obtain legislation to provide those very safeguards. It would be far more sensible to ensure that legislative safeguards were included to begin with before the work got under way, so that people could feel reasonably confident.

Mr. Smith

My hon. Friend makes an effective point. Although I would not wish to be accused by my constituents of hastening the Bill's progress to the statute book, my hon. Friend has made a valid point about the way in which a degree of security and surety for the people immediately affected would make them a lot less anxious about their future.

British Rail said in its environmental report last May that general construction and demolition work was unlikely to have a major impact. Within two weeks, it contradicted itself. On 22 May, it held a meeting at King's Cross to inform local people about the works and the protective measures that it would provide. At that meeting, it admitted that the noise of the works would reach such levels that almost all properties around the site would require double glazing and that many residents in King's Cross road, Balfe street and Keystone crescent would have to be temporarily rehoused for extended periods during the works. That is a major impact, contrary to what British Rail had said two weeks earlier.

8 pm

New clause 5 seeks to set in statutory form the protection for neighbouring properties. It also seeks to provide for a small extension of the so-called "buffer zone" of properties likely to be affected by the construction work. During the Committee hearings, petitioners argued that the buffer zone should be extended because several properties not protected at that stage under the Bill would be as much affected by the noise of heavy construction traffic—up to 400 lorries per day—as properties inside the site boundaries.

In its special report, the Committee accepted the petitioners' case and made it a condition of our proceeding further with the Bill that the boundaries of the zone should be extended"— I stress this— in line with the petitioners' request". The revision that British Rail offered on the final day a year later omitted a row of properties on the east side of the southern part of Northdown street, which the petitioners had asked for. The Committee suggested that British Rail might give an undertaking to cover those properties. In the eight months since then, no such undertaking has been offered by British Rail. If British Rail will not give such an undertaking voluntarily, it behoves the House to insist that it should. The Committee that considered the Bill and reported to the House said that that row of properties should be included in the buffer zone but, so far, it has not been included.

The hon. Member for Keighley may rise later to assure me that British Rail will include that row of properties in the buffer zone, but unless and until we have that assurance, it is important that the House should say, "Hang on a moment, the Committee said that they should be included and they have not been included; the House believes that they should be included within the provisions of the buffer zone." That is the only extension that my new clause seeks to make. All the other properties included under the new clause—the so-called massive area to which the hon. Member for Keighley referred—are already in the buffer zone as a requirement of the Committee. The new clause simply seeks to include that row of properties which British Rail—surely by mistake rather than deliberation—forgot to include.

New clause 6 seeks to establish an environmental code of practice for the works. British Rail is currently offering an environmental code that will cover, first, work methods to minimise disturbance; secondly, procedures for the two local councils to approve work plans stage by stage; thirdly, trigger levels for double glazing and temporary rehousing; and, fourthly, procedures for dealing with complaints and breaches of the code. So far, so good: we must applaud British Rail for at least agreeing with the requirement of the Committee, which reported that an environmental code should be established, and for setting out those basic principles. But that does not go far enough, which is why new clause 6 seeks to put into statutory form an insistance that British Rail should establish an environmental code.

British Rail has been negotiating on the details for three years with the two local authorities concerned. On the whole, it has been unyielding and unhelpful in its approach to the content of the code. Among the outstanding issues in relation to the environmental code are, first, seven-day, 24-hour working. The two local authorities are prepared to allow noisy work outside normal working hours only when there are clear safety and British Rail operational requirements to do so. British Rail, on the other hand, still insists on the right to programme noisy activities at any time if necessary for the efficient and economic construction of major engineering works. So British Rail is saying that it can come in with pile drivers at 2 o'clock in the morning at will. I do not believe that that requirement accords with any environmental code worthy of the name.

Mr. Tony Banks

It would be much welcomed if British Rail were as insistent on coming in at will with trains, as we could very much do with those. My hon. Friend knows the area better than me but he should stress the fact that many people who live in the area also work for British Rail, and work shifts. That must also be taken into account. Even if the amendment is accepted, massive inconvenience will still be caused to many people in the area.

Mr. Smith

As always, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many of my constituents who live in the King's Cross area work for British Rail or, for instance, the Royal Mail, and therefore work unsocial hours. They require sleep during the day and I suspect that their lives will be substantially disrupted by the works. The very least that we should be able to demand is that the hours during the night, when most people are trying to get peace and quiet, should not be disrupted by unreasonable work by British Rail. The local authorities do not require a total ban on work being carried out at night, but say that such work should be done only on proper grounds.

The second outstanding issue in relation to the environmental code is trigger levels for noise outside normal working hours. The local authorities want action to be taken if the noise doubles or exceeds a reasonable threshold of 65 decibels. British Rail's latest response to that requirement is that it is simply "not accepted". British Rail really should be more accepting and accommodating of the genuine concern about noise levels.

The third point concerns plant operation and vehicle movements outside normal working hours. The two local authorities want a rule that no plant will be started up for normal work before normal working hours and that any vehicle movements outside normal working hours will be subject to special approval. British Rail's response has been that that is "not agreed". No argument or reason has been given and British Rail has not taken on board the local authorities' reasonable concerns about the movement of lorries and heavy plant, and the starting up of engines and machinery. British Rail has simply said that it does not agree.

The fourth point concerns security cameras. The councils want an agreement that the security cameras mounted by British Rail should be allowed to cover residents' back yards and windows only with the consent of the occupier. British Rail refuses to accept any constraint on where the cameras can be pointed. I leave to your imagination, Madam Deputy Speaker, the real fears of people living cheek by jowl with sites where cameras are likely to be mounted as to where the cameras will be pointed at varous hours of the day and night, with consequent loss of privacy.

There is a further disagreement between the local authorities and British Rail in the current negotiations about the environmental code in relation to temporary rehousing. There is disagreement about the standard of accommodation to be offered. The councils want a specific hotel star rating to be laid down, but British Rail refuses, saying that the fact that it is offering full board shows the standard that it will provide. "Full board" may mean that the premises will have a kitchen and an eating area. All sorts of establishments, from Pentonville prison upwards, could provide that standard of accommodation. British Rail should be more forthcoming about the temporary rehousing that it is prepared to offer.

There is a dispute about the payment of costs as an alternative to rehousing. The councils want British Rail to pay the cost of rehousing as an alternative to actual rehousing if the occupier cannot move for some reason and has to put up with the noise. British Rail refuses to agree. If an occupier has to remain and suffer, he will get absolutely nothing. There is also a dispute about the occupier's access to arbitration. The councils want occupiers to have direct access to arbitration if there is serious disagreement between them and British Rail about their right to rehousing or about the accommodation offered. Again, British Rail simply refuses to allow that.

That is utterly unsatisfactory, as the councils have no right or responsibility to represent private occupiers to British Rail on those issues. British Rail has been thoroughly unreasonable on noise levels, vehicle movement, security cameras, hours of work, rehousing, and arbitration if there is disagreement about rehousing. New clause 6 seeks to say to British Rail, "You have to be more reasonable; you must establish an environmental code and you had better get down to the business of seriously agreeing that environmental code with the local residents who will be affected and with the local authorities which cover the area."

There is also disagreement about action on any possible breach of the code. The local authorities want it to be laid down that, if an operation under way appears to break the code, it should cease while the matter is investigated unless there are overriding safety or British Rail operational reasons for continuing. British Rail insists that once work has begun, it cannot be halted pending the outcome of arbitration. If British Rail gets its way on that provision, it can carry on breaching the code while it delays the argument about whether it has breached the code. That is unacceptable. We want an environmental code for the works and for the protection of the people who will be affected by the works. We want to insist in the Bill, through new clause 6, that the environmental code should be included.

8.15 pm

It is important to bear in mind the fact that the environmental code and the buffer zone need to be defined in the Bill because the Bill, with its specific powers for particular works, will override much standard legislation to control noisy building activities. The constraints necessary to protect the people affected by the development should be written into the Bill because the normal constraints which apply to most building and development sites will not apply because the works have been permitted by means of a Bill. That is an extremely important point and gives added force to the argument about why a specific provision should be built into the Bill, both for the general protection of neighbouring properties and for the environmental code that is needed for the works.

