Croydon Tramlink Bill [Lords]

HC Deb 21 July 1993 vol 229 cc403-86

Order for Second Reading read.

7 pm

Mr. David Congdon (Croydon, North-East)

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

This private Bill is jointly promoted by London Regional Transport and the London borough of Croydon, and I am pleased to introduce it. The purpose of the Bill is to seek powers to enable the construction and operation of a tram system to be known as tramlink, connecting the centre of Croydon to Wimbledon, Beckenham, Elmers End and New Addington.

London Regional Transport has a general duty to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services in Greater London. It must pay due regard to the current transport needs of Greater London, and to the efficiency, economy and safety of operation. Croydon council has numerous statutory duties, especially as a highway planning authority, and is also empowered to produce an economic strategy. The new unitary development plan for Croydon has identified the need to develop efficient and reliable public transport as an attractive alternative to the car, while, at the same time, promoting environmental policies as an important consideration in any new developments. The council considers tramlink—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

To take up the hon. Gentleman's point about environmental policies, why have the promoters not been able to respond to the petition from the Open Spaces Society and the Ramblers Association? They suggest that, since much of the scheme will take up public open space, it would be logical for the promoters to find compensatory open space for the land.

Mr. Congdon

The scheme has been designed to minimise the impact on open space. I shall say a few more words about that later. However, there is already a large amount of valuable open space in Croydon and the promoters believe that the impact on open space would be limited; therefore, they were not able to meet the demands that have been outlined by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). It is significant that the Association of Croydon Conservation Societies supports the Bill.

I am sure that hon. Members are aware that London is suffering from severe congestion in its public transportation system, both on roads and on the public transport network. The CBI has estimated that the cost of the congestion of London's transport system amounts to a staggering £10 billion per annum. Hon. Members will also be aware of the pollution effects of cars on the environment. Studies have been undertaken to propose long-term solutions to those problems in central and Greater London.

Following the successful promotion of the scheme to authorise the construction of the Docklands light railway, London Regional Transport and British Rail carried out a joint study into the contribution that light railways could make to the improvement of transport in London. A report published in 1986 identified a number of areas where light railways could be of value. Chief among those was a system based on Croydon, using a mixture of BR lines and new construction to link Croydon with its adjoining boroughs. Further work was carried out with the active co-operation of the local council, and in 1987 a system of three routes was identified as economically viable, physically possible and of great benefit to the economic life of the area.

In 1989, further reports were prepared for the Department of Transport on the transport problems of various parts of London. One of those, the south London assessment study, related to Croydon and its adjoining boroughs. The report identified existing traffic problems and traffic congestion as the most important issue. Those reports generated a lot of concern in south London, because their key proposal to alleviate the transport problem in London was major, massive road building. Politicians of all parties and local interest groups objected strongly to those proposals, and they were rightly dropped.

The reports also examined other proposals such as traffic management measures, junction improvements, road widening and new routes. Bus priority measures and the restructuring of bus and British Rail routes were also included. Croydon council has implemented many of those road and junction improvements to make better use of the existing road network, but it also concluded that a more ambitious approach to the problems of congestion was required, which, at the same time, would offer substantial environmental and economic benefits.

Mr. Piers Merchant (Beckenham)

I follow my hon. Friend's logic about the need to ease congestion, and I share his feelings about problems with building more roads, but does he agree that it would be far better to use existing British Rail infrastructure to improve links in that part of London rather than put in new infrastructure? Does he accept that running trams down the centre of roads in Croydon will hardly ease traffic congestion?

Mr. Congdon

The Bill proposes using a lot of existing British Rail track. However, there are problems because British Rail track is quite inflexible and difficult to extend to other areas. One of the advantages of introducing a light rail system is the greater flexibility to extend it to other areas.

My hon. Friend is right to mention impact on roads where light rail has to run, but it is possible, with good design and traffic management measures, to minimise any impact to enable the light rail to run on existing roads.

Mr. Nick Hawkins (Blackpool, South)

My hon. Friend will be aware that the first constituency in the country to use electric trams was my own of Blackpool. We were the one town, not only in this country but in western Europe, never to abandon trams. We are delighted that my hon. Friend and his colleagues in Croydon are proposing to bring back trams, because they are very successful. I know that his scheme is based on the one that is already operating in Manchester. I strongly support his comments about the ability of tram schemes to lessen congestion and to run along roads.

Mr. Congdon

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. Like many hon. Members, I have experienced the joys of a Blackpool tram on a wet and windy night at certain party conferences in that illustrious resort. I have also visited Manchester. The small impact of Manchester's light rail system in terms of noise and visual intrusion is striking. At one stage during the drawing up of the proposals for the light rail system, I had the pleasure of visiting Wimbledon. The contrast between the noise of British Rail trains on the track and light rail has to be heard to be believed.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes (Wimbledon)

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has trodden the path between Croydon and Wimbledon, a path that we hope will become a light rail in due course. I look forward to much interchange between our constituencies.

To take up the logic of my hon. Friend's point about using existing rail, as would be the case in my constituency, that is nonsense if one does not continue the logic so that the rail ends where the existing rail at present terminates at Wimbledon station. I understand that the proposals are for a terminus elsewhere, which would be nonsense for my constituency.

Mr. Congdon

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that the promoters would have preferred an interchange into platform 10 at Wimbledon station. When the Bill was deposited, it was quite clear that no agreement could be reached with British Rail, which understandably took the view that it might want to extend other services for which it would use platform 10. That has caused my hon. Friend some concern, as it has some people in Merton. Now that the issue has been reviewed, although it was thought at one stage that the proposal would run into the buffers, British Rail considers that there is merit in looking at it again. A feasibility study by BR has stated that in principle it is prepared to allow tramlink to use platform 10.

