HC Deb 02 April 1993 vol 222 cc795-802

2 pm

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

It is regrettable that the important subject of the channel tunnel rail link has to be raised exclusively by me on the day before we adjourn for Easter. We have not been afforded the opportunity of a full and comprehensive debate in Government time on a project which will have a major and lasting impact on the economy and the lives of the people of the United Kingdom, probably for a century or more. That is a great tragedy, bearing in mind the engineering achievement and technologies that have been developed to create that wonderful rail link under the channel. The United Kingdom will not only have a delayed London channel link, it will not have the best either.

The history of the matter is a sad tale of meanness, Government dogma, short-sightedness and political expediency, which culminated in the announcement of the route by the Secretary of State for Transport on 22 March. The line that he announced is not based on considerations of transport, geography or geology; nor is it based on primary engineering considerations. The route has been dictated by politics, principally to protect the interests of the Conservative party and to minimise its embarrassment rather than by any attempt to maximise the great engineering opportunities that are presented by the tunnel.

The tunnel history is in three chapters. First, the southerly route was canvassed. It was the swiftest way from Dover to London and had immense logic because such a route would have maximised the tunnel's opportunities for the United Kingdom. However, the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, laid down in tablets of stone that no public money would be available for the project. As a result, the Ministers who had to decide the matter were caught between the choice of a cheap route which would cause enormous environmental damage in Kent and south-east London or one that which would have to be shifted because of the legitimate outrage of people whose homes, lives and businesses would be blighted or destroyed in those areas.

No money was to be made available for necessary tunnelling or to ameliorate harm. Therefore, there was an internal political row in the Conservative party which dictated that the swiftest and most logical route would not prevail, but, instead, a route to the east of London would have to be sought. I recognise that there are hon. Members in all parts of the House who rightly champion the interests of their constituents in this matter.

It would be hard to reach agreement in the House on the best route, but Labour Members can legitimately charge the Government with their refusal and failure to test any of the route options at an independent public inquiry or some other form of hearing such as the one held by Lord Justice Roskill into an airport some years ago. Such an inquiry would have been able to examine the best and cheapest ways of maximising the benefit of this great project for the whole United Kingdom, taking into account the limiting factors imposed by cost and environmental concerns. That is what should have happened and should still happen; instead, we have been presented with a route dictated by political considerations.

After the Government's move to look for an easterly route to minimise the political damage, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), then Secretary of State for Transport, arrived at the Conservative party conference in October 1991 to announce what he described, with much trumpeting, as an "historic" decision on the line of route. I commend to anyone interested in the history of these matters a number of articles written at the time, particularly the one by Tony Helm in the Sunday Times on 13 October of that year. Others in The Independent by David Black, Colin Brown and Michael Harrison—on 10 October—and in The Times of the same date were also instructive about the real motives for seeking the easterly route.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mackinlay

In no circumstances will I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

The Sunday Telegraph article said that the then Secretary of State for Transport had decided on a southerly route. It said that he was prepared to resist all the pressures from within his party. He had pored over the decision for many months and was determined to see the southerly route through. British Rail's plan for a southerly route also looked cheaper and was far more advanced than those its rivals, including that of Ove Arup, which is broadly the route that we now have. The report in The Sunday Telegraph, which I choose to believe, went on: Mr. Rifkind stuck by his guns until the eve of the party conference and insisted he would not announce any decision at Blackpool but would do so as soon as Parliament returned. Then, suddenly, on the Monday morning everything changed. Rumours circulated that the right hon. and learned Member for Pentlands had been caught in a last minute political pincer movement between the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), then Ministers with different portfolios from those they now hold.

It emerged that the Secretary of State for Transport was outnumbered in Cabinet and had to concede the easterly route, largely because of the looming general election which could not be long delayed. This version of events is substantiated by numerous articles of the time. The new decision was bad for the United Kingdom, but once it was given at least all the interested parties concerned—local authorities, residents, those promoting various channel tunnel projects—had some certainty. There was at last what was deemed to be a settlement of the issue, albeit inadequate. Some months later, keen readers of the Telegraph newspapers discovered that, following changes of Cabinet portfolios, the current President of the Board of Trade managed to persuade the Cabinet that the route needed to be reviewed yet again! It emerged some months ago that a major rethink was under way. It represented a betrayal by Ministers and an overturning of the former Secretary of State's decision—at enormous cost to the British people and the promoters of the channel tunnel projects.