The House cannot allow the Bill to proceed to another place without proper protection for neighbouring residents being enshrined in it. The people affected have no elected representatives beyond the House. There is no one as their representative to table amendments on Second Reading or on Report in the other place. Those affected are entirely dependent on the House to protect their welfare, their livelihood and their peace and quiet.

It is important for the House to take that need seriously. It is important for the people in the surrounding streets and the houses which back directly on to the massive development site that British Rail will impose on them that we write into the Bill statutory protection and a statutory environmental code. New clauses 5 and 6 seek to do that in the interests of the people affected, and we must consider not only people affected by the Bill, but those who are likely to be affected by similar proposals elsewhere. I hope that the House will consider it important to enshrine that level of protection in the Bill because there is no other place we can expect to do so.

Mr. Tony Banks

I entirely support the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on new clauses 5 and 6. I am disappointed that so many Opposition voices have been raised against his argument about environmental protection for his constituents. It has been more or less suggested—nay. probably stated by one or two hon. Members—that the only reason why the new clauses have been moved is to frustrate the Bill and to delay its passage to the point at which it becomes non-viable. That may well be my intention, but it certainly is not my hon. Friend's intention. I was disappointed to hear my very dear and right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) deploying an argument that I regard as somewhat bankrupt. I wish that my right hon. Friend was still here so that I could say this to him.

Mr. Cryer

Insult him to his face.

Mr. Banks

No. I would be insulting him to his back, because he sits in front of me. I shall make sure that my remarks are pointed out to him, as he probably does not spend a great deal of time reading my speeches in Hansard—but then who does?

Mr. Snape

You do.

Mr. Banks

Au contraire. I most certainly do not bother to read them, because I know what a load of rubbish they are before anybody hears them.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield seemed to suggest that, because so much blight had been associated with opencast mining in his area—and we accept that—the people of Islington should somehow be prepared to accept a latter-day equivalent. I put it to him that that is an untenable position. I entirely accept my right hon. Friend's argument about the disadvantages, disruption and adverse economic impact of opencast mining. I have been up to his area. I was active during the recent miners' strike, taking support from cast London to the miners. We could see for ourselves the deprivation that they had to suffer—both individually, as workers, and in their communities.

I stoutly defend my right hon. Friend's right to defend his constituents from such economic blight, but it is unacceptable to use that as an argument that another working-class area—the area of Islington—should accept similar blight. Labour Members at least should join together to ensure that working-class people—whether in Chesterfield, Derbyshire, Islington or Stratford—are protected. The fact that we are divided in that respect does our arguments no justice.

Mr. Corbyn

Is my hon. Friend aware that, when the Department of Transport seeks to drive motorways or major roads through leafy suburban areas or wealthy, Tory-voting parts of the country, it bends over backwards to provide environmental projects to try to ameliorate the effects of the roads and thus gain people's temporary support to allow it to build them? It is disgraceful that it should not do the same for people living in densely populated inner-city areas.

Mr. Banks

Of course I accept that argument. There is a class dimension here, as there is with all legislation and all the matters that we discuss in the House. I should have hoped that those on our Front Bench could have seen that argument as well. I realise that class politics is no longer fashionable on the Labour Front Bench; indeed, some would say that it is not particularly fashionable on the Back Benches either.

The issue that we are discussing tonight is the environmental protection of working people in the area of Islington. The Labour party says that there will he a terminal at King's Cross—although the Government have said that there will also be some form of terminal at Stratford. The Labour party is agreed that it looks far more viable for the fast route to come through the east Thames corridor—approaching London from the east rather than the south-east.

I put it to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich. Fast that, having given those assurances, he should say that it is necessary, in the national interest—that is what he has been talking about—that the people of Islington should be properly compensated for having to suffer in the national interest.

Mr. Snape

I am always delighted to hear about class politics from those who are better educated than I am, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for that.

On my hon. Friend's second point, I repeat that the Labour party has officially made known its view that, from the point of view of serving the rest of the country, King's Cross is the only viable site. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, there may well be an argument about the particular scheme that is proposed, because, thanks to the Government's obsession with property values and money-making, British Rail has felt that it has had to approach the project from that point of view. But there is no argument about the site. If my hon. Friend intends to reiterate his view that Stratford is the right place, he must tell us how the north, the west and Scotland would be served from Stratford and how much it would cost to provide such a service.

Mr. Banks

As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have said several times, this is not the time to argue that case. My hon. Friend and I have argued it and will continue to do so; I want to keep coming back to it. Unfortunately, however, that is not possible at this precise moment.

I put it to my hon. Friend that, if we are to have terminals at both King's Cross and Stratford, he must start addressing the environmental impact in the Stratford area as well. The Government have said that there will be a station at Stratford, and those on the Labour Front Bench have said that the route should come through Stratford. On this occasion, there is a modicum of agreement between those on the two Front Benches with regard to the route.

I want to know what sort of environmental impact there would be on Stratford. We do not want a line plunging through the middle of the east end. If people in King's Cross may have problems, we in Stratford weigh them by the skipload. I want my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East to say that he will take into account the impact on the east end of having a station at Stratford and a station at King's Cross, because so far that seems to be the proposal—unless my hon. Friend is saying that we should not have a station at Stratford, merely a line going straight through it. which would give us all the disadvantages and not a modicum of advantage.

Mr. Snape

I remind my hon. Friend again of our party's policy. The Committee has been given a comparatively short time—six months or so, as we envisage it—to report on the actual line of route from the channel tunnel. My hon. Friend keeps saying that he wants a whacking great terminal at Stratford. No doubt, just like my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, he will come back to the House with some artfully argued amendments, demanding an environmental impact study in respect of his constituency. That is all good parliamentary tactics, but it does not get us much further with the building of a railway line.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. We are not getting very much further with the debate on the new clause, which deals with environmental matters. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will now refer to them.

Mr. Banks

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was slightly derailed on that point.

The environmental impact is not confined to King's Cross; it extends way beyond that area—throughout that part of London and to the south-east as a whole. I shall be addressing the new clause specifically, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I put it to you that, given that we are considering such major works, it is difficult at times to confine the debate to a specific locality. The environmental impact on King's Cross itself is fairly easily assessed—although, as I said, that impact will go way beyond the area dealt with in the new clause.

As I understand it, the construction of the low-level station at King's Cross and other works covered by the Bill will involve the loss of 83 homes and the displacement of 326 residents. It will involve the demolition of four listed buildings and the destruction of well over 10 acres of property in two conservation areas. It will also involve the destruction of a two-acre inner-city nature reserve of great value to the local community. A whole range of environmental damage will be caused by the development.

All my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury seeks is some assurance that can be offered to his constituents, and constituents in surrounding areas, that, as far as is humanly possible, they will be protected from the sort of suffering that we know can be inflicted on people by major works such as those proposed.

Mr. Chris Smith

My hon. Friend has correctly identified the scale of the British Rail proposal and the enormous impact that it will have over a substantial area but has omitted to include in his list of important environmental issues the amount of traffic that will be generated by the new station. In evidence submitted to the Committee at a very late stage, even the Department of Transport estimated that, at peak hours, traffic in the area is likely to increase by some 70 per cent.

My hon. Friend undoubtedly knows that King's Cross is already one of the most congested spots in London—both above ground and below ground—yet, as a result of the present proposals, we are now to have a 70 per cent. increase in surface vehicle traffic in the immediate area. That will place an intolerable burden on the area and will clog up a large segment of London's traffic network.

Mr. Banks

That is precisely why my hon. Friend has tabled the new clauses. I hope that the House will accept them. I had not forgotten the point that my hon. Friend makes: I had just not reached it.

A 70 per cent. increase in traffic flow along the Euston road during evening peak hours should concern not only my hon. Friend's constituents but all Londoners who are slowly being poisoned by traffic. The capital city, certainly in July, regularly enters a dangerous phase of photochemical smog. The Government have only three monitoring stations in the whole of Greater London. One of them is in my constituency, for whatever good that does, there is another at Vauxhall Bridge road and I think that there is one in west London.

Photochemical smog is one of the greatest environmental hazards faced by the capital city.

