PASSENGER CONCOURSE BUILDING AT KING'S CROSS AND ST. PANCRAS MAIN LINE STATIONS (Hansard, 28 January 1992)

§ Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury)
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 6, line 25, leave out clause 7.

§ Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In last night's edition of the Evening Standard, under the headline "Chunnel doubts grow over King's Cross", appeared a quotation from a letter signed by the Minister for Public Transport on 20 January: We do not know at this stage whether this station"—King's Cross— will meet the Government's investment criteria. If it does not then, even if the Bill"— the Bill before us— is enacted, British Rail will not be allowed to proceed with the project. I find it surprising that the Minister should send such a letter, given that he has never informed hon. Members of the position. Why was the information circulated in a letter to protesters, rather than raised in the House?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)
Order. I am finding it difficult to know what is the point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman seems to be addressing his comments to the Minister. I can deal only with points of order.

§ Mr. Snape
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me come to the point. What is the point of our debating at great length the King's Cross Railways Bill if the Minister in charge of that Bill is writing to outside organisations saying that if the station—the subject of that Bill—is not viable, it will not be built? Why are we wasting our time in those circumstances?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is not really a point of order. I can only say that the amendments that have been selected are in order; we should now proceed with them.

§ Mr. Chris Smith
The amendment would leave out clause 7 of the Bill. In the constructive spirit in which I approached the Bill when we discussed two new clauses in our previous debate, I have tabled the amendment in an attempt to make the Bill a better Bill, and not to frustrate the entire project. I hope, therefore, that it will receive careful consideration.
The amendment would remove the clause that seeks to give outline planning consent for the concourse building between St. Pancras and King's Cross stations. There are a number of reasons for so doing. The first, and probably the most important, is that the House should be wary in principle of legislating, through the private Bill procedure, to facilitate planning permissions. There are plenty of methods available to British Rail and other developers to seek planning consent—especially outline planning consent—for their proposals. The use of the private Bill procedure to obtain planning permission is something of which the House should be sceptical.
867 The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who is just leaving the Chamber and who for so long chaired the Committee that considered the Bill, will recognise the importance of that point. The Committee commented in its report on the fact that, in certain respects, British Rail was, effectively, seeking planning permission. Commenting on what was then clause 19, the Committee said, in paragraph 48 of its special report: We have unanimously decided to delete clause 19 from the Bill. Clause 19 was the clause that would have overidden listed buildings provisions in respect of the listed buildings on the site in question.
The Committee said that it proposed to delete the clause for two reasons, the first of which is important: the exemption from normal planning procedures conferred by the clause would have resulted in the function of planning authority devolving upon Parliament and, in practice, upon this Committee. It is clear that the Committee was most unhappy about the concept of that function devolving on Parliament through the private Bills procedure. Yet that is precisely what the inclusion of clause 7 entails. As I said, the clause gives outline planning consent for the new concourse building and asks the House, in effect, to act as a planning committee. That stands against the approach of the Committee.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
My hon. Friend is illustrating the main problem identified by the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, of which I was a member. It is true that organisations have used—and still use—the private Bill procedure as a way of circumventing normal planning operations and requirements within local authority areas. The House should be careful about allowing itself to be used by organisations to enable them to avoid going through the normal planning consultation process—particularly public inquiries. That is one of the big dangers of the private Bill procedure. British Rail is clearly using and exploiting the House, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree.

§ Mr. Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He and other hon. Members did sterling work on the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, which produced a voluminous report, very little of which has been implemented. I shall not refer to it in detail, because I do not wish to detain the House.
Suffice it to say that the trend identified by the Joint Committee and in the Transport and Works Bill, currently before the House is away from the concept of organisations using private Bills to get planning permission. The explanatory and financial memorandum of the Transport and Works Bill states that the Bill provides for amendments of legislation dealing with the safety of railway and similar systems, including footpaths crossing them, so as to avoid powers having to be sought by special enactment and implements recommendations of the Fennell inquiry into the King's Cross Underground Station fire". Quite clearly, the way in which the Government are moving in putting this Bill through the House during this Session, the way the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure was thinking and the views that many hon. Members have expressed in debate and discussion over the past couple of years indicate that the trend of thinking is moving away from the obtaining of planning permission, where normal planning procedures are possible, by the somewhat different means of getting a private Bill through 868 the House, where the proper scrutiny which a planning committee can give to an application cannot, by definition, be given. That is the first reason why this amendment should be considered.

§ Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton)
Am I right in assuming that, because this Bill has been before the House for the past three years, the planning procedures now dictate that there is a change of attitude to planning applications, and that if this application had been made within the past six months or so the whole matter would have been considered differently? Is it not correct that to use the analogy that what happened with the former planning procedure would not happen now is somewhat misleading for the House?

§ Mr. Smith
Not at all, because the situation is that this Bill was lodged in the House in November 1988, when it contained clause 7, which is the subject of the amendment before us. Six months later, British Rail and London Regeneration Consortium, the proposed private developers for the King's Cross railway lands, jointly lodged two planning applications for the railway lands site.
The first of those planning applications was what one might call a master plan for the entirety of the railway lands site—Norman Foster's concept of an egg-shaped park with a great wall of offices round it. The second planning application, however, was specifically for the concourse building which British Rail is proposing between St. Pancras and King's Cross stations.
So British Rail is revealing precisely what it was up to by its actions at that time. It was including in this Bill the seeking of outline planning permission for the concourse building; yet, six months later, it submitted an outline planning application to the normal planning authority for the same concourse building.
If that planning procedure in precisely the normal way is open to British Rail—and it clearly is something that British Rail recognises, because it put a planning application in—it should not be seeking special, separate powers through the private Bill procedure effectively to bypass the planning application which it has already submitted.

§ Mr. Tony Banks
My hon. Friend obviously knows the difference between outline and detailed planning permission. For example, I could seek detailed planning permission at Westminster to turn Buckingham palace into a home for people who are sleeping rough on the streets, to turn it into a hostel for the homeless. I think that would be a very good use to which to put Buckingham palace. I would probably get outline permission, but I doubt very much, knowing the political nature of Westminster corporation, that it would give me detailed planning permission. What British Rail has done is to put the application in to Camden as a blind, and now it is trying to use the House and substitute Camden's detailed planning consent.

§ Mr. Smith
My hon. Friend has a good basic point, because I am sure that British Rail is trying to navigate past the normal planning procedures. However, the effect of clause 7 would be to give outline permission rather than detailed permission. It would still have to go ahead with 869 the normal detailed planning permission application. If we allowed clause 7 to speed its way on to the statute book, we would be truncating the outline stage of the procedure.
It is worth asking why British Rail might be doing this, because it is such self-evident sharp practice on its part to seek to get round the normal planning procedures. I can only think that it is because of the existence of the Great Northern hotel. The House will be aware that the Great Northern hotel lies precisely between King's Cross and St. Pancras stations. British Rail proposes the demolition of the Great Northern hotel, which it would replace by a supposedly spanking new concourse between the two.
British Rail had originally hoped that it would get away with doing that through the inclusion of the old clause 19 in the original Bill. The Committee saw British Rail off on that point, I am delighted to say, because it deleted clause 19 from the Bill.
It is worth refreshing our minds on what the Committee said about the Great Northern hotel. It said, in paragraph 53: By common consent, the most significant of the listed buildings affected by the King's Cross proposals is the Great Northern hotel, designed by Lewis Cubitt, the architect of King's Cross station, to which it served as an adjunct. The hotel opened in 1854 and has been in use continuously since then. However, it stands on the site of the intended new passenger concourse, and British Rail therefore proposes its demolition.
The Committee went on to say, referring to Norman Foster, the architect of the proposed new passenger concourse building: Mr. Foster's designs are striking and may provide the basis for an attractive building. On the other hand, the Great Northern hotel is not only an agreeable mid-Victorian building which, other things being equal, it would be a pity to lose, but it is also an important part of Britain's railway heritage.
That was the verdict of the Committee on the Bill. It very clearly placed substantial value on the existence and appearance of the Great Northern hotel. The Victorian Society has also expressed very great concern about the possibility of the hotel being demolished.

§ Mr. Banks
My hon. Friend is probably coming on to the point that I wanted to put to him. This is a hotel of some architectural distinction and some historical connections. I believe that Mr. Gladstone often used the hotel, for reasons that I do not think that I can go into at the moment. In the circumstances, the House would be most unwise to allow British Rail to demolish that wonderful building. Who knows, there might be another Mr. Gladstone sitting in this Chamber who might wish to use that wonderful hotel similarly in the future.