When I challenged the Minister for Public Transport about this a little while ago he conceded that a further review of the route decided on in October 1991 was under way. He described it as a local route variant within the broad route corridor. It has emerged since that it is a major departure affecting large parts of Kent and my Essex constituency. It is not in the best interests of my constituents and it further dilutes the benefit that the United Kingdom can gain from the channel tunnel project. As a consequence, there is now acute blight in my constituency and other parts of the south-east. For example, people in the Pepper Hill area of Northfield in Kent fear that the route will affect their houses and make them extremely difficult to sell.

My complaint is that the proposed line of route has never been tested at any independent public inquiry and never will be. That is undemocratic and it flies in the face of all our practices. If you, Madam Deputy Speaker, wished to put a small construction at the end of your garden, you would have to seek planning permission. If you wanted to construct an airport, you would have to seek planning permission. If your applications were refused, you would have the right and opportunity to test those refusals and argue your case at independent public inquiries. The Government and Union Railways, who are promoting the route, will deny local authorities, businesses, individuals and, indeed, the country the opportunity of testing the proposed route against normal planning, environmental or engineering criteria. That is an example of what Lord Hailsham referred to as parliamentary dictatorship. The Government will ignore the legitimate views of so many people and railroad—no pun intended—this route through, regardless of the impact that it will have.

Mr. Nigel Evans

Will the hon. Gentleman give way? It is just a short intervention.

Mr. Mackinlay

I made it abundantly clear that I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman in any circumstances.

Mr. Evans

Why? What are you afraid of'?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)

Order. I think that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has been here long enough to know that it is entirely within the capacity of the hon. Member who has the Floor whether he gives way or not—especially in a short Adjournment debate which, it is understood, is divided between the Member raising it and the Minister replying.

Mr. Mackinlay

On 22 March, the Secretary of State tried to reassure the House that there will be a minimum period of consultation. All the evidence shows that that is a shama—charade. He also went on to say, and I have checked Hansard, that the consultation will be led by Union Railways, which is promoting the project and will be judge and advocate in its own court. The environmental impact will not be considered. The route will be imposed on the south-east regardless of the objections.

On the same day, the Government published a document, "Channel Tunnel Rail Link: An Independent Review". It is so independent that it was commissioned by the Department of Transport. That is somewhat cynical. Paragraph 48 of that document makes it abundantly clear that no criteria are laid down for judging the full environmental impact of such a project, despite the fact that the British Government should have laid down such criteria to fulfil the spirit and letter of the European directives on environmental impact assessments. No one will have the opportunity to say, "The Government and Union Railways are not applying the criteria that they should." As with so many other projects, the Government have proceeded slowly in laying down the criteria necessary to fulfil the European directive on environmental impact assessments.

It is a tragedy that the Ove Arup route—the easterly route—was chosen without assessing all the options at some form of independent, quasi-judicial hearing. As I have already said, if we have to have the easterly route, it is reasonable to expect the Government to be consistent and to stand by the decision taken in 1991. They have reneged on that and it is fair to ask why they have done that.

It is clear that the profit motive has become the primary, not the secondary, consideration. When I challenged someone at Union Rail about why the route had been altered to the disadvantage of my constituents, I was told that it was because the previous route, which took the line along the Dartford marshes and crossed the river Thames in the vicinity of the Kent-Essex boundary with the former Greater London council area—a proposal which was acceptable to many people—had overlooked the development potential of the Dartford marshes. There was, therefore, a need to shift the route.

I suspect also that the latest route is intended to go a little south of the area of Blue Water Park, Northfleet so as to maximise the opportunities where there is an intention to build a massive retail park. In my view, that is not a legitimate or primary reason for shaping the line of the route and I believe that it is wholly reprehensible that such considerations should enter the equation.