8.30 pm

Mr. Corbyn

Is my hon. Friend aware that London has record levels of serious asthmatic conditions among young children, that they are getting worse year by year, and that they are directly related to the volume of traffic and exhaust emissions? Areas such as my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) are among the worst sufferers in the country.

Mr. Banks

I understand and accept my hon. Friend's point. One of the matters affecting my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury rather than my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is the destruction of the two-acre inner-city reserve park. Hon. Members who saw the excellent programme on television a few nights ago will appreciate how much work has gone into the building of that nature reserve.

It is all very well for hon. Members to disparage and sneer at the lack of rural attractions in King's Cross, but the people there are doing their best to introduce a little rural pleasure to that area of inner-city deprivation, and they should be supported. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East will make sure that they get such support from a Labour Government. They are entitled to ask for it from Labour, because they have been loyal Labour supporters and voters for many years. They expect Labour, in opposition and, more important, in government, to protect their interests. Up to now, they are not getting that support.

I have an almost bottomless reserve of affection for my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East, but I have just spotted the bottom of that reservoir, and it is not a pretty sight. I expect him to say that the clauses are appropriate and that Labour will give people the support they expect. If they add to the cost of the scheme, the money is well worth paying, in view of the national and international importance of King's Cross and Stratford. The people of Islington have a right to expect a great deal of support.

Mr. Snape

I am sorry that the bottomless well of affection to which my hon. Friend refers has proved to be a mirage, if I may mix metaphors. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is a shadow Treasury Minister and I have no doubt that on the accession of a Labour Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) could make representations about the amendments to him. I do not know whether he will get the same reply in six months as he is getting tonight.

Mr. Banks

I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is in an interesting position—even more interesting than that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East. If there is an additional cost as a result of accepting the new clauses, it is well worth paying in view of the agreed national significance of the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has said that the additional cost will he minimal. I am prepared to accept that, and I am surprised that two Front Benchers are not prepared to trust each other sufficiently to accept it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury seeks a specific tightening of the assurances that have so far been given by British Rail. I do not trust British Rail, which, throughout the proposal, has attempted to con the House. It cleverly exploited the differences in the Opposition by suggesting to us that, if King's Cross is not chosen, great damage will be caused in the north-east and the north-west.

People who want to go straight from Paris to the north-east and the north-west do not care whether they pass through King's Cross or Stratford. They just want to get to Newcastle, Manchester, Glasgow or Edinburgh as fast as possible. Many of the people who want to go from Paris or Rome to Edinburgh, Manchester or Glasgow will probably fly, because it is a hell of a long journey from Paris to Peterborough—it will take about eight hours, even with all the links working—and longer to go to Manchester or Glasgow. That matter is not often considered when looking at the vexed question of the fast channel link and the King's Cross railway.

My hon. Friends from north of Watford seem to have swallowed British Rail's argument hook, line and sinker, and they have been sorely deceived. That is why I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East, when he is in an elevated post as a Transport Minister, will back away from the bald statement that Labour is totally committed to King's Cross. With some alterations, amendments and investment in the area of Stratford, we can get all the links that my hon. Friend speaks about, without any need to go into King's Cross.

Mr. Snape

How?

Mr. Banks

I would like to tell my hon. Friend how, but I can see that I am risking your anger, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I had to choose between my hon. Friend's anger and yours, I would risk the anger of my hon. Friend any day of the week.

Mr. Snape

I shall not ask my hon. Friend to make that choice.

How quickly could one travel by rail from Stratford to Birmingham, and will my hon. Friend compare that with the travel time from Stratford to Doncaster? My hon. Friend might get a spark of interest from the Chair if he concentrated on the latter rather than the former.

Mr. Banks

I shall look carefully at the trip to Doncaster. I do not have a timetable with me to work out the travel time. I have made it clear that additional investment will be needed in east London so that the link can be made. People who wish to travel to Doncaster do not need, or may not even want, to go through King's Cross. There are some dangers in the King's Cross area. Did not a former DPP experience one of them for himself? I would not like to expose my hon. Friend to such temptation, although I know that he would resist it with great aplomb.

The issue relates to how we can protect the people who live in King's Cross from the real impact of such a major development. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, it will involve six years of construction with 24-hour, seven-day working. Would any hon. Member like to be in close proximity to that level of work? It is outrageous. We do not have many major developments these days, and will not do so again until we get in a Labour Government, but many of us have known the problems associated with such developments.

All that my hon. Friend is asking is that the people who will be closely affected be given by British Rail an assurance, on which they can depend, that they will get the compensation, the consideration and the treatment they deserve, which will ensure that they will suffer the least inconvenience while this massive, international, highly significant scheme is going ahead in the national interest. Why should they be asked to make all the scacrifices? It is easy for hon. Members to minimise this—they will not have to live next door to such a development.

The acceptance of these new clauses, far from holding up the progress of the Bill, will speed it up. I am almost arguing against my objectives, so perhaps I should vote against the new clauses. I can see the people of King's Cross supporting the development if they are given these assurances, although I know that those in the area who are interested in the strategic argument realise that King's Cross is the wrong place for the second international station.

Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury will intervene in my speech to tell me to what extent new clause 6 could be affected by the requirement from the European Commission for a proper environmental impact assessment. By that, I do not mean the environmental impact statement about which the Minister talks. There is a big difference between a statement attached to a private Bill and an environmental impact assessment carried out by someone who is independent of the promoters. Would the EC requirements give any material benefit to my hon. Friend's constituents?

Mr. Chris Smith

I addressed the issue of the European Commission and its view of the inadequacy of the environmental impact assessment work that has so far been done on the King's Cross proposal when we debated the motion to carry over the Bill. The EC strongly made the point that it was wrong to divorce consideration of the environmental impact of the station from consideration of the environmental impact of the line that gets to the station. That view may still hold.

As I understand it, the EC is still very much of the view that the British Government and British Rail have yet to accord with the provisions of the unanimously agreed directive that the Government signed on the importance of a proper, thorough environmental impact assessment of the works that are proposed at King's Cross. The environmental code to which my hon. Friend has referred will not help in that respect, but it might at least be an earnest of intent.

Mr. Banks

I am glad that my hon. Friend has again spelt this out: it is something to which our Front-Bench team should listen with rapt attention. If the EC says that the two should be taken together—the link and the international station—how can the Labour Front Bench spokesman say that we are already committed to the station at King's Cross but that we shall look at the link? That is the point. The two must be taken together and, as far as I am aware, the Labour Front-Bench team supported the EC, so there is an inconsistency here.

However, I do not want to be inconsistent in my approach, so I shall return speedily to new clause 6. The requirements in it are perfectly reasonable. My hon. Friend has given assurances that he is not trying to use new clauses 5 and 6 to hinder the Bill. I accept that, as should all right hon. and hon. Members, on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend has made the point, and I have underlined more than once, that all he is seeking is effectively to enshrine within the Bill the assurances given by British Rail to the people who live in that area and to the two local authorities.

I would not put it past British Rail to say something to a person's face and then do something completely different behind his back. We know that it is getting desperate with this scheme. At times, I think that it would like to see the scheme hit the buffers, because office development is not as profitable now as it was when the scheme was first mooted.

8.45 pm

Nothing surprises me about British Rail, so it would not surprise me if, having led us along this path and let us waste our valuable time, just as it wasted the time of that valuable Committee, it suddenly decided to announce that it was not going ahead with the scheme anyway, because it was no longer economically and commercially viable. In the end, we shall hold the Government responsible for such a fiasco if it comes about, as they have effectively washed their hands publicly, although no doubt they have said a number of different things privately, of the scheme.

If we have learnt nothing else during this long, protracted and painful process, we have at least learnt that the private Bill procedure is no way to build a railway or to get involved in significant projects. That is a broader issue, so I shall end merely by saying that these new clauses are reasonable in their wording and have been reasonably argued, if not by me then by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. I commend them both to the House.

Mr. Waller

I completely absolve the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) of any suggestion that he is not acting in good faith. On the contrary, he is clearly acting in what he sees to be the best interests of his constituents—that is what we are all elected to the House to do—and he deserves every praise for that.