I know that the promoters hope that discussions with BR will continue, to arrive at the solution that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes)—and they—would like, as the scheme would greatly benefit from a full interchange at Wimbledon station. There is no doubt that the proposal in the Bill has always been viewed as a second best alternative. We would like the full interchange at Wimbledon along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests.

Earlier, I was discussing the studies carried out in Croydon. The council concluded that the tramlink scheme offered the prospect of a revitalised public transport system and a credible alternative to transport by car. It also concluded that the system could be reliable, quiet, efficient and accessible to all. It would improve the environment and the amenities of the locality. As a result of this conclusion, Croydon council resolved to develop tramlink in conjunction with LRT.

Before becoming a Member of this House I had the pleasure of serving as a councillor in Croydon for 16 years, the last six of them as deputy leader to Sir Peter Bowness. In that capacity, I was a member of the tramlink working party, set up to enable senior members from both sides of the council—including the leader, deputy leader, Councillor Mary Walker, who was leader of the Labour group, and others—to make progress with the proposal and to offer guidance to officers working on the complex issues involved.

I pay tribute to the genuinely bipartisan approach adopted by all in that exercise. I also pay tribute to the commitment of members and officers of the council. From this cross-party coalition there emerged a recognition of the significant benefits that the scheme would bring to the area. I hope that the same bipartisan approach will be shown in the House tonight.

The project is, and has been, an example of how good cross-party support for a scheme can bring great benefits to an area. It is also an excellent example of local government working well to the benefit of its people.

The scheme would connect central Croydon with Wimbledon, Beckenham, Elmers End and New Addington. The Wimbledon branch would extend frorn the terminus near or—I hope—at the BR station to central Croydon. The line will use the existing BR branch line and will replace the rail service between Wimbledon and West Croydon. It will provide for an interchange with other BR services at Wimbledon, Mitcham junction and West Croydon. The line will provide a more frequent and attractive service, with additional stops connecting residential areas with rail services into London.

The branch connecting central Croydon to Beckenham will share an existing alignment with British Rail services. A disused British Rail alignment will also be used, and new track will be constructed where necessary. This line will connect the highly developed commuter areas of Beckenham, Elmers End and Woodside with Croydon, as well as providing an interchange with British Rail services at Beckenham.

Mr. Merchant

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the interchange at Beckenham junction will not run into Beckenham junction station but, like the one a t Wimbledon, will be of the type that will involve passengers wishing to change from tramlink to British Rail, or vice versa, coming out of one station, walking down the road and going into another? It is thus incorrect to describe it as an interchange.

Secondly, is my hon. Friend aware of the strong opposition to the scheme in my constituency? It also is bipartisan, embracing the Labour and Conservative parties in the area.

Mr. Congdon

I understand some of my hon. Friend's concerns about Beckenham, but I should have thought that the interchange was a reasonable way of enabling people to transfer from one service to another. I emphasise that the whole link, from the edge of the borough of Croydon into Beckenham junction, runs along existing British Rail track. We are not even talking about taking up track, as we would be in some parts of Croydon. The track is still on the ground, providing BR services.

Mr. Merchant

I apologise for pressing my hon. Friend on this, but I must correct him. He has just told the House that a section of the line will be newly built, running in my constituency along parts of South Norwood country park.

Mr. Congdon

I apologise if I have misled my hon. Friend. I was taking into account the fact that, under a proposal recently agreed by the Boundary Commission, the park will shortly become part of the London borough of Croydon. Anyhow, once the line leaves the country park, it runs entirely on British Rail's existing track. I am happy to clarify the matter.

The third route, the light rail branch to New Addington, starts off using a partly disused British Rail alignment, but thereafter most of the route into New Addington has to be built through open land. By that I mean that, in the main, it goes along the edge of open space, not across the middle of it. This new line will provide the first ever rail service to the New Addington estate. New Addington has a population of about 25,000 and is the largest residential area in London without a rail service.

The central section of tramlink comprises a loop connecting West and East Croydon BR stations to the Wimbledon, Beckenham and New Addington branches of tramlink. This section will be built in the street as a conventional tramway, incorporating a variety of road traffic schemes to integrate the new system with the transport network.

The promoters are anxious that tramlink should meet, as far as possible, the needs of all members of the community, with particular attention to the needs of the elderly and the disabled. Accordingly, they are committed to making the whole system accessible to people with disabilities. All aspects of the scheme, including the design of the stops and rolling stock, will be subject to the closest scrutiny, to maximise accessibility. An important example of this is the fact that the floor level of the trams will be very low, allowing easy access from raised footways and low platforms to be provided at tram stops.

I know from my involvement with the working party in Croydon that great care has been taken to minimise the impact on homes and on the environment. For example, to connect New Addington with central Croydon, the system has to cross some very sensitive environmental areas—especially Addington hills, an attractive wooded area. Members of the working party were most concerned that the initial proposals would have meant a line running straight through the middle of this valuable open land. That working party felt it essential that the line should, instead, run up the edge of Addington hills. After a lot of technical discussion, the experts, I am pleased to say, came up with the proposal in the Bill. Consequently, the route runs along the edge of the road and does not cut straight through Addington hills.

That is a very good example of the promoters' desire not to cause environmental difficulties, particularly to valuable open space. I am pleased to say that that sensitive approach to crucial environmental issues adopted by the working party and the promoters has underpinned the development of the scheme. I believe that it now achieves its objectives with the minimum impact on the local environment.