§ Mr. Smith
I certainly hope that my hon. Friend is not casting aspersions on the predilections of hon. Members of the present-day House. I suspect that he is absolutely right about the frequency with which many eminent Victorians may well have used the services of the Great Northern hotel.
The Victorian Society in a memorandum to myself said: The Victorian Society has always considered the survival of the Great Northern Hotel a matter of crucial importance. In 1984, when British Rail was proposing its demolition and replacement with an office block"— hon. Members should note that British Rail has been trying to get rid of the hotel for some time; all the talk 870 about how wonderful the great new Norman Foster creation will be sits oddly beside the original proposals of only eight years ago for the site— we urged the DoE to list it as an historic building, which the DoE agreed to do. The Society considers the Great Northern Hotel a building of fine classical design standing at the heart of what is arguably the most important complex of railway buildings in this country. Those seeking its demolition have stated that, as a building, it is not of the same stature as either of the great stations. This is self evidently true but does not diminish the importance of the hotel; it merely reflects the hierarchical manner in which the Victorians viewed architectural style—the hotel was not intended to rival the station, it is a subsidiary building and was designed as such.
The Victorian Society goes on to point out that, despite being a subsidiary building, it is a very fine building. The society's conclusion is: The Great Northern Hotel is a building of very considerable architectural and historical significance. Only if there were overriding reasons for its demolition—which the evidence given to the Select Committee of Members of Parliament indicated was not the case—could such action be justified.
That memorandum set the case out clearly. If British Rail insists that it wants to go ahead with the inclusion of clause 7 in the Bill, with the creation of the new passenger concourse and with the overriding of the existing normal planning procedures, the danger is that that will intensify the pressure for the demolition of a very fine listed building in the Great Northern hotel. That, I suspect, is one of the real reasons behind what British Rail is up to in including the clause in the Bill.

§ Mr. O'Brien
I want to develop the issue of the overriding decision. I support totally the preservation of historic buildings which have played a major part in the life style of the nation. But when we consider all the alternatives, as a Member serving a northern constituency, I feel that the preservation of the Great Northern hotel must be weighed against the benefits and advantages of enabling the northern part of the country to use the channel tunnel. I fear that the retention of the hotel would deny a large part of the country that opportunity. That is what we are defending. I ask my hon. Friend to consider that issue. There should be some way of assessing the advantages of retaining the hotel or the benefits if the hotel site were used for the link between the channel tunnel and the northern counties. The matter must be considered by every hon. Member and by people outside the House.

§ Mr. Smith
My hon. Friend is right to raise the point. However, he is under a misapprehension. There is no specific need for British Rail to demolish the Great Northern hotel in order to get the links which it requires from a new international station at King's Cross through to the north. The only reason for British Rail to demolish the hotel and to retain clause 7 is to have the fancy new Norman Foster canopy linking King's Cross and St. Pancras. While I sympathise entirely with my hon. Friend's wish to ensure that links are available from King's Cross to the north, clause 7 is not essential for that purpose.

§ Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley)
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is anxious that the House should not be misled. He quoted extensively from the Committee's comments on clause 19, which is no longer part of the Bill. Will he make it clear to the House that listed building consent for the demolition of the Great Northern hotel, if that were 871 required, is still needed and would not be overridden by anything in the Bill as it stands? Will he also make it clear that an application has already been submitted to Camden council for outline planning permission for the concourse and that detailed planning permission would also be required? Therefore, the requirements of planning consent are not overridden by anything in the Bill, but would be considered later.

§ Mr. Smith
In the second part of what he said, the hon. Gentleman has made precisely the case for passing the amendment. He admitted that British Rail has submitted an outline planning application to Camden council. It is still under consideration. There is no need for British Rail to have clause 7 in order effectively to override that planning consent.
I should like also to tackle the hon. Gentleman on hjis first point. I suspect that he was being a little disingenuous about it. Of course, there will still be a requirement to get listed building consent for the demolition of the hotel. The Committee, thank goodness, ensured by the deletion of clause 19 of the original Bill that listed building consent will have to be sought. If the House were to agree to clause 7, that would lead to intense pressure of any future public local inquiry to ensure that listed building consent would be given for the demolition of the hotel for the creation of a new concourse. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that having the listed building procedure as a requirement is ultimate protection, I must ask him to think again.
Once the House has spoken, by including clause 7 in the Bill, it will be very difficult to use any of the other planning procedures in existence to protect the Great Northern hotel. That is the danger. That is why I hope that the amendment will be carried and that clause 7 will be deleted from the Bill. Deletion of the clause would do no damage to possible links from King's Cross to the north, but it would ensure that a fine Victorian building was preserved. It would also enshrine in law the principle that the House does not want to act as a local planning authority. That is up to the normal planning procedures, not to legislation of the House.