Let me make it clear to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that British Rail is committed to this scheme. It is important not only to people in the north of England and in Scotland and, more particularly, to business and industry in the north but to commuters in other parts of the country and in London and the south, who will enjoy considerable benefits when the scheme is completed. Commuters north of London will have a better service into St. Pancras than that which they enjoy to King's Cross. There will also be a benefit to travellers north or south of London who want to cross the capital and who will he able to reach a wider range of destinations without changing trains.

Such an advantage in transport infrastructure is crucial to the future of the country. British Rail has declared its commitment to it and has proceeded with the Bill in spite of a very lengthy series of stages, particularly the Committee stage under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). It was the longest Committee stage of any private Bill since that which led to the construction of the Great Western railway in the last century.

Having said one or two favourable words about the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, I am afraid that I must disappoint him because it is not possible for the promoters to accept his new clauses. New clause 5, which relates to the protection of neighbouring properties, would confer special rights on owners or occupiers of property in the vicinity of the proposed works. Those owners and occupiers of the land that would be subject to the powers of compulsory purchase to be conferred by the Bill are already protected under the general compulsory purchase code.

In addition, the British Railways Board has undertaken to provide further protection for owners and occupiers of properties in the areas affected by the proposed works. That protection relates to the circumstances of each case. It is important that there should be a degree of flexibility, which perhaps the new clause does not provide. That would include the purchase of certain types of property, double glazing and temporary housing. It is a fact that many properties are either unaffected or affected hardly at all. It would be unreasonable to expect—this is what the new clause provides—that any of those householders could require British Rail to purchase their properties regardless of the circumstances.

Mr. Chris Smith

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that properties that may not be immediately adjacent to the building site may be severely affected by the noise generated by work taking place on the site, especially by the movement of heavy plant and vehicles in the immediate area of the site? Does he accept also that the Committee said that the buffer zone should be extended beyond the point which British Rail had originally intended? Does he agree that British Rail has failed to provide for a full extension of the buffer zone as requested by the Committee?

Mr. Waller

It is correct that the Committee asked British Rail to consider an extension to the area covered by the voluntary purchase scheme, but it did not insist on that. It was concluded that such an extension was not really justified.

British Rail has not been dogmatic in any way in the approach that it has adopted to those who do not live within areas in which construction will take place. Considerable compromise has been allowed for., and discussions will continue to take place.

Mr. Smith

The hon. Gentleman is incorrect when he says that the Committee did not insist that the buffer zone should be extended. Part of page 17 of the report read: We consider it fair that the boundaries of the zone should be extended in line with the petitioners' request. It added: We therefore make it a condition of our proceeding further with the Bill that the promoters should give an undertaking to do this. That appears to be an insistence that that should happen.

Mr. Waller

I do not have the Committee's report in front of me. I can say, however, that it is obvious that the Chairman and other members of the Committee would not have allowed the Bill to emerge from Committee unless the promoters had satisfied them that they had met satisfactorily the conditions that had been imposed. The fact that the Committee allowed the Bill to proceed speaks for itself.

Mr. Smith

This is an extremely important matter. It relates to a specific row of houses on the east part of the southern section of Northdown street. That row of houses was included in the petitioners' requests. Therefore, the Committee's report referred specifically to the houses. They are not, however, included in the area that British Rail agrees is affected. That is the point at issue. British Rail has so far failed to accord with the requirement of the Committee.

Mr. Waller

I am not in a position to comment specifically on the row of houses to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I shall ensure that the promoters write to him about the matter. I hope that they are able to satisfy him that they have taken account ()I' the concerns expressed by the Committee. As I said, the Bill was passed by the Committee. The fact that it has returned to the House speaks for itself.

The further protection that is required by the new clause—it would be in addition to what has already been offered—would impose ill-defined and unduly burden some obligations in relation to many properties that may or may not be affected by the Bill. The protection that has already been offered, when taken with the compensation code, is exceptionally generous for the owners and occupiers of affected properties.

The promoters have to take account of other considerations. I do not think that it is a wise use of public funds—that is essentially what we are discussing—to require the promoters to purchase a substantial number of unaffected properties at the whim of the owners. The requirements to carry out works of mitigation, to provide compensation and to provide temporary rehousing in undefined circumstances are examples of precisely the sort of loose drafting that would ensure future argument or litigation. New clause 5 would provide scope for argument to continue in the courts for a long time rather than providing the go-ahead for a development which is needed badly and which would advantage people in London as well as those in other parts of the country.

New clause 6 is also unacceptable. It would impose upon the promoters a duty to comply with an environmental code of practice which is frankly unnecessary. The promoters are in the process of agreeing a detailed code of practice bearing on the proposed works with the London boroughs of Camden and Islington, which are the local authorities concerned. There is no prospect—this is what the hon. Gentleman implied—that British Rail will carry out whatever works it desires at will. Indeed, it is still negotiating with the local authorities. With good will on both sides, I think that a fair agreement can be negotiated.

The present position is that British Rail has put forward its latest proposal and the ball is in the local authorities' court. No doubt they will be responding shortly.

Mr. Smith

The hon. Gentleman speaks of good will on both sides. I am sure that progress could be made if good will were to be shown on both sides. Negotiations have been taking place for three years and precious little good will has been shown by British Rail. I went into a series of issues in some detail for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, and it is clear that he was not paying much attention. British Rail has been obstinate and obdurate on many issues. He must prevail upon it to show much more good will in the negotiations than it has displayed hitherto.

Mr. Waller

The code covers the various matters that are set out in new clause 6. It is intended that its provisions will be incorporated in the contracts to be entered into between the promoters and their contractors. The local authorities, supported by the hon. Gentleman, have made demands which I think would not be regarded as in the interests of the wider community and of the taxpayer if they were taken at face value. British Rail has statutory obligations, which extend beyond the interests of the people living in the immediate vicinity.

The code is not a static set of commands with words carved in stone. It will continue to be subject to discussions between the promoters and the local authorities, and there will be consequential updating and revision. I regret that that is something that is not provided for in the proposed environmental code in new clause 6. British Rail's code goes considerably further. For instance, it seeks to control noise and other disturbances, such as dust, at source. It provides for control of methods of working and the noise level permitted. Of course, those noise levels are lower at night and at weekends than during the normal working day.

Any attempt in the Bill to set out the contents of the code, so rendering them static, would be undesirable because it would remove that element of flexibility which would benefit local inhabitants and which is crucial if the code is to be capable of revision as and when necessary. It is not the sort of provision that could be sensibly included in an Act of Parliament in the limited and ill-defined manner proposed in the new clause, without raising again the prospect of future argument and litigation. As I said only a few moments ago, the prospect of perpetual litigation is something that no one with the interests of the area at heart could contemplate with equanimity.

9 pm

Mr. Smith

The hon. Gentleman appears to be under the impression that the environmental code specified in new clause 6 is an inflexible instrument. It is not. If the hon. Gentleman had read the new clause, he would know that it expresses the content of the proposed code in extremely general terms. It does not lay down in any restrictive manner the sorts of matters that should be included. It simply ensures that a code will be established and that it will deal with some of the important issues. The hon. Gentleman should realise that, far from being an inflexible instrument, the environmental code will be of a general nature and will not restrict British Rail in the way that he suggested.

Mr. Waller

I read new clause 6 before the debate, and I have just read it again. It does not appear to suggest anything other than a static document with no scope for the continuing co-operation—which I hope will be a feature during the construction work—between the local authorities, the contractors, the promoters and the local residents.

I wish to say a word about the issue of traffic, which has been specifically mentioned. The hon. Gentleman spoke as though there would be a dramatic increase in traffic, to the disadvantage of the area. That matter was closely considered and it was summarised in the environmental statement published in May 1991, which concluded: The effects on road traffic are generally positive. Traffic flows on the major roads will increase but the proposed road improvements will achieve compensatory improvements and in addition a large number of residential roads will experience significant improvements.

Mr. Tony Banks

Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell the House who wrote that statement?

Mr. Waller

The promoters were required to produce an environmental statement—

Mr. Banks

Who wrote it?

Mr. Waller

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the major technical reports provided for the promoters by a large number of consultants, who have reputations to protect. It was on the basis of those reports that conclusions were reached. If the hon. Gentleman wants to cast aspersions, he must do so not only on the promoters but on the large number of consultants who produced the reports on which the conclusions were reached.