The route will cross the River Thames in a tunnel in the vicinity of Stoneness point. It will pass beneath West Thurrock power station which, incidentally, ceased production this week. It will emerge at ground level in the Oliver road trading estate area and then pass beneath the approach road to the Queen Elizabeth II bridge at the Thurrock-Dartford M25 crossing. This engineering exercise is breathtaking. The line will come out of the ground, pass over the approach road to the QE2 bridge, but also go through the piers of that great engineering project. That is like passing a thread through the smallest of needles. I am told that it can be done, but it is breathtaking bearing in mind that there will have to be the highest and steepest rail gradient in Europe—1 in 40—to achieve that. That wonderful fast train will have to negotiate a massive hill on its way to London. I doubt whether that has been fully and critically examined from an engineering point of view and I suspect that it is the product of the Government and Union Rail trying to rush the project through for the political reasons to which I referred earlier.

The line will then cross open land north of Van den Berghs on a viaduct crossing London road, Purfleet at the Stonehouse lane junction. It will run parallel to the Purfleet bypass on its southern side, crossing the brow of the hill of the Purfleet bypass in a cutting. It will then pass the northern edge of the Mardyke Park estate on a viaduct. The Mardyke Park estate is a very attractive, modern private residential estate in which people have invested their savings. They are very happy in that wonderful environment, but, under these proposals, they will have to endure a viaduct overlooking their properties. There will, in addition, be appalling noise consequences. The route will move on in a westerly direction towards London and merge with the existing London to Tilbury and Southend railway.

That is the position as it affects my constituents. It is grossly unfair that they should be hit in that way, with minimum notice, when the Minister confirmed in 1991 that they would not be so affected. This is a great betrayal and I make no apology for saying that it is the fault of the Conservative Government and of Conservative Members. I should like to know what help will be provided for those who are blighted. Will we have a full debate in Government time in which this whole wretched issue can be reviewed and scrutinised by hon. Members in all parts of the House? Will the Minister tell us the timing of the hybrid Bill, which will be the last opportunity for me, for my constituents and for the local authorities to try legitimately to frustrate this crazy route? How and when will Parliament be told how the project is to be funded?

The Secretary of State said that he still hoped to attract private funds. I have no objection to that for this project or. for many others, but I say on behalf of the United kingdom that the channel tunnel rail route needs to be in place as quickly as possible and that it needs to be the best. The route now being proposed is not the best. It is time the Government decided how the route, whichever one is chosen, is to be funded. They have signally failed to do that. Clearly, there will be enormous congestion on our railway network in decades to come because of the Government's failure to realise the needs of the channel tunnel project on its way to London from where it will give continental access to the rest of the United Kingdom.

I apologise for detaining the House at some length, but I point out that this is a matter of great importance to my constituents which is causing them great distress. They and many thousands of others in Kent and Essex have been treated grossly unfairly. Above all, the whole story is one of failure by the Government to do what is fair and best for the people living in Kent and Essex, and to do what is in the best interests of the United Kingdom generally.

2.20 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris)

The one point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) is that this is an important subject. I know that not only the hon. Gentleman but those of my hon. Friends who are affected by the route are concerned about this major project. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) in his place and I know that he has taken a deep interest in this matter.

I was rather disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's contribution. I had hoped to be able to answer some detailed questions. What we got was a rather inconclusive, third-rate, sixth-form rant about the evils of the Conservative Government, which did not take him or his constituents any further. To assist the hon. Gentleman, I will suggest the questions that he might have asked me and which might have helped his constituents. I will then give the answers to those questions. At least there will then be a constructive contribution to this important debate. I note that my hon. Friend for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is also in her place and I know that she, too, has also taken a great interest in these matters. I see that she is breathless in anticipation of my remarks.

The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's rant appeared to be the absence of a public inquiry. The hon. Gentleman should know that, throughout the process of refining the route, Union Railways discussed the options available to those planning the route with representatives of local authorities, necessarily on a confidential basis, so that it could be sure that it was aware of the authorities' plans for the future and of other relevant matters.

Formal consultation with the authorities will take place over the next six months and it is recognised that authorities will wish to comment further from today. That consultation is vital and valuable, and it will give some scope for enhancing the horizontal or vertical alignments of the route. For the Government simply to have published all the options without stating a preference would not have been progress—it would have been going backwards. The Government want to take the project forward and to put an end to the blight that is the real enemy of the public interest in these circumstances. We want to bring about the benefits that will come with construction of the railway. There has now been an opportunity for the House to look at the details of my right hon. Friend's statement of 22 March and at the documents published in support of it.