Hon. Members will be pleased to know that I do not intend to go through the Bill clause by clause, although they will want to know about one or two. of its important features. It is promoted by London Regional Transport and Croydon council. It is intended that the construction and operation of tramlink will be undertaken by the private sector, which will bear the commercial risks and responsibility for the success of the system.

Mr. Bennett

Assuming that the Bill gains Royal Assent, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the whole scheme will be completed as one entity, or is there a risk that the private sector may decide that one bit is financially viable and other bits are not?

Mr. Congdon

I welcome the hon. Member's intervention. The promoters' intention, as I understand it, is that all parts of the scheme will be built and financed by the private sector and that it will stand or fall in its entirety.

A very important part of the system is the link to New Addington. That link is a costly part of the scheme because it involves the construction of much new track. It provides a valuable link to the large community of 25,000 people, who currently do not have a rail link and are totally dependent on buses or cars. We all know the problems of getting into urban centres in the rush hour, when we can be subject to all sorts of delay. The proposed link will offer those people a particular benefit, and that is why it is part of the integral system.

The key part of the scheme is that the commercial risks and responsibilities rest with the private sector. It will provide the major part of the funding. An element of Government funding could well be required, but that would have to reflect the public benefits that the scheme will generate, especially to other route users. The major proportion of the total construction cost would still be provided by the private sector. No subsidy will be provided by London Transport or Croydon council for the operation of the system.

The scheme is an excellent example of how the private sector can make a valuable contribution to the provision of transport infrastructure. I know that the Government attach great importance to the private sector assuming such a role, and it is a further reason why I am happy to support the Bill.

Such an arrangement has the distinct advantages of easing the burden on the public purse by maximising the private sector contribution to the scheme at a time when there are many competing demands for new transport projects. It will also reap the benefits of private sector enterprise and expertise. Such active co-operation will allow the promoters to call upon considerable worldwide expertise in the introduction and operation of modern light railway systems.

The private sector is already heavily involved in the scheme. The project development group, comprising London Regional Transport, Croydon council and their three selected private sector partners—including a major British construction company—has begun to take forward the development and detailed design of tramlink. The private sector participants are already—I stress the word "already"—committing their own resources to the process.

The scheme enjoys the unanimous support of Croydon council, which has voted in favour of it, and is strongly supported by the Croydon chamber of commerce and industry, which is a consortium of 1,300 local businesses. The scheme is also supported in principle by local trade associations, environmental groups and the neighbouring boroughs of Bromley. Sutton and Merton. A high degree of public support for it was expressed during the consultation period. There are some local objectors, and I welcome the fact that they will have the opportunity to express their concern in Committee.

Tramlink provides an exciting opportunity to introduce a modern, clean, reliable and, above all, safe transport system, which will enhance the quality of public transport in a large area of south London. It will improve the environment by encouraging the use of tramlink for many business and leisure journeys. It will offer for the first time a congestion-free alternative to using a car for travel between major commercial, retail and residential centres. London needs and deserves the best system of modern, environmentally friendly and convenient public transport.

The Bill has completed all its stages in the other place, and has been closely scrutinised by a Select Committee there. I hope that hon. Members will agree that it is a most worthwhile scheme that should be given every encouragement. I urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, so that a Select Committee of the House can have the same opportunity to examine the scheme in detail.

7.25 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

I do not plan to oppose the Bill at this stage, but I wish to make it clear that I have some misgivings about it. I am firmly in favour of the development of new tramways, because if we are to solve congestion on our roads, they have a very useful future.

It is important that the people who promote such new schemes persuade the local communities that the entire scheme is worth while. At least one Conservative Member has referred to the experience gained in Manchester. It should be noted that in Manchester the schemes that have been brought into use have basically used existing British Rail track and service. A small amount of track has been constructed within the city centre. In trying to develop new schemes in Greater Manchester, considerable problems have arisen when the developers have wanted to run the tramway down residential roads. I know that you will call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I say too much about Manchester, but it is important to recognise that that system represents the transfer from a railway system to a tramway system.

On many occasions in the House, I have suggested that the procedure in which we are involved is a total farce. This may be the last occasion that the House has to go through this pantomime with a works Bill. Most hon. Members will be aware that, some 18 months ago, the House passed the Transport and Works Act 1992, under which we developed a much more sensible way in which to deal with such Bills.

The only reason that we are dealing with the Bill now is that it officially started its progress in the House of Lords under the old procedure. It was generally accepted that anything that had been originally presented as a private Bill should be allowed to continue in that fashion, but that we would not let any future Bills follow that process.

I think that the Bill demonstrates the faults in the old procedure. It must be nearly two years since the Bill was originally tabled. The whole process of private Bills was designed to encourage the promoters to negotiate with the petitioners and agree a solution that was acceptable to everyone. It is quite clear that the Bill had a heavily contested passage through the House of Lords and, equally, it will have a heavily contested passage through the House.

I am very disappointed that the promoters have not taken more time to meet the ramblers and others who have objections to the loss of open space without compensation, and to find a way of meeting their objections. I would plead with the promoters, even at this late stage, to enter into negotiation.

As many hon. Members know, it is easy to spin out the procedures involved in this type of Bill. No doubt, in a week or two, we will have a carry-over motion, where there will be scope for several hours of debate. It may be necessary for the promoters to find 100 Members for the closure. Depending on the day on which the motion is tabled, that could cause considerable difficulty.

Then there will be the Committee stage, which is supposed to be a very judicial process, in which four hon. Members, who know nothing about the scheme, are selected to listen to the objectors. We know that there are often manipulations behind the scenes concerning who is selected as Chairman of the Committee. Two votes may well decide the outcome of the scheme. If the Government are enthusiastic, the Chairman will come from the Government side. That seems to have more influence on how a proposal progresses than all the arguments of the objectors. Even when the Bill has been through that process, there can still be a Committee stage with amendments and a whole series of other procedures that can drag it out.