Mr. Banks

I certainly cast aspersions on the consultants. Looking for an honest consultant is rather like looking for an honest lawyer—they are rare creatures. If British Rail appoints consultants, obviously those consultants are given a specific brief that almost inevitably leads them to the conclusions that British Rail wants. If British Rail was so confident that the new development would lead to a reduction in road traffic, it should have appointed a truly independent person to make the report. That is why we need an environmental impact assessment, not an environmental statement made by the promoters. It is clearly in the interests of the promoters to make the best possible case.

Mr. Waller

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has such a poor opinion of consultants.

Mr. Banks

And solicitors.

Mr. Waller

As I am neither a consultant nor a lawyer, that is water off a duck's back for me.

The issue of traffic has also been considered by the Department of Transport and other authorities. The views to which I referred are certainly not held by British Rail alone.

There were a number of references to Camley street natural park. Although it is true that the existing park will be lost, it is intended to retain a small area of land throughout the construction period to serve as a vanguard for the future. More importantly, it is intended to establish a new park under the auspices of the London Wildlife Trust on completion of the works; this would be 40 to 50 per cent. larger than the existing park—which would have consequent benefits for habitat diversity and educational use.

To those who claim that it will not be possible to develop a new park, I say that the existing park was created in a very difficult urban environment, which demonstrates the possibilities that exist for restoring a high-quality park in future, for the benefit of local residents.

There was some comment about Alan Baxter and Associates, which came to its own defence and informed the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that it was totally blameless. However, that consultancy has been unable to deny that it came by the information that it used in producing its report as a result of working for British Rail; nor has it answered the accusation that it showed a lack of candour in failing to tell British Rail what it was doing, not responding in particular to a request for a copy of the consultancy's press statement, and discussing its proposals with third parties without telling British Rail what it was doing.

I remind the House that, at the time, Alan Baxter and Associates was acting as a consultant to British Rail in respect of part of the railway lands site. The remark of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about consultants may have been specifically directed at that particular group.

Mr. Chris Smith

The hon. Gentleman may have compounded the error into which he led himself on 25 November. The letter from Alan Baxter and Associates, which I quoted earlier, clearly states: In particular, Mr. Waller, and those advising him, seem not to have understood that our proposals are based entirely on information available in the public realm. The hon. Gentleman failed to acknowledge that simple fact.

Mr. Waller

I do not believe that all the information used by Alan Baxter and Associates was in the public realm at the time that the consultancy obtained access to it—although it is true that, perhaps partly as a result of that group's report, it is now in the public realm. However, I stand by what I said—and I know that others within British Rail feel very aggrieved about the way in which that particular consultancy acted without candour at the time in question.

No response has been made to the argument that the alternative proposals do not offer the transport benefits that can be provided only by locating the new facilities as the Bill suggests. Unless there is a two-level station, with the international and Network SouthEast facilities located below the existing InterCity services, there will not be the vital interconnection which is a central feature of the Bill's proposals. Without that interconnection, it will be necessary for people to travel a considerable distance, perhaps by travelator, rather than walk only a few yards up or down an escalator.

Let me add that the alternative proposals do not permit the operation of international trains to King's Cross before the completion of a new rail link from the channel tunnel. The works would probably continue for very much longer than the hon. Gentleman would like. Certainly, the alternative proposals would be no less destructive to homes and highways than the British Rail proposals on which they claim to improve.

I feel that the promoters have gone out of their way to ensure that the inevitable disruption is minimised as far as possible, and that they will continue to do so. Of course, no one believes that it is possible to create a new station on such a scale without causing inconvenience, disruption and many environmental disadvantages in the short term. In the long term, however, the local environment will be very much improved.

There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the national strategic transport advantages will be considerable, and that the Bill's proposals are vital to the future not only of those living in the north but of many people living much closer to London. I hope that the House will reject the new clauses, and allow the Bill to proceed further.

Mr. Corbyn

Representing as I do the constituency neighbouring that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), let me place on record my support for his new clause—and, in particular, my appreciation for all the work that he has done in trying to protect the interests of his constituents. He has received precious little help from people who should have given him more assistance. More to the point, however, the Bill's promoters have displayed a disgraceful ignorance of the area and the community that will be affected, and a cavalier approach to the environment of inner-city dwellers.

There are those in the House, and elsewhere, who believe that Islington is a sceptred paradise in which everyone is wealthy, and in which people spend most of their time eating in bistros and drinking in wine bars. That is not an accurate image of the borough. Any hon. Member who cares to journey down the corridors to the Library and consult the constituency unemployment lists will find that both Islington constituencies are in the top 20. There are 17,000 out of work in the borough, and the unemployment rate in the area affected by the scheme is very high.

I hope that many local people will read the comments of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) in the local papers, and will be appalled. The hon. Gentleman suggests that theirs is not a very nice area now, and that it therefore does not matter if it becomes pretty grotty during the construction phase and is not improved subsequently. That is a disgraceful approach.

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, as a sponsor of the Bill, would be slightly better informed about the contents of a House of Commons report on this subject before speaking in the Chamber. I should also have expected him to recognise that the fund of good will for British Rail and its property development antics in the King's Cross area ran out a long time ago. Assurances from British Rail mean absolutely zero. If, as the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest, British Rail is prepared to accept the environmental requirements presented by the borough of Islington and local people, why does it oppose new clause 5? Why should it do so, unless it has no intention of implementing those requirements?

The hon. Gentleman mentioned various things that had happened in the area, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. People have sought to improve their environment. Adventure playgrounds and gardens have been constructed following local initiatives, for instance.

The hon. Member for Keighley came out with the throwaway line that the Camley street open space could he moved elsewhere. Does he appreciate the graft, the backache and the heartache that went into obtaining the site, and the crucial support that was given at the time by the Greater London Council? Does he realise how long it takes for a tree to grow, for a habitat to be established in which frogs and newts can breed? Does he know how long it takes to produce a habitat that will enable all that wildlife to return to an inner-city area?

Bringing that about is not like building an office block or a road. It takes years. The hon. Gentleman, however, merely suggests destroying that habitat and moving it a few yards away, where it will be part of a larger site. The children who developed the park, and all those living in the King's Cross area, would have more respect for the hon. Gentleman's views if British Rail said, "Not only will we keep the site; we shall provide more space for the expansion of a vital inner-city lung." But they are not doing that; they are offering a larger site some distance away—with all the destruction that that would involve.

Mr. Waller

The hon. Member is not correct. The current proposal provides exactly what he has asked for, but there will be an enlargement, an addition. However, if the railway connections are to be improved, the park will be lost in the short term, because a new line will go straight through it.

Mr. Corbyn

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making my point for me. The park may be restored at a later stage. However, as I have tried to explain, a park is not like a living room carpet, which can be taken up and put down with little difficulty.

9.15 pm

Mr. Chris Smith

My hon. Friend will be aware that the proposal is not only that the Camley street natural park should be destroyed for the purpose of putting the lines through, but also that there should be a considerable time—several years at the very least—before the beginning of work on reinstatement, let alone on the growing of all the flora and on the development of the habitat to which reference has been made. Later we shall come to an amendment whose purpose is specifically to provide a time scale for the Camley street natural park. At the moment, there is no guarantee that restoration will be achieved in the shortest possible time.

Mr. Corbyn

My hon. Friend is quite right, and I shall be pleased to support the amendment to which he has referred. However, hon. Members ought to be aware that this is a living community. The people in it want to see the area improved. If they are to be the victims of some degree of national planning, the House ought at least to do them the courtesy of listening seriously to their representatives as they present their proposals for protection and improvement of the environment. Hon. Members appear to be totally ignorant of these needs.

If a massive pit or some such project were proposed for a constituency in the north or in Wales or the south-west, would the same attitude be adopted? Here, the attitude seems to be that, as this is an inner-city area, it does not matter. If British Rail is allowed to get away with treating these people in this way, damaging the environment and increasing the volume of traffic on the Euston road by up to 50 per cent., the same thing could happen elsewhere. As was said earlier, two wrongs do not make a right.