§ Mr. Waller
I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) because the promoters cannot accept the amendment. It would effectively remove from the Bill the power to construct a concourse building serving the King's Cross and St. Pancras mainline stations.
The House will be aware that the proposed concourse building, together with the link between Pancras road, which is included in works 16 and 17, will provide a single interchange combining the St. Pancras and King's Cross stations, the proposed low-level station and the London underground stations. Hon. Members who use the existing King's Cross concourse regularly will be aware that it is unsatisfactory from both a functional and an aesthetic point of view. In any event, it will have to be replaced by the end of 1996, when the existing planning permission expires.
The facade of King's Cross station has rarely been seen as it was intended by Cubitt. Buildings were erected soon after the station's construction and, more recently, the existing concourse was erected. That would have to be demolished by 1996 if the existing temporary planning permission was not extended. One of the virtues of the 872 proposals before the House is that, for the first time, that superb grade 1 listed station will be seen as originally intended by the architect.
The British Railways Board has applied to the London borough of Camden for outline planning permission to construct the new passenger concourse building at above-street level. But the construction must also be authorised by an Act of Parliament—a fact that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury may have forgotten. Naturally, the new concourse building will incorporate all the features demanded by long-distance inter-city and international travellers.

§ Mr. Smith
I am not sure whether I caught exactly what the hon. Gentleman said. If British Rail wishes to carry out railway work, it must seek the authority of the House. If, however, it wants to develop a piece of property—a concourse building linking one station to another without involving railway work is simply the development of a piece of property—it does not require the authority of the House to do so but can proceed through normal planning procedures.

§ Mr. Waller
I said that the works incorporated at below-ground level in the concourse building are regarded as railway works, and therefore an Act of Parliament is required before they can go ahead. It is correct to say that the new passenger concourse building at above-street level requires outline planning permission, which is why an application has been made to Camden council.

§ Mr. Smith
In that case, will the hon. Gentleman give us a commitment that British Rail will withdraw the above-street level works provisions from the Bill? On the hon. Gentleman's admission, British Rail does not require parliamentary authority to carry out those works.

§ Mr. Waller
I am advised that it is necessary for the authorisation to be included in the Act of Parliament, which is why it has been included in it.

§ Mr. Tony Banks
So that the House understands fully what it is being asked to do, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, whatever may go on underground, and therefore be required to come before the House, the proposal for the demolition of the Great Northern hotel will not be required to come before the House? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, if the Bill goes through, the Great Northern hotel will go?

§ Mr. Waller
The hon. Gentleman said that in his earlier intervention, but he is incorrect. I am glad to be able to make it clear that the deletion of clause 19 will not override the requirement for listed building consent.
The facilities in the new concourse will be of a different order from those currently enjoyed by long-distance travellers and those using Network SouthEast services. Apart from the functional need for efficient station premises for public transport, it is difficult to have a visually satisfactory new concourse building between the splendid grade 1 listed King's Cross and St. Pancras train sheds and station buildings without demolishing the Great Northern hotel.
It was said a few moments ago and in Committee that, other things being equal, it would be a pity to lose the Great Northern hotel. I agree with that because the hotel is a grade 2 listed building, albeit not of the same quality as its neighbours. However, the Norman Foster building 873 that British Rail proposes to build does justice to the grade 1 listed buildings on either side of it. It has all the makings of a building that will do credit to British Rail and its architect, as well as to the two important stations on either side of it.
British Rail, to its credit, recently modified buildings. On Embankment place, just down the river from Charing Cross, is a fine building.

§ Mr. Banks
indicated assent.

§ Mr. Waller
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman concurs with that. In the future, that modern building may be regarded in the same way as we currently regard the existing King's Cross station. Similarly, the new station at Cannon Street has won a civic trust award, and the new buildings at Liverpool Street are also well regarded. I place the proposed new concourse building at King's Cross and St. Pancras in exactly that category.

§ Mr. Banks
The hon. Gentleman is right. The developments that he mentioned are notable, sympathetic and much admired. The point is that the development at Liverpool Street has managed to embody so much of the original structure. How much of the grade 2 listed Great Northern hotel will be embodied within Norman Foster's design? If the hon. Gentleman can show us that that will happen, the opposition to demolition or alteration might be assuaged, but at present it seems to be a question of the total demolition of the hotel. Even the building of Norman Foster, whom I admire greatly—I am always drinking his lager—will not be an adequate replacement for that wonderful grade 2 listed building.