If the scheme is really worthy, it seems logical for the promoters to do some deals at this stage to get rid of the objections and find a compromise with the objectors so that they can speed the Bill on its way. I hope that it will not be necessary for me to return to the subject.

I will concentrate my remarks now on the points put to me by the Open Spaces Society and the Ramblers Association. If such schemes are worth while and if they are going to reduce congestion and speed up transport, it should be possible to compensate for the open space that is taken by the scheme with other pieces of open space. In most places, promoters of light public transport schemes have made great efforts to find compensating land.

It is sad that, on this occasion, Croydon council and London Regional Transport have been unwilling to find that compensating land, not because it is impossible to find any, but because of the economics involved. I stand to be corrected, but I think that it is London Regional Transport that wants to make a profit out of land that it can sell on the open market and LRT is not prepared to offer it as compensation for the land that has been taken.

I would argue strongly that, in almost all our urban areas, preserving open space is important. Obviously, it must sometimes be taken for schemes, but it is usually possible to find some land to compensate for it.

Mr. Merchant

I support the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Is he aware that the same problem exists in the southern end of the Beckenham area, where the South Norwood country park will be traversed by new construction for tramlink? That will detract from a valuable amenity in the area and people feel that, if that has to be done, compensating land should be provided.

Mr. Bennett

I do not want to get into the detailed geography of the area, because I do not know it very well, having looked at the area on the map at fairly short notice, and also because it has been a long time since my grandmother lived in Beckenham and I used to go out to some of those places. If I were pushed, I could take the House on a ramble around my childhood activities in the area and point out that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] No, I will not be tempted tonight, but I might have to do so on another occasion.

I could point out that many of the places over which I could have rambled some 40 years ago have now been built on. One of the problems in most of our urban areas is that open space has been substantially taken up by housing. As a result, we lose the open space for animals and vegetation. Often, the land becomes fragmented and its quality is destroyed.

Kids also lose open space where they can go and, without breaking the law, get up to a certain amount of mischief. Such activity can be extremely annoying if it occurs at the bottom of one's garden or on a street corner where a gang of teenagers congregate. Kids often make a noise. When someone comes out and tries to move them on, there may be a bit of friction. It might become a bit of a game, people may become annoyed and then the police are called in.

It is very difficult for the police if, strictly speaking, the law is not being broken. However, the police want to try to calm such situations down. If there is informal open space, youngsters almost always disappear there and do not annoy adults or pensioners. Where space is taken in such a scheme, it is very important that some space is provided as compensation.

Mr. Congdon

The particular piece of open space to which my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) referred is South Norwood country park, which was created only a few years ago. It comprises 150 acres of open space. Even if we accept the objectors' statement about tramlink taking 13 acres—frankly, nowhere near that amount will be taken—we must put that into context and bear in mind the 150 acres, which were created as open space, on which it had been proposed to build housing and put light industry. The fact that the council decided to designate the land as a country park shows the seriousness that it attaches to creating open space. The council would certainly not wish to see any open space destroyed.

Mr. Bennett

The hon. Gentleman referred to 13 acres. Let us not argue about whether it is 10 acres or 13 acres. Let us just see whether some land can be provided as compensation. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can tell me how much of Croydon and the surrounding authority areas has been lost to housing and other developments since 1970. I suspect that a very large area of those authorities has been lost as open space.

I accept that part of the scheme crosses the country park. However, would it not be far more useful if compensation for that—if it cannot be added to the surroundings of the country park, which may be very good from the point of view of nature conservation—were provided in areas which, according to the map, appear to be very densely populated and which lack informal space where youngsters can get away from adults and not commit crime, but give vent to high spirits? Such activity is only natural for youngsters, but it can be very annoying if it happens at the bottom of one's garden or close to it.

I do not want to delay the House much longer today, but I want to set down a very firm marker. Under this procedure or under the new procedure for making orders, we should encourage people to believe that if they produce tramway schemes or any other works scheme that would take open space, they should look around for open space to compensate for that.

It would be particularly unfortunate if the argument for not providing compensatory land was not that such land is impossible to find, but that there are costs involved in providing that compensatory scheme. Although I will not vote against Second Reading today, I set down a marker that, if the promoters want to get the scheme into place quickly, they should find some way of meeting the objections of ramblers and the Open Spaces Society.

7.38 pm

Mr. Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South)

I support the Bill and agree with the sentiments of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) about the procedures that we are following. Many of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised have been raised locally and I am glad that he is prepared to keep his options open at the moment and will not oppose the Bill at this stage.

After all, the Bill relates to the principle of tramlink. It is certainly not the final word. It is an enabling Bill which simply provides for the transfer of powers to a private operator to construct and operate tramlink. The promoters can analyse whether they can raise the necessary funding and whether the construction is viable. They can then come back and persuade everyone that they have the right answers.

The tramlink scheme does not affect the south of the borough, which I have the privilege to represent. There are no proposals for lines to go down to Croydon, South, but I support the Bill because I believe that the economic development of Croydon is paramount, and that the tramlink will assist the economic development of Croydon and London. The financial viability of London as the commercial capital of the world has to be supported, and such projects will assist in maintaining the status of London, and Croydon as a part of London.

Those of us who pass through Croydon, or indeed Beckenham, know how much traffic congestion there is. If I have one beef about Government transport policy, it is the transport infrastructure black hole that exists in south London. I have approached my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London more than once about that. I have to accept that steps are being made to improve the infrastructure locally, and the access to Croydon and the proposed Coulsdon bypass are something for which the Government can take credit.