The provisions of new clause 5 are very important. As I explained in an intervention, when the Department of Transport is keen to get people in a suburban area—a Tory-voting marginal constituency—to accept the development of a major road or motorway, it bends over backwards to assure them that their property values will be protected, that, if necessary, they will be bought out, that banks will be reconstructed for noise insulation, and so on. I agree that all those things should be done—at least, I would agree if I believed that new motorways were necessary, but in any case, I agree with the principle. Why cannot the promoters of the Bill accept that exactly the same principles apply in respect of this densely populated inner-urban area?

Any house owner in the area who wants to move finds it absolutely impossible to sell his property. Who would buy a house that he knew to be alongside an enormous construction site? People are entitled to protection of their investment. That is why British Rail should be compelled to accept new clause 5, which covers the point very well. It is clearly expensive for BR to do so, and I do not doubt that, although I do not know the exact costings. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Keighley would have had the costings at his fingertips, because he was presumably briefed on such matters by British Rail.

Many of the properties are owned by the London borough of Islington, which has no wish to reduce the total housing stock but wishes to improve the quality and quantity of housing because there are many people on the housing waiting list, many homeless people and many concealed homeless people.

Islington council will not willingly give up property, but will be seeking compensation for damage to properties that it owns and for the costs that it incurs by having to move tenants away from the area because of the work being carried out.

There has been much argument over the proposal, and some hon. Members have suggested that the people of King's Cross have to pay for the national need. I regret that way in which BR has so cynically manipulated opinion within the House to create a north-south divide on the issue. We are seeking environmental protection for people who live in our borough. We are seeking to protect house owners who might suffer as a result. If BR is taken at its word, it should be supporting this new clause.

New clause 6 mentions compliance for a series of works to be done. If the hon. Member for Keighley had bothered to talk to us about the buffer and boundary zones, he would have found that page 17 of the report by the Committee which examined the King's Cross Railways Bill, published by the House on 26 June, said: We consider it fair that the boundaries of the zone should be extended in line with the petitioner's request. We therefore make it a condition of our proceeding further with the Bill that promoters should give an undertaking to do this. Unless I have misunderstood, my hon. Friend's clause seeks to put that on the face of the Bill. I fail to understand why the House is apparently opposing the new clause.

On the question of the environmental code of practice for works being carried out, there have been experiences of voluntary codes of practice in other parts of the borough. The contractor agrees that he will not do certain things and will do others only at certain times, but unless they are backed by the force of law, such codes are useless.

When Arsenal football club sought to develop the executive boxes and the south part of the football ground, it agreed a voluntary code of practice which, among other things, excluded Sunday working. Every condition was broken in some way, including Sunday working, and there was no comeback. Every time the main contractor was approached, he said that it was a question of what the sub-contractors did, and that he had no control over them.

New clause 6 is essential if we are to protect the lives of people in the area during the construction phase. Is it right for people to be expected to put up with 24-hour working, seven days a week, with BR doing any work it likes at any time? It is not fair and proper. It would cause noise and increased traffic in an area where traffic is already heavy. Should my hon. Friend's constituents be expected to tolerate huge lorries seven days a week, 24 hours a day, travelling from the development with spoil or bringing construction materials in? They should not have to put up with that—no one should have to put up with that sort of work, noise and interference with their lives.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, many people in the area work in public services. In particular, it has been a residential area for those working in the post office and the health service and on the railways. Various security companies and the local authority are major employers in the area, and many of the residents work shifts and need to be able to sleep during daylight hours. They also deserve some consideration when deciding the way that the work is done.

When hon. Members who support the Bill and oppose the new clauses claim that there will be an improved environment at the end of the work, I wonder what sort of improved environment it will be. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West mentioned the problems of increased traffic in London. Many people using the station—not the majority by any means, but a considerable number—will be arriving or leaving by road in taxis, private cars or other means.

Pollution in inner London is horrific. Those who believe that London can take more traffic would do well to remember the health of our children, the extent of asthma, the problems of photochemical smog in the summer and the appalling air quality in the pre-Christmas period because of the still air. London's air was dirtier than Mexico City's and other places that are a byword for traffic pollution. London cannot take any more pollution. The Bill will only increase the amount of road traffic in an already overcrowded area.

Mr. Waller

The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Has it occurred to him that King's Cross was selected because it had better transport links than any other site? The demand for taxis is lower than in any other central site because of the good access by train, bus and tube. Those who are concerned about smog and other environmental disbenefits caused by traffic movements should remember that King's Cross is the best possible location to avoid those problems.

Mr. Corbyn

There will be 15 million extra passengers a year using King's Cross. I do not know how often the hon. Gentleman uses King's Cross.

Mr. Waller

Every week.

Mr. Corbyn

Good. When he has a bit of time on his hands, he should see the crowds that use King's Cross underground station between 7.30 am and 9.30 am on a weekday. It is hard to see how more traffic or more people could get through the area.

British Rail has not thought about the consequences of its proposals. 'Traffic jams on the Pentonville, Euston and Marylebone roads will be made worse by the car and taxi traffic that will be generated by 15 million passengers seeking to enter or leave the station by road vehicle.

Mr. Tony Banks

British Rail is not the slightest bit interested in how many additional road movements are caused by its proposals—it is not a road authority. My hon. Friend surely remembers the London Labour group asking the then Secretary of State for Transport who the strategic authority for such movements was, and he said that we should ask British Rail. We did so, and British Rail said, "We are not the strategic authority; we are a transport authority. We run the railways." It could not give a monkey's toss how many cars, taxis or buses are involved, because that has nothing to do with BR. But it has a lot to do with us and the people who live in Islington.

Mr. Corbyn

If I were not a vegetarian, I would have said that it was passing the buck around the room. We met the then Secretary of State for Transport, who claimed that we should go somewhere else with every environmental or transport problem in London. Everybody was responsible for transport in London except the Secretary of State. The reality is that this cock-eyed proposal has been made because of a lack of planning, of consultation and of a serious environmental impact assessment.

Mr. Cryer

My hon. Friend criticises British Rail, but does he accept that it is the prisoner of Government policy? It is not British Rail's fault that it is forced to depend on Thatcherite policies of enhanced land values to pay for transport improvements. Inevitably, many of the criticisms that should be made of the Government are being made of British Rail. That is extremely convenient for the Government, who want everybody to criticise British Rail, as it will help their case for closure through privatisation.

Mr. Corbyn

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am pro-rail. I want increased rail usage and development. I use the railways a lot. I do not believe in the development of an enhanced road system when our railways would be perfectly adequate if only more money were put into them, which the Government clearly are not doing.

I sometimes wonder about British Rail. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that it is a prisoner of Government policy, which says that it must sell some of its existing capital assets for all new works. Sometimes it appears to be an awfully willing prisoner of that policy: that is my anxiety.

This is an important Bill and we are going through an important process that highlights the inadequacies of the private Bill procedure. We see the wrong-headedness of a major development taking place on the back of the private Bill procedure with no real planning permission and no planning applications or the like. I hope that, as a result of our experience of this, people will examine the process.

I wonder whether the golden egg that British Rail thought it had got hold of when it realised the potential for office and other developments to the north of King's Cross station, will ever be laid. Land values in London are dropping fast as the recession gathers pace.

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)

That is happening everywhere.

9.30 pm

Mr. Corbyn

Everywhere, indeed, but we are talking about the particular development at King's Cross.

British Rail has staked everything on selling land to create an office development to the north of King's Cross. That will make it more money that the socially needed houses that should be built on the whole of that site, except on the areas needed for parks. What happens if it does not go ahead with the whole scheme? All the time spent in Committee and all the millions of pounds spent on legal representation, publicity, consultants and others will be wasted.

The House should think more seriously about the need for access to the channel tunnel for the entire country. It is fallacious to argue that King's Cross is the only place where the main station can be developed.

I ask hon. Members to consider that the two new clauses deal specifically with the effects of the development on people living in the King's Cross area in terms of their property, the noise, the environment and the area. The effects are specifically irrespective of the location of the station. I invite hon. Members to consider the effects on the community represented so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and how hon. Members would feel if the same works, the same disruption, the same noise, the same pollution and the same dirt were to result from a major development in their constituency passed by a vote in this House. They would be appalled. Therefore, they should support the new clauses.