§ Mr. Waller
If it were possible to retain the existing building, also by Cubitt, that would be a bonus. It is clear from the proposals for the Norman Foster concourse that it is a different kind of building and it would not be compatible with retaining the Great Northern hotel. I believe that other things are not equal. We would lose a grade 2 listed building that is by no means outstanding and would replace it with a modern building of the highest quality.
I wish to confirm that what I said a few minutes ago is correct. Parliamentary powers are needed under clause 7, regardless of whether outline planning has been applied for. Such authority is needed to authorise interference with highways and statutory undertakers' apparatus. Those are both necessary consequences of the construction of a concourse building. Powers are also needed to confer immunity from action causing nuisance arising from the railway operation in and around the building. In other words, the reservations of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, who suggested that we were overriding planning permission, either outlined or detailed, and overriding the requirement for listed building consent, have been shown to be without foundation.
Those of us who regularly use King's Cross and St. Pancras want to be able to look forward to the provision of new facilities that are much better than those currently experienced by travellers. However, that will not be possible given the constraints posed by the listed building, which, in any case, requires consent if it is to be demolished. I ask the House to reject the amendment.

§ Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle)
I do not wish to detain the House long, but I fear that it will be a long night. I am against the amendment, although I appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is looking after his constituents.
To those of us from the north of England, there is a choice between the Great Northern hotel and the great north of England. I am afraid that the great north of England must win.

§ Mr. Chris Smith
If the choice posed were between the needs of the north and the existence of the Great Northern hotel, devoted as I am to the virtues of that hotel, I would entirely agree that the needs of the north of England must come first. But that is not the choice in front of us. The choice is not between protecting the interests of the north of England and saving the Great Northern hotel. The choice is between protecting the interests of the north and not saving the hotel. In that case, there is no contest.

§ Mr. Martlew
If my hon. Friend had allowed me to continue my argument, perhaps he would have seen its logic.
I represent a constituency in the north-west—other hon. Members who represent that region are present and perhaps they will speak in the same vein. I fear that if clause 7 is deleted, it will be difficult for a link to be made between Euston and King's Cross stations. This week, I had a meeting with senior British Rail officials. They are worried because they have no idea how they will get people from Euston to King's Cross so that people can enjoy the full benefits of the channel tunnel. It appears that they hope that someone will develop a tardis or time machine to get people across to King's Cross. That is worrying. if a solution is not found, support for the Bill from hon. Members representing the north-west will diminish considerably.
Carlisle is near the Scottish border and I fear that travellers will go from Glasgow to Edinburgh and down the east coast to King's Cross because of the problems at Euston. If the amendment is accepted, it will be difficult for British Rail to find a solution. I have sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. If I represented his constituency I might make a similar case, but perhaps without his eloquence. After all, he is a member of the shadow Front-Bench Treasury team and one expects such eloquence from him.
The north of England will suffer if the Bill is not passed. There are great reservations in the north-west. People believe that British Rail will improve the service on the eastern side of the country, once again, and leave us, as it has now, with an inferior service. I say that with great feeling, as I spent an hour and a quarter at Lichfield station on my way down to speak in the debate.
I shall vote for the Bill. I hope that representatives of British Rail and Conservative Members will take note of the great concern felt by those of us from the north-west, who fear that we will not get the full benefits of the Bill.

§ Mr. Tony Banks
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) should know that there is no question in my mind, or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), of putting the continued existence of the Great Northern hotel above and beyond the welfare of the north-west and 875 of his constituency in particular. I know that Carlisle has a good railway station, which serves one of the best BR breakfasts in the country—I have availed myself of it from time to time when travelling through that beautiful constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle has fallen, once again, into the trap that has been skilfully and carefully prepared for those of my hon. Friends who represent the north. That trap is designed to suggest that, if the development at King's Cross does not go ahead, the north will lose out. That is not so. If my hon. Friend's constituents wish to travel from Carlisle to London in order to use the channel tunnel to reach the continent, it will not be of great concern to them whether they travel through King's Cross or through Stratford, unless they want to get out at King's Cross for some reason. If they are just intent on going through the channel tunnel, it does not matter through which London station they go. Given the large number of people from the north who want to go to the continent, perhaps it is more likely that they will use cheaper air services, thus avoiding the long train journey that would be involved in getting from Carlisle to Paris, for example.

§ Mr. Martlew
Many of my constituents look forward to the day when they can fall asleep in Carlisle and wake up in Paris. That is the way in which people from the north-west will use the channel tunnel

§ Mr. Banks
Every night I dream of waking up in Paris, but it rarely happens. However, I accept that that is a relevant point. If those people had gone to sleep in Carlisle, they would be even less aware of the London station through which they had passed. They would not be aware if they went via Stratford or King's Cross to Paris. That is my argument.

§ Mr. Snape
rose—

§ Mr. Banks
Heavens, I have flushed out the old ticket collector.