Mr. Merchant

I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks accurately about his constituency. He described an infrastructure black hole in south London. Is he aware that in my constituency, which measures three miles by two miles, there are 14 open and working British Rail stations? Does he call that a black hole?

Mr. Ottaway

I am sorry if I misled my hon. Friend. I was talking about road infrastructure. In my constituency there are 14 British Rail stations and we have excellent train links to the centre of London, which I shall mention later. However, no new roads are proposed for south London. Those of us who drive up the M23 from Gatwick, cross over the M25 and look at the stump of the old M23 will have to agree that it is a sorry sight. Sadly, if there was one blow that the Government struck against the borough of Croydon it was the abandonment of the M23 in 1979, for reasons that were valid at the time but did nothing to help access to Croydon, which is essential for its financial importance and interests. The proposed east-west link, which will complement the spokes that go in and out of London, will vastly improve access to Croydon.

I am impressed by three points. First, the proposal has wide support from the council, from the chambers of commerce and the vast number of corporate entities affiliated to them, and from local trade associations. I accept that some people object to the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) will no doubt develop his objections in due course. However, the House of Lords has already listened to the various objectors and was not overwhelmed by their objections. In paragraph 10 of its findings it said that it did not find against the Bill on the basis of the objections, but made the useful comment that the promoters seem to us to have demonstrated a sympathetic understanding of these petitioners' situation and a willingness to try to mitigate the effects of Tramlink on them. That comment shows the effectiveness of petitioning, but it is not grounds to oppose the Bill.

Mr. Bennett

Did not the House of Lords Committee hint that the promoters should negotiate with the petitioners between the House of Lords stage and the Committee in this House? As I understand it, the promoters have made few concessions, and hardly any of the petitions have been withdrawn.

Mr. Ottaway

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the next sentence in the summary. I confess that I am not privy to negotiations between the promoters and the objectors, but I understand that some steps have been taken and I accept that the House of Lords has recommended that an effort be made to reach a consensus.

Secondly, I am impressed by the relatively small number of properties affected by the proposals. I understand that only 25 houses are affected, which for a rail link 18 miles long is a relatively small number.

Sir Paul Beresford (Croydon, Central)

My hon. Friend says that few houses are affected. Will he explain what he means? Does he mean affected to such a degree that they need to be purchased, or is his description broader?

Mr. Ottaway

My hon. Friend comes to my next point. I meant that 25 houses will have to be purchased. There is a wider degree of blight, as is inevitable with such a proposal. The third point that impresses me, however, is that the promoters have undertaken that where blight notices have been served they will deal with them sympathetically and with minimum delay. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, who I know is most concerned about possible delays as a result of blight, will take note of that. Those three proposals remove many subjects of concern to me and enable me to support the Bill.

I still have four concerns, however, which I shall briefly mention. The first is that, frankly, there is still a lot of iffiness about the funding of the proposal. Understandably, there is no Government commitment at this point, but the promoters of the scheme will not start unless they are convinced that it will be financially viable. As a result, there is a higher standard of assessment of the risk. That is why private loans do not feature in the public sector borrowing requirement. Such loans tend to be more tightly controlled than Government loans and are therefore less risky.

That argument is at the heart of the privatisation debate. Private organisations tend to make a more detailed analysis of the financial risks. I hope that we can have greater clarity about how much public money may he forthcoming and how much might be needed to remove many of the concerns being expressed about funding.

On funding, one point has not been properly aired. Property that is enhanced by the proximity of the line will increase in value, and the beneficiaries might like to chip in towards the line's construction costs. That is not without precedent. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) smiles. He knows much more about local government than I do, but a precedent was established when the developers of Canary wharf, which will benefit from the construction of the Jubilee line, undertook to chip in towards the cost of that line.

The borough council owns some property near the tramlink route, but lacks the powers to sell it at the enhanced value and apply the proceeds to the scheme. I hope that in due course the Government will consider what powers might be needed to facilitate the sale, because that money should be readily available.

Sir Paul Beresford

Will my hon. Friend welcome the opportunity to visit the residents association of Lynden Hyrst, for example, where the residents feel that when they step on to the pavement the tramlink will virtually run across their toenails? Perhaps he would like to ask them how they feel about the benefit, and whether they would care to donate towards the scheme.

Mr. Ottaway

My hon. Friend's argument is valid, but it has nothing to do with my argument. If property is financially enhanced by the proximity of the line, its owners might like to chip in towards the cost of the scheme. Of course there are objectors. I have dealt with the objectors who are affected. The line is not going through my constituency, and none of my constituents objects to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central has constituents who object. No doubt he will deal with the matter in his skilful way.

My second concern is the disruption that might take place during construction of the scheme. I understand that in the city of Sheffield, as a result of traffic congestion, retailing fell by about 30 per cent. during the construction of the light railway. There is a pattern to shoppers' habits. If they know that they are likely to run into traffic jams in a certain area, they do not go there, and local retail trade tends to drop.

My third concern is the British content of the proposed scheme. I appreciate the promoters' efforts, but it must be accepted that two out of three promoters in the group are not British. What is the matter with the British? It is not much of a compliment to British industry if we have to rely on foreign input to build a tramlink in the middle of Croydon.

Hon. Members who have attended Transport Question Time, or, indeed, Prime Minister's Question Time, will have heard the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) banging on about subsidies that might be given to Asea Brown Boveri, which is based in his constituency. I happened to be driving past ABB in Derby the other day and I thought that I would look in and see how it was getting on. It certainly does not need help from the Government to get off the ground. I was impressed to hear that it recently won the contract to supply all the tram rolling stock in Strasbourg, of all places, the heart of the European Community and the home of the European Parliament.