Mr. Cryer

I shall be brief. I did not intend to speak until I heard the response from the promoter. The new clauses do not affect the principle of the Bill; they would merely provide protection for the people who live in the vicinity.

My hon. Friends asked serious questions, but the promoter, on behalf of British Rail, did not answer any of them. It is a contempt of Parliament for British Rail and the promoter, knowing that questions will be asked—they had seen the amendments—to fail to provide adequate information. They strike an arrogant attitude. One wonders whether the agreements on a voluntary code—the substitute for new clause 6—for the decent operation and conduct of the civil engineering works so as to minimise the intrusion on the people who live nearby will be carried out by people so careless of the debate here in Parliament. The promoter had an opportunity to assuage fears, but he failed to do so.

The promoter did not deny that a row of houses had been omitted from the area of protection. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has sought to include it. The promoter has said that he will write and explain the circumstances. That is not good enough. If we are debating this issue in Parliament, we can reasonably expect to receive assurances and proper statements from the promoter. People in British Rail knew that this debate was to take place. They are being advised—expensively, I suspect—by private Bill promoters. They should be able to answer the queries that have been raised today.

The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said that it would be an extraordinary obligation on BR if it were to be subject to the decision of house owners who, at a whim—to use his words—sought compensation from BR. On the contrary, it is BR that will, at a whim, be able to refuse a householder compensation when that householder has to face construction noise and invasion of his peaceful privacy. "At a whim" is an emotional phrase.

The hon. Member for Keighley sought to suggest that a person who wanted to move somewhere else would, at a whim, be able to invoke the procedures set out in the new clause. The hon. Gentleman ignored the fact that as any such person will be living on the periphery of a massive construction site—the biggest in Europe—he will be unable to move anywhere anyhow. Equally, the BR board could, at a whim, ignore the pros and cons and the case for decent justice for an ordinary householder and simply dismiss such a call for compensation. That could happen unless the board was under a statutory obligation to meet that claim.

I do not know the area around King's Cross, and I accept that some properties might be on the margin with regard to compensation, but given the magnitude of this civil engineering project, why should we not strike the balance in favour of those affected rather than in favour of those who want to press ahead with that construction project?

Mr. Waller

The hon. Gentleman is describing an imaginary situation. BR would not, at a whim, act as he has described. I have carefully explained how the promoters are in the process of agreeing a detailed code of practice relating to the construction works with the London boroughs of Camden and Islington, which are carefully protecting the interests of those living within their boundaries.

It would be total nonsense for me to start negotiating across the Floor of the House about such things as the number of decibels to be allowed in particular parts of the site, vehicle movements, where security cameras should be located, or how many stars a hotel should have when people are allocated temporary rehousing. I cannot negotiate about the terms of arbitration. It is impossible to have an environmental code of practice which is carved in stone and does not allow for the kind of necessary flexibility to provide for the very talks that are bound to continue in order to reach agreement, not only before the works begin but as they proceed.

Mr. Cryer

The hon. Gentleman has not been listening, and I regret to say that I suspect that that is characteristic of his attitude today. I have moved on to discuss new clause 5. I have already mentioned the one row of houses that the promoters have excluded from the provisions under which the BR board could be required to purchase if a householder suffered intrusion due to civil engineering work.

The hon. Gentleman has taken umbrage at my use of the phrase "at a whim" in relation to decisions taken by the BR board. Why does he take umbrage when those words are used in relation to the BR board, especially when he uses them about property holders in the area affected by those civil engineering works?

The hon. Gentleman has asked why people should be able, at a whim, to require BR to purchase their homes. Why is the hon. Gentleman unable to attribute the characteristics that he attributes to the BR board to the ordinary people living in the area? Why does he not believe that those people will make a balanced, mature, considered judgment? if he is ascribing such characteristics to BR, it is only fair that he should ascribe them to the people who live in the area.

Mr. Waller

The answer is that the promoters are reaching detailed agreements on a range of issues with the local authorities concerned. If the new clause were passed, it would provide an unqualified right to all those living within the boundaries, whether or not and to whatever extent they were affected, to require the board to purchase their property, compensate them, and provide temporary rehousing, irrespective of the kind of housing in which they lived at the time of the works. In particular, they could require the board to carry out any other appropriate matters. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is a reasonable requirement, I disagree with him.

Mr. Cryer

I am terribly sorry, but new clause 5 does not include subsection (2)(e) of new clause 6, as the hon. Gentleman is trying to do. I am discussing new clause 5 and the obligations that would follow for people affected by major civil engineering works. I do not wish to continue the argument for much longer because my hon. Friends wish to vote on the matter.

Mr. Chris Smith

The hon. Member for Keighley made a substantial error in his intervention. He said that anyone living in the area would have the right to sell his property to British Rail. The vast majority of people living in the area specified in new clause 5 are tenants of the London borough of Islington and cannot activate the provisions of paragraph (a). The hon. Gentleman has not read the new clause.

Mr. Cryer

Another point that underlines my hon. Friend's remark is that subsection (2) of new clause 5 defines "specified property" in order that it is not a general right but a specific and defined right for a limited number of people. I am surprised that, having had the new clause tabled with the possibility of selection, the hon. Member for Keighley did not say how many properties would be affected.

Concern for workers and working class areas does not stop at the boundary of Watford. We are concerned wherever people are adversely affected. There is a strong case for improving rail links and investment in railways, to transfer some of the freight from our heavily clogged roads on to the railways. The Department of Transport has been working against that for the past 20 years or more. We want that position reversed, but if major civil engineering works are to be involved, the House should reasonably impose protective measures to ensure that people who are adversely affected receive proper statutory protection. Voluntary codes of practice are all very well. If people were universally of good will, we would not need legislation. The legislation is necessary to provide assurances for people who are potentially adversely affected.

I intervened only because I am amazed that the promoter has not accepted the new clauses. He may be worried about one or two words but he should accept them in principle with a view to ensuring that the protection is statutory. Statutory protection means that people are bound by it, whereas voluntary codes can be pushed to one side. Embarking on such works, not for a few months but for eight years, means that there must be a firm base for statutory protection of everyone involved before the work starts. That is why I hope that the House will accept the new clause.

Mr. Tony Banks

My hon. Friend understands these things better than most people in the House. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), speaking on behalf of the promoters, said that discussions about a code were going on with the London boroughs concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) may like to venture a point about the extent to which we can trust British Rail. I know that my hon. Friend has more trust than I do in that respect

If we do not write those provisions into the Bill, there will be no sanctions against British Rail if it tells the boroughs, "We are sorry, but we are not interested and we cannot reach agreement." Who could then impose sanctions on British Rail? The House could not.

9.45 pm

Mr. Cryer

I am willing to defend British Rail because it has great difficulty in providing public services throughout the country against the background of attacks by the Government and of Government cuts. Support has been whipped up for the privatisation campaign against British Rail. British Rail provides a vast service network, by and large fairly successfully.

British Rail is a corporation, so we should bind it to its duties and obligations under law. It is a large corporation, so its personnel will change. The chairman of British Rail may give assurances in perfectly good faith, but he may be replaced. The next chairman may disregard those assurances and say that the civil engineering completion is the sole criterion and that British Rail will have no such care for people living in the area.

If we want to provide some guarantees for people who will be adversely affected by this major civil engineering project, we should ensure that the House is the guarantor. We are the best guarantor of people's position and we pass legislation to provide guarantees. Is there universal good will among the members of the British Rail board, the local authorities, the people living in the area, the contractors and the sub-contractors? Sub-contractors are often employed at rock bottom rates through competitive tender, and they will have to cut corners to make a profit over the next eight years.

If everyone was covered by multicoloured good will, we should not have to legislate. If there was good will all round, the House would be redundant. There is no universal good will, but there is cut-throat competition, bad practice and bad faith. Against the background of human experience, I suggest that new clauses 5 and 6 would be a decent safeguard for people who will have to face muck and noise for eight years.

Mr. Chris Smith

By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will pick up one or two points from the debate on the two important new clauses.