§ Mr. Snape
My hon. Friend's wit has flushed out the same old argument, but flushing it out and peering at it does not make it any more attractive. Neither my constituents nor those of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle could get to Paris via Stratford. Whatever the froth, verbiage or wit from my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), he has not told us how to do that whether we are asleep or awake.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind the House that we are discussing the passenger concourse building. We must not widen the debate.

§ Mr. Banks
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is continually provoking and goading me. I must tell him that I prefer his speeches when he is asleep rather than when he is awake, but I must let details about our personal relationship outside the House pass by.
We are being asked to agree to the demolition of the Great Northern hotel. The sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), was disingenuous—I do not believe that he intended to be so, because he is an honest and honourable man—because once the Bill is passed, the pressure on the Department of the Environment, particularly from the Department of Transport, will be irresistible and listed building consent, 876 for the demolition of the Great Northern hotel will be given. In effect, we are being asked to override the listed building consent, and what the hon. Gentleman said is a technicality, which amounts to nothing. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has already made that point.
I served as a member of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure and we noticed that the promoters of private Bills continually used private Bills to get around the usual planning procedures. On this occasion, the Select Committee considering the Bill saw that and stipulated that listed building consent was necessary. Unfortunately, that has erected only a very minor obstacle in British Rail's path and it has not safeguarded this grade 2 listed building.
Once we have agreed that the Bill should go ahead, it would be inconceivable that the Department of the Environment would stand in British Rail's way. Even in the event that it did, the matter would go to the Secretary of State, and it is most unlikely, given that the Government and the Minister support the Bill, that the Secretary of State would refuse to give his consent to demolition. We must acknowledge that as a fact of life. All the technicalities in the world will amount to nothing in the face of realpolitik.
The hon. Member for Keighley talked about Norman Foster's design. I am sure that it will be an excellent design, but we all know the sights that we will see in the new concourse, in the guise of the extra facilities that the hon. Gentleman described. There will be Sock Shops, Tie Racks, Casey Jones instant hamburger joints and Knickerboxes where hon. Members can buy frillies on their journeys north. Such places will add nothing distinctive to London—nothing different from what we can see on any other station concourse.
I have said that the development at Liverpool Street is a sympathetic one, but even there the same sort of retail outlets are to be found. There will be no difference in Norman Foster's building.
In effect, the House is being asked to agree to the demolition of yet another listed building in London—the Great Northern hotel. I hope that hon. Members, especially colleagues from the north, can remember the old Euston station building with its concourse and arch. Just to show that this is not a narrow party political point, I recall that that wonderful building was destroyed under a Labour Government. Can anyone claim that the new Euston concourse and station front are superior to the original building? We threw away a great piece of railway history, and I suspect that we will do the same to the Great Northern.

§ Mr. Martlew
I know the new Euston station well, just as I knew the old one well. My father was an engine driver who took trains into it. For those of us who have to use the new station as passengers, the new station is greatly superior. The old one was a disaster. We should not have to keep buildings just because they are historic and look nice; we have to consider the passengers using them. If we do not, that is a recipe for disaster in the 21st century.

§ Mr. Banks
That is certainly an argument, but I can think of many counter-arguments. The Palace of Westminster is not particularly convenient for the work of Members of Parliament, nor is it a particularly convenient building for visitors. So let us demolish it. I am sure that we can build a more effective building for our work. I note 877 that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle nods in agreement, but I suspect that he would run into some difficulties, perhaps even with the Department of the Environment, if he tried to demolish the Palace.

§ Mr. Martlew
I should be delighted if this building were closed down and made into a museum. We could then build a new government building just south of Manchester and remove the Government from London. London has too much influence on how the rest of the country is governed—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind the House that we are not discussing the merits of the Palace of Westminster or of Euston station.