Why cannot ABB try to win the contract in Croydon so that we could have a genuine British element in the scheme? I hope that there will be a fair chance for British bids to be fully appreciated. Of course we need a fair competitive basis for tendering.

My fourth concern is the possible spur off the proposed tramlink to Purley. I hope that, during analysis of the scheme, such a possibility will not be ruled out. Trams used to go to Purley, and that could happen again. My initial soundings reveal that there is no overwhelming local enthusiasm one way or the other for such an idea, but it should be discussed. Indeed, I approached the Purley and Woodcote residents association on that point. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will be pleased to hear that the association says that it already has reasonable bus and rail links from Purley to Croydon. However, trains from Purley to Croydon do not operate so regularly as trams would.

The scheme is imaginative, it has been well thought out, it will do much to ease traffic congestion in the Croydon area, it will add to Croydon's prosperity, and it has my full support.

7.52 pm

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

On behalf of the Labour party, I also welcome the Bill. Its concept of rapid, modern transport, which we have envisaged in our manifestos in recent general elections—circumstances have frustrated us in developing such themes—is greatly welcomed. The innovation and pioneering concept of the Bill's promoters should be recognised.

For a country the size of ours, very few modern transport projects have been promoted by any town or city since the second world war. Reference has been made to Manchester, and there is obviously docklands and Tyne and Wear, but there have not been many initiatives by local authorities, transport undertakings or, for that matter, Governments of either colour to modernise our transport system. This is a new and welcome departure, particularly as the scheme is in Greater London.

The immediate beneficiaries will be people who live in and near Elmers End, Beckenham, New Addington, Wimbledon, and along the routes linking those areas with the strategic shopping and commercial centre of Croydon. However, other residential areas and parts of south London will also benefit from the project. The link to Wimbledon will enable people who live along the Network SouthEast line serving Kingston and Sunbury to have much greater access to the eastern side- of the Greater London region south of the Thames, but to avoid the necessity of going to Clapham junction.

That theme can be developed further if one considers that people from Guildford travelling via Surbiton to Wimbledon will have access to Beckenham and Croydon while avoiding congested Clapham junction. They will have less travelling time. To complete the picture, I refer also to people who reside in Hampton Court or along the Chessington-Tolworth-Malden Manor line. There will be a great travel benefit to those people, too, if the line is linked with Wimbledon.

It has already been said that the project has all-party support in Croydon. As far as one can ascertain, there is demonstrable support for the project among the people of Croydon. That is very important, notwithstanding the representations of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant). The councils of the London borough of Merton and the London borough of Bromley wish the Bill well, at least in principle.

The Bill is only the first chapter in the project. If the project is to succeed and be constructed and, more important, be realised operationally, there is much to be done. Probably the most important aspect is the need for reassurance on funding of the project. We look to the Minister to give an idea of the extent to which, in terms of money and spirit, the Government will back the project. It is certainly a large project. We are talking about £140 million at a time of recession and commercial uncertainty. Therefore, we need significant backing and enthusiasm from the Department of Transport.

Many people who support the project are looking for reassurances either from the promoters or from the Department of Transport that it will be part of an integrated network. Implicit in that is the fact that tramlink must have a system of through ticketing with buses, Network SouthEast and, I hope, the London underground.

In a debate which, to a large extent, will be bipartisan, I hesitate to mention travelcard, but it is important that the Opposition should again remind the Minister for Transport in London that he and his Department have failed to give guarantees about the future of travelcard for existing public transport networks in London. That is bad and it is causing great disquiet. As we try to develop new systems of public transport in Greater London, the need for low-cost transferable ticketing throughout the various modes of transport in Greater London is underlined yet again. We should like a guarantee that travelcard will be not only used on existing transport networks but be extended to the Croydon tramlink.

It is inevitable that, in preparing for today's debate, hon. Members studied the report of the debate in another place. I was concerned to note that the principal sponsor, Baroness Gardner of Parkes, hinted that there might be a need for premium pricing to fund what is demonstrably an expensive project. That would be more than disappointing and would go against the spirit of promoting a modern, swift and cheap new form of public transport within Greater London. I hope that the sponsors and the Department bear that in mind during the Bill's parliamentary stages.

From my reading of the debate in another place, it appears that there were those who expressed an over-confident opinion about the funding for and the viability of the project. Although I wish it well and believe that it could and should be funded, it is somewhat shortsighted for their Lordships to take the view that the scheme will be largely financed by private capital and therefore subject to the most intense expert scrutiny by those putting up the money. There needs to be an undertaking from the Government about funding of construction and an undertaking that once the project is operational it will not be allowed to go bust, in any circumstances. That might appear to be an extreme scenario, but throughout the 20th century many public transport projects have subsequently been found not to be financially viable in strict commercial terms.

Once the project is completed, Governments of whatever colour must ensure that it survives. By then, where people live and work and much commercial activity will be based on the existence of that public transport system. Therefore, once the Bill receives Royal Assent, that commits all future Governments to being the ultimate guarantor—

Mr. Bennett

We want a guarantee not just that the project will survive, but that it will survive in its entirety. With any privately funded scheme, the concern is always that those putting up the money might say, "We have looked at the economics and part A is all right, but we are not going to put up the money for the other parts." If people are to lose open spaces and suffer other disadvantages, it is important that in return they get the whole scheme, with all the advantages, not just part of it. That is especially true in areas such as New Addington.

Mr. Mackinlay

I accept my hon. Friend's point, which he puts more ably than me, that Parliament will be making a decision that morally binds future Governments to maintaining the project once it is constructed.

Sir Paul Beresford

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the crux of the scheme is private funding and that that will involve bidding? To give any guarantee along the lines that he suggested would undermine the likelihood of realistic bidding from the private sector.