The speech by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) was a deeply inadequate response to the needs of the people of the King's Cross area and to the arguments of my hon. Friends and myself. The hon. Member began by admitting that British Rail has undertaken a number of voluntary agreements to do precisely what is set out in new clauses 5 and 6. By making that admission, he gave away almost the entirety of his case against inclusion of new clauses. The new clauses seek only to enshrine in the Bill the protection that British Rail has already said that it intends to provide on the whole. Through the new clauses, we are trying to ensure that that happens.

The hon. Member for Keighley went on to refer to what he said were the "many" properties affected. I have already dealt with part of that point by informing the hon. Gentleman, who seemed unaware of the fact, that a large number of the properties within the boundaries referred to in new clause 5 are in local authority ownership. The local authority has no intention of going along and presenting BR with those properties, and certainly no desire to do so, as it desperately needs them to provide housing for the people of my constituency. There are some owner-occupiers in the area, however, and I believe that they are entitled to basic minimum protection from the blight that will affect them throughout the next eight or nine years. The hon. Gentleman should not dismiss their concern so lightly.

The hon. Gentleman said that the environmental code proposed in new clause 6 was likely to be inflexible, but precisely the reverse is the case. If he reads the new clause, he will see that it does not prescribe noise or decibel levels or hours of working. It merely says that agreement should be reached on those specific issues. I went through a whole series of matters that British Rail has recently been discussing with Camden and Islington. British Rail is apparently determined not to reach a reasonable agreement with those two local authorities on an environmental code of practice. By including such a provision in the Bill, we should be placing additional pressure on British Rail in an attempt to ensure that it behaves more reasonably. The new clause would not tie British Rail in knots or create an inflexible structure. It merely says that there must be an environmental code and tells British Rail to get on and reach a reasonable agreement with the boroughs about it.

The hon. Member for Keighley then referred to the traffic impact of the proposed station and the so-called environmental statement, which he held up for the whole House to see. The traffic section of that statement was written by a firm called Halcro Fox and I think that I am right in saying that it actually claims that the traffic impact of the creation of the new international station—which, as we have heard, will deal with an extra 15 million passengers a year—on York way, Euston road and Marylebone road will be "negligible". That statement was disproved by the Department of Transport's own evidence to the Committee, which came at a very late stage in the Committee's proceedings and was published after that environmental statement. That evidence showed that, especially at peak hours, there will be a substantial traffic impact. Of course many people leaving channel tunnel trains will want to get on an already overcrowded underground system or transfer to trains heading to the north and so on, but a large number of them will want to take taxis, board coaches and be met by friends in cars. The proposals will have a very substantial traffic impact on the surface in an already over-congested area.

Mr. Corbyn

The traffic impact will not be confined to York way and Euston road, bad though it will be in those two places, but will extend into central London, with an increased flow of traffic attempting to get to King's Cross, and particularly to the north and east, as people making long journeys by train are brought to the station from the suburbs by car with heavy luggage and because of the difficulties of the King's Cross interchange. The traffic impact has been grossly underestimated.

Mr. Smith

My hon. Friend is right. We all know what happens to London's entire traffic flow when one or two key points in the vehicular traffic network clog up. That is precisely what will happen at King's Cross as a result of the proposals.

The hon. Member for Keighley dared to say that the effects on road traffic would be generally positive. I challenge him to come and tell that to the people of King's Cross, who as a result of the proposals will be living with traffic jams outside their homes day in and day out.

The hon. Member for Keighley also said that, if the station was not built at King's Cross, there would have to be complicated provisions such as travelators. He ignores the fact that British Rail proposes a travelator between King's Cross and Euston to get people to the north-western lines. The hon. Gentleman should say less about travelators and complex interchanges.

The hon. Gentleman also ignores the important point that I raised, and which was picked up by my hon. Friends, about the importance of the row of houses on the east side of the southern part of Northdown street. It is not good enough to say that British Rail will write to me about that. We need an absolute commitment from British Rail that it will include those houses, with the others in the affected area, in the properties to be looked after as part of the buffer zone.

The hon. Member for Keighley dismissed many of the issues still at stake in the discussions on the environmental code as not being in the interests of the wider community. I fail to see how allowing pile driving at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning next door to residential homes is in the interests of any community, let alone the people who live in the immediate vicinity of the work.

I remind the House of the overwhelming environmental impact on people in the King's Cross area. The scheme involves the loss of 83 homes, the displacement of 326 residents, the demolition of four listed buildings and the destruction of a two-acre inner-city nature reserve. It involves the loss of 168 workplaces providing 1,620 jobs and the loss of 58 shops, 38 of which provide key services to local people. It will have a construction time of about eight years and will entail deep pile driving for the subsequent buildings and the sides of the box that will be created. A vast 40 ft hole will be created immediately beside people's homes. That will have an enormous environmental impact.

My two new clauses do not seek to stop the Bill. Nor do they seek in any way to interrupt the smooth progress of essential British Rail operational requirements. They seek to enshrine protection for the people immediately affected, and I warmly commend them to the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 7, Noes 191.

Division No. 34]	[10.00 pm
AYES
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Cryer, Bob
Flynn, Paul	Tellers for the Ayes:
Madden, Max	Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and Mr. Tony Banks.
Nellist, Dave
Skinner, Dennis

NOES
Alexander, Richard	Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Crowther, Stan
Anderson, Donald	Dalyell, Tarn
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Devlin, Tim
Barron, Kevin	Dewar, Donald
Batiste, Spencer	Dixon, Don
Battle, John	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Beith, A. J.	Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Bellingham, Henry	Dunnachie, Jimmy
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Benton, Joseph	Durant, Sir Anthony
Bermingham, Gerald	Dykes, Hugh
Bevan, David Gilroy	Eastham, Ken
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Fallon, Michael
Blunkett, David	Fearn, Ronald
Boswell, Tim	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Bowis, John	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Boyes, Roland	Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	Forth, Eric
Brazier, Julian	Foster, Derek
Bright, Graham	Fox, Sir Marcus
Burt, Alistair	Franks, Cecil
Butler, Chris	Fraser, John
Caborn, Richard	Freeman, Roger
Callaghan, Jim	Fyfe, Maria
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Gale, Roger
Chapman, Sydney	Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Colvin, Michael	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Gregory, Conal

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	O'Brien, William
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	O'Hara, Edward
Hague, William	Page, Richard
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie	Paice, James
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Patnick, Irvine
Hanley, Jeremy	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hardy, Peter	Pawsey, James
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Harris, David	Pendry, Tom
Haselhurst, Alan	Porter, David (Waveney)
Hawkins, Christopher	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Haynes, Frank	Quin, Ms Joyce
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)	Rathbone, Tim
Hood, Jimmy	Redmond, Martin
Howells, Geraint	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Hunter, Andrew	Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Irvine, Michael	Rogers, Allan
Jack, Michael	Rooney, Terence
Jackson, Robert	Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Janman, Tim	Sackville, Hon Tom
Jessel, Toby	Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Shaw, David (Dover)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Snape, Peter
Kilfedder, James	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Kilfoyle, Peter	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)	Stephen, Nicol
Kirkhope, Timothy	Stern, Michael
Kirkwood, Archy	Stevens, Lewis
Knapman, Roger	Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)	Strang, Gavin
Knowles, Michael	Sumberg, David
Knox, David	Summerson, Hugo
Lawrence, Ivan	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Lee, John (Pendle)	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Loyden, Eddie	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Thorne, Neil
McCartney, Ian	Thurnham, Peter
McGrady, Eddie	Tracey, Richard
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Tredinnick, David
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)	Trimble, David
Maclean, David	Trippier, David
McLoughlin, Patrick	Vaz, Keith
McMaster, Gordon	Viggers, Peter
McNamara, Kevin	Wallace, James
McWilliam, John	Waller, Gary
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Wareing, Robert N.
Mans, Keith	Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Mates. Michael	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Maxton, John	Wheeler, Sir John
Meale, Alan	Widdecombe, Ann
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Wilson, Brian
Mills, Iain	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James	Winterton, Nicholas
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Wood, Timothy
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Moss, Malcolm	Tellers for the Noes:
Needham, Richard	Sir Donald Thompson and Mr. John Greenway.
Neubert, Sir Michael
Nicholls, Patrick

Question accordingly negatived.

Bill to be further considered on Thursday 16 January.