§ Mr. Banks
I entirely agree. My hon. Friend led me into giving a comparison, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have often suggested that we should have a moving Parliament that tours other parts of the country. Carlisle would make an excellent stopping place, as would Manchester, Bury—you name it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I long to see those towns for longer periods than I have spent there before.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle suggested that we close down this building, but he did not mention demolishing it. We are discussing the demolition of a building. I agree that the new Euston station is more convenient for passengers, but surely with the architectural skills that we still have in some measure in this country it is possible to combine the best of the old with the best of the new and not just start again from the floor, to to speak. I am sure that it would have been possible to preserve some of the architectural integrity and distinction of the old Euston station while combining it with the modern conveniences that passengers require. That should not be beyond our architects.
It would be easier for London representatives to accept this clause if we knew that there was some way of marrying the excellence of Norman Foster's design with the design of Mr. Cubitt for the Great Northern. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Keighley does not seem prepared to offer us that. If he will give us an assurance that the House will be given another opportunity to consider whether the Great Northern should be demolished, I might be a little more satisfied. If he cannot, I shall support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury which, whatever hon. Members may think, is certainly not an attempt to destroy the Bill.
It is an honourable course to want to preserve one of the nicer buildings of London. People who come here do so not to see our empty office blocks, to inhale our noxious air full of the exhaust of motor vehicles or to enjoy our weather; they come here to look at our buildings and to stay in some of our quainter hotels. Those hotels are disappearing apace and being replaced by Hiltons and Sheratons—the sort of hotels to be found in any other city around the world. In a chain hotel it is impossible to know whether one is in London, Tokyo or Rome—it cannot be guessed from the interior.
In the Great Northern hotel, however, people know that they are in one of the great Victorian railway hotels where they can see the bed where Mr. Gladstone laid his grey and venerable head. Anyone prepared to walk with heavy boots over the memory of Mr. Gladstone is risking the anger not only of Londoners but of parliamentarians 878 of many former generations. People should think carefully before they do that, because Mr. Gladstone might return to haunt them while they are walking around the Sock Shops and Knickerboxes of the new concourse that will link these two stations.

§ Mr. O'Brien
If people are still sleeping in the bed that Mr. Gladstone occupied in the Great Northern hotel, that is reason enough for its demolition. It should be modernised along the lines that British Rail is contemplating. If that is the best that the Great Northern can offer, it is time we looked at what provision we are making for tourists. If that is the best on offer, we are failing to encourage tourism in the area.
However, if we have a new development and connections between the north-east and the north-west on that campus, there will be many benefits for many people who, I assume and hope, would favour the channel tunnel development. Are we saying that because a grade II listed building must remain, my constituents and the people of Carlisle and other places in the north will be denied the facilities that are associated with the channel tunnel? We cannot pay the price of maintaining the Great Northern hotel, a grade II listed building, if that means that my constituents and others in the north will be sacrificed and unable to benefit from the channel tunnel.
Clause 7 refers to the development of a passenger service concourse. That is just part of the development of the facilities for the use of channel tunnel passengers. I hope that, after this episode, British Rail will introduce a programme whereby we in the north-east, the north-west and the Border areas will be told how the freight trains will transport goods from the north of England, through London and to the channel tunnel. That is not mentioned in the Bill. I hope that after tonight's debate, we shall hear some explanation to allay my concerns and those of my colleagues about what will happen in regard not only to passenger services, but freight services also.

§ Mr. Chris Smith
My hon. Friend has touched on an exceptionally important point. The issue of freight and of how we can ensure that freight can reach the channel tunnel from all parts of the country is extremely important, but hitherto the Government have said not a word about it. There is no proposal that freight should go through King's Cross. At the moment and as far as we can understand, it is intended that freight will go round London. We have not heard any clear statement from the Government on that issue, and it is high time that we did.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind the House that we are discussing clause 7.

§ Mr. O'Brien
I am referring to clause 7(1), Mr. Deputy Speaker, which states: In this section 'the designated land' means the land in the London borough of Camden". I hope that references to the designation of land for development do not apply only to the provision of passenger services because we must consider other facilities, such as the provision of freight services.
I rest my case on the fact that I believe that substantial advantages can flow from the development of facilities in the King's Cross-Euston-St. Pancras area and that people from the north can benefit tremendously from them. I have supported my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, 879 South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) in the past on the issue of environmental assessments because I believe that his constituents must be protected against developments that might interfere with their quality of life. However, when it comes to the question of whether to retain a grade II listed building, and to weighing the consequences of its retention with the loss of advantage for millions of people in the north of England, I must appeal for the decision to be taken in favour of the people whom I represent in the north of England. I hope that my hon. Friend will see the value of those points.

§ Mr. Chris Smith
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has made what appears on the surface to be a persuasive case, but the institution of the passenger concourse that British Rail is now proposing between St. Pancras and King's Cross on the land referred to in clause 7 is not in any way an essential requirement to ensure that people in the north-east and north-west can benefit from the location of the international station at King's Cross. It is an adjunct to that basic requirement. The removal of clause 7 would not in any way damage the interests of the people who wish to travel from the north.

§ Mr. Waller
I am sorry to have to press the hon. Gentleman on this point, but does he agree that if, for the reasons that I mentioned earlier, it were impossible to develop any new concourse, all travellers—both long-distance travellers and commuters—would be seriously disadvantaged if the existing facilities had to be relied on? Would there not be great difficulty in overcoming the requirement for the existing concourse in front of King's Cross to be demolished if its temporary designation were not renewed, even assuming that there was not a big question mark over the length of time for which it can be renewed?