The channel tunnel rail link, threading a route through the garden of England, across the Thames, through the edge of Essex and urban east London is an extraordinarily large project in its scope and imagination. I suggest that such a scheme cannot take place without some environmental impact. It is extraordinary that, for a 67 mile long route, the impacts are surprisingly few; only 11 residential properties are required to be demolished along the whole route. It has proved possible to produce an environmentally sensitive route which—crucially—the country can afford. It is important to appreciate the painstaking process through which the consultation process had to go to produce it.

The easterly route corridor was selected by the Government in 1991 because it has less environmental impact than other options and because it could foster regeneration in the east Thames corridor. I remind the House that there was all-party support for that choice. All the work since to optimise the route has proved that the original selection of the corridor was right. The route selected was conceived by Ove Arup and had been engineered in sufficient detail to prove its feasibility and to provide a reliable basis for comparison with the other principal options. Clearly, the selected route then had to be refined by comparing all the localised route options within a broad route corridor.

We have achieved substantial cost savings without any reduction in the level of environmental protection. The environmental standards applied are those used for other major transport infrastructure projects in this country.

On the section of the route local to the hon. Member for Thurrock, my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), all of whom are affected by the proposals, the section between Gravesham and Ford presented particular challenges because it has to include a crossing of the Thames in a fairly built-up area. Contaminated land is also an issue and there are extensive designations for nature conservation. We also had to provide for station options which will enable the east Thames corridor to reap the benefits of regeneration—and I stress the words "benefits of regeneration".

The route originally defined by Ove Arup had some significant environmental disadvantages, such as a serious impact on the Aveley marshes site of special scientific interest within Thurrock. Union Railways was duty bound to find out whether those impacts could be eliminated or reduced by local adjustment and Ove Arup was appointed as the lead consultant. It is impossible to devise a route that is devoid of environmental impact and the adjusted route for the section is described as "acceptable" by Union Railways' environmental consultants, compared with the description of "very difficult" for the alignment originally proposed by Ove Arup.

As a result, more of the proposed route will be in Thurrock, but it is important not to base snap judgments on that fact alone and to consider the whole section from Gravesham to Ford when deciding on the preferred option. The cost saving on that section is about 15 per cent. of the cost—£70 million on £490 million—but the issue is that the route for consultation is markedly better in environmental terms.

I will deal with some of the matters affecting the constituency of the hon. Member for Thurrock. He mentioned Mardyke Park. I know the area well—the hon. Gentleman knows that we are all familiar with it. He was quoted in his local newspaper as saying that the scheme would ruin "the quality of life" for thousands of his constituents. His contribution to the debate has thus been to wipe hundreds of thousands of pounds off the values of homes on the Mardyke Park estate at one stroke. I remind him that no homes will need to be demolished in Thurrock. There will be a need for environmental mitigation measures. That has always been understood. There will also be a need to incorporate screening and whatever else may be necessary to prevent unnecessary impact on homes. It is entirely right and proper that we should consider such matters during the consultation period. I have no doubt that residents of the area will find that their concerns are met. It does the hon. Gentleman's constituents no favours whatever to turn this into a great anti-Government rant for his own party political purposes, given that it is their homes that are on the line.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

That's the trouble.

Mr. Norris

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West for picking up that pearl of English usage.

The same is true of the industrial estate. The aim there will be to relocate any jobs displaced within the area. Considerable effort will be devoted to that and the rail link will also help to create substantial numbers of jobs in the east Thames corridor. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Thurrock is suggesting that there are enough jobs in Thurrock already. I have not heard him prosecute that argument before. I can tell him that my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and I would be more than happy to have those jobs; perhaps the hon. Member for Newham, North-West would, too.

The basic thesis that the hon. Member for Thurrock has advanced is that the whole exercise has been conducted without reference to public interest or concern. That is a false premise. The hon. Gentleman does his constituents no favours by pursuing that line. What I advise him to do in future is to consider in detail, in a properly studied and measured way——

It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.