Mr. Mackinlay

I accept that the concept of the Bill is that the project should be commercially viable and that there will be bidders and franchises. During our debates on the Railways Bill, the Government stressed that entrepreneurs, companies and consortiums were prepared to fund transport systems and make a stab at operating them. The jury is still out on that. The hon. Gentleman buttressed the argument for privatisation by supporting the Bill in the Lobby. Therefore, I am surprised that he should question that principle in respect of the Croydon Tramlink Bill.

Sir Paul Beresford

The hon. Gentleman is talking about two different cases. The British Rail proposal involves negative bidding. The rail system exists and we want to keep it running. The Croydon Tramlink Bill is quite different. We are talking about the construction and running of a system. Because that has not started, any Government guarantee on finance would undercut the sharpness of the bidding from the private sector.

Mr. Mackinlay

I was not inviting the Government to issue a blank cheque or give a commitment that, as from this evening, they will underwrite the project. It would be naive of me to expect that from this Government. If there were a Labour Government, they, too, would hesitate to write a blank cheque. Nevertheless, if the Bill receives Royal Assent and some consortium constructs and subsequently runs this exciting project, but 20 years down the road it fails, the party that is in government must not allow the tramlines to be pulled up. That would be foolhardy. That is why we are at such an important stage; it sets the agenda not only for this project but for future projects.

Mr. Congdon

I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I urge him not to go too far down that track —if he will excuse the pun—because one of the important parts of the project is to put the bulk of the risk in the private sector. The private sector must be under no illusion in its bidding. It must rigorously go through, as it has, the estimates of demand, usage and fares, in the knowledge that it will not be bailed out in 12 months if it gets it wrong; to do so would he a misuse of public funds. Nevertheless, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that in the very long run it would be disappointing, to say the least, if we had the infrastructure but it was not used for trams. We need to strike a balance between ensuring that the risk is firmly in the private sector and avoiding a difficult problem 20 years ahead.

Mr. Mackinlay

I am content to say, "Hear, hear" to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. There is not a blade of grass between us on this point. He has expressed himself in the same spirit in which the Labour party approaches the project and with some confidence and hope that private finance can be found.

Like a number of hon. Members, I have some knowledge of and association with Croydon. I stood in Croydon, Central as a Labour candidate in the 1983 general election and, subsequently, in a much wider sphere as a European parliamentary candidate in 1984. l have some identification with and appreciation of not only the territory but some of the personalities involved—both those promoting the Bill and, in one or two cases, those petitioning against it. I am aware of the beautiful open spaces along the proposed route. I urge the Bill's promoters to remember that many of the points raised by petitioners are legitimate. An urgent attempt should be made to assuage their anxieties. Meeting some of those points would not be fatal to the project.

I want to mention a few of the points made by petitioners. In the other place, Lord Lytton argued that, before Royal Assent, there should be a scheme in place to ensure that blighted properties are bought, if the owners so request, with the utmost expedition. I hope that such purchases will not be confined to the 25 properties to which reference has been made. I hope that common sense and good will will prevail in respect of other properties that may suffer some degree of blight, or where personal circumstances—particularly affecting elderly or retired occupants—ought to be taken into account.

Many petitioners are not yet confident—although I believe that their concerns may be overcome—about the proposed design. The scheme should be sensitive to the needs of pedestrians and cyclists, particularly where the link goes through open areas such as Lloyd park. Also, the rail cars should take into account the needs of the infirm and semi-ambulant. Wherever possible, the line of route should segregate the trams from cars and lorries, if not from other forms of public transport.

Mention was made of the need to attempt to reinstate high-value land and to replace land that is lost. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made the valid point—this is a flaw in the Bill —that an assumption is made that the promoters cannot or will not find land to compensate for that used by the tramlink. Parliament should send a signal that, notwithstanding Croydon council's extremely good record of providing land on its own initiative, an effort should be made to replace land used for the route. One cannot be satisfied at this stage that that principle has been taken on board by the promoters.

The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), replying to an intervention, argued that a contribution could be made by those who will benefit from the line of route. I am not opposed to that principle, but inevitably there are people who have a rapacious appetite for commercially exploiting new public projects. There is anxiety in Croydon that Sainsbury would like to develop 36 acres at the bottom of Gravel hill on the Kent Gate way. Croydon borough council, as the co-promoter, has made it abundantly clear that it is opposed to that land being developed by Sainsbury—but it will not be able to stop Sainsbury legitimately pursuing through the planning process and a public inquiry an opportunity to exploit land that abuts the tramlink.

Prospective developers and others will inevitably seek to offer to contribute to the project in return for some advantage to themselves. That is a commercially legitimate practice, but we should be on guard against attracting resources to fund the project in a way that compromises good planning principles.

Mr. Merchant

Is not the hon. Gentleman also concerned that, if and when the tramlink starts operating, there might be pressure—particularly from the operator of the New Addington line—to construct park-and-ride areas? Given that the line will run through two miles of countryside and will attract few passengers, except from New Addington, the operator might want to provide park-and-ride areas to make that line more viable.

Mr. Mackinlay

The hon. Gentleman makes a legitimate point, about which I am not unsympathetic. In a number of areas, there will inevitably be a temptation to create park-and-ride facilities where none is currently planned. Equally, Croydon council is anxious not to eat further into open spaces or the green belt by making substantial and frequent provisions for park-and-ride. More thought must be given to providing a balance. The hon. Member for Beckenham suggests that New Addington will become one big car park, because that major junction will attract traffic from Biggin Hill and other areas adjoining Bromley.