§ Mr. Smith
In so far as the hon. Gentleman is referring to the inadequacies of the present concourse, he is entirely right, because it is not sufficient to cope with the existing passenger load at King's Cross. If 15 million extra passengers a year are to travel through King's Cross, the problem will be considerably worse. However, that is not the choice before us. I do not have the slightest doubt that it is possible to preserve the Great Northern hotel and to create a new concourse between King's Cross and St. Pancras and to do both without damaging the interests of travellers from the north. I am sure that, if British Rail applied its mind to that task, it would find it perfectly possible to come up with a solution.
I should like to answer a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) about the links from the new passenger concourse—not to the north-east, but to the north-west. As my hon. Friend said, that is of fundamental importance to many of our colleagues who represent constituencies in the north-west. The ability to get from the new passenger concourse, to which the amendment refers, to Euston station, which is the obvious and main link to the north-west, is an essential part of British Rail's case for the entire Bill. However, British Rail has not been particularly candid about the link to Euston.
On 25 November 1990, when we debated the carryover motion, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said: All that I can say on the fixed link between Euston and the new complex"— which is what we are considering in clause 7— —because I mentioned that a number of options are still being considered—is that it will he a dedicated link. Some of 880 the roads in the vicinity which are owned by British Rail, for example, may be used and a bus may travel on a dedicated route or on a dedicated track. At this stage, I cannot say what the link will be, although I can say that it will be a dedicated, high-quality link."—[Official Report, 25 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 686.]
We are entitled to ask both of the Government and British Rail what precisely this dedicated high-quality link will be. The House will recall that the original British Rail proposal was for a travelator linking King's Cross and Euston. Let us leave aside the fact that a travelator would have to be at least 1 km in length and require a journey, moving at the sort of speed at which travelators at Heathrow airport move, of 20 minutes. British Rail then discovered that there was a slight problem about linking the new passenger concourse at King's Cross with Euston by a travelator. It would have to run directly through the six-storey basement of the British Library, which has just been built at enormous public expense and which lies slap-bang between the new concourse and the link to Euston and the north-west.
Having discovered that a travelator would not be the easy answer that it supposed it to be, British Rail appears to be saying that such a plan is not on—there has been some discussion between British Rail and local authorities in the north-west—and it is looking at other options. Among the options is a subway with a partial travelator. This would involve a travelator for part of the way and then passengers would have to walk, carrying their suitcases, for the rest of the way. Another option is a subway on its own, with no travelator. That would involve a walk of 1 km to get from the channel tunnel train at King's Cross to a train to the north-west at Euston. For many people, a walk of that distance would be a discouragement to making the journey.
Another option is a light rail transit link between stations. If it were to be effective, that would impose a substantial extra cost on the operation. Another option is a bus route from one station to the other, perhaps through all the local residential streets that have recently been subjected to traffic calming measures and the exclusion of substantial vehicular traffic.
I say to my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the north-west that the assumption on which everyone entered discussions about the Bill—that it would be easy and simple to get from the channel tunnel trains at King's Cross to the trains to the north-west from Euston—will not hold. Unless and until British Rail comes clean on how the Euston link will be managed and created, there will be continuing doubt about that link. I say that because this is an important point, relating to the issue of the new passenger concourse dealt with in the amendment and because my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle was right to raise a question mark over how sincere British Rail is in assuring us that links to the north-west will be readily available.
The debate on this amendment has ranged reasonably widely. At the outset, I raised two points that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) then failed to address. The first involves a point of principle. That is, that it is wrong for the House, by means of private Bills, to take planning decisions. The second point is that British Rail has submitted a planning application to the London borough of Camden for the outline permission that is set out in clause 7. By that action, it has admitted that it has no need to seek the powers in clause 7.
881 8.15 pm
The hon. Member for Keighley made one valid point —that there might be, he was advised, some work below ground that required, as an essential ingredient, parliamentary authority. If that is the case, British Rail should be seeking authority for those below-ground works and not including as part of them the above-ground works for which it does not require parliamentary authority. Clause 7 specifically says: The Board may in, on, over or under any part of the designated land make, maintain and operate the passenger concourse". Therefore, even if British Rail does require parliamentary authority to carry out works under the designated land, it does not need to come to the House for authority to do so in, on or over. That is the argument that lies behind the amendment, and I commend it to the House.
Amendment negatived.