There would also be extensive opportunities for undesirable parking in the Lloyd park area, in a number of streets off Coombe road. However, that is not an argument for frustrating the passage of the Bill tonight, but the Bill's promoters must give greater consideration to this point of great anxiety among the petitioners.

Mr. Ottaway

There are two aspects to be considered. The first is the Canary Wharf principle, whereby private developers that enjoy enhanced value could, as a condition of relevant planning permission, chip into the construction cost. I take the point about safety, but that could be a condition of planning permission. That concept is not unknown. Secondly, I understand that one or two derelict acres in the centre of Croydon, next to a railway line, belong to the local authority. That land will have enhanced value, but the borough does not have the power to sell it and plough the proceeds into the scheme. Perhaps the Government could address that matter.

Mr. Mackinlay

I am sure that the Minister and the promoters have taken note of that point. It is new to me, but it appears to justify further consideration.

Notwithstanding bus deregulation and privatisation, London Regional Transport should use its good offices to ensure that extensive Hoppa bus services feed the tram stops without causing unnecessary traffic congestion and parking problems.

Mr. Congdon

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about possible further encroachment on open space as a result of further planning permission being granted for a superstore or park-and-ride facilities. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Croydon council's urban development plan strengthens the safeguards in respect of the Kent Gate way? Although Sainsbury is fighting an inquiry, the company will be strongly resisted, as it should be.

There is a link between that and park-and-ride because other people take the view that the same land would make a wonderful park-and-ride site. I believe that it would be disastrous to use open space in that way, and I am pleased that the promoters take a similar view. They believe that the demand for the tramlink will be such that park-and-ride facilities would have only a small effect on the level of patronage. The promoters consider that the tramlink will be economically viable without park-and-ride facilities, and have not included them in the Bill for that reason. The promoters have no desire to see park-and-ride facilities provided.

Mr. Mackinlay

A number of petitioners consider that that point deserves more consideration; I agree, although I support the concept of the Bill. We do not suggest that there should be extensive park-and-ride facilities, for the reasons cited by the hon. Gentleman. I entirely agree with him about the Kent Gate way site: I would expect the London borough of Croydon to resist any applications to develop that land, just as I would expect Sainsbury to try —legitimately, from its selfish point of view—to obtain planning permission.

No doubt that will be sorted out later. The point is that the promoters do not seem to want to consider the parking that will be generated in New Addington, and in and around the Lloyd park area. More homework needs to be done.

The promoters' plans are very imaginative, but they will raise an eyebrow or two among those who are familiar with a very congested part of south London. It is proposed that much of Addiscombe road and the area immediately outside East Croydon station should be used almost exclusively for the tramlink; that will involve the redirection of traffic around Chepstow road, Barclay road and the vicinity of the Fairfield halls. Do the promoters really believe that—even given the widening of the area involved—there will be sufficient capacity to absorb the heavy traffic that must negotiate it? I feel that an alternative must be found.

Sir Paul Beresford

I understand that the current road widening is not related to the tramlink—so they say.

Mr. Mackinlay

So they say; but road widening is in progress. My point is that, whatever the motive and the funding for it, the promoters should reconsider the idea that the tramlink road should monopolise the area immediately outside East Croydon station.

We welcome the Bill in principle. It will be good for people living in the boroughs of Bromley, Croydon and Merton; it will also produce increasing benefits for those living and working in a much wider area of south London and north Surrey. We hope that it will have a good run in the House, and that those who examine it will bear in mind the need to explore new ways of providing mobility at low cost—in regard to both the workplace and recreation.

8.22 pm

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) on his skilful and persuasive presentation. He helped me greatly: now I need not detain the House long in explaining the Government's position.

We see the advantages of the proposed tramlink. In its non-technical summary of the environmental statement, Halcrow Fox said that the link was being promoted because present widespread traffic congestion at peak times in Croydon is predicted to increase by 15 to 20 per cent. between 1986 and 2001, affecting travel by bus and car and commerical operations and increasing problems of 'rat-running', noise, air pollution and other adverse environmental effects; scope for increasing capacity through new road building or widening existing roads is severely constrained and very unpopular with the public. According to the summary, Croydon council's transport strategy suggests that public transport should play a greater role in meeting the predicted demand for movement; light rail provides an attractive alternative to road building, increasing capacity on key routes with minimum environmental impact, and offers a real choice to travellers as against the car or bus. The Government consider that to be an accurate summary of the scheme's advantages. It involves a 17.5 mile link—or 28 km, as I should say nowadays—centred on Croydon, with branches to Wimbledon, Beckenham, Elmers End and New Addington.

There is no doubt that traffic congestion is a serious issue in Croydon, and that communications should be improved. I do not think that many people would suggest that a massive road-building programme is the answer; certainly, I do not believe that there is any local enthusiasm for such a move—even from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), whose reservations will be appreciated by other hon. Members.

However, a light railway system has advantages. For instance, it involves minimal environmental intrusion, and is energy efficient. No harmful fumes are emitted, as they are from cars and other vehicles. Moreover, choice, is enhanced: passengers have a real alternative to the car or bus. The Government consider the tramlink scheme worth while, and accordingly support the Bill in principle.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East pointed out, this is essentially a private sector project. That is very much in accordance with the Government's policy of involving the skills of that sector, as well as its capital, to the maximum extent to allow the transport infrastructure to provide the best value for money for both taxpayers and, ultimately, users. My hon. Friend referred to the work of the project development group. I can confirm that the promoters are making good progress: they have already appointed a private sector project development group.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) pointed out that two of the companies involved were not British. They are Transdev, the French operator of transport systems, and AEG(UK). Although AEG is not a British company—it is building the rolling stock—AEG(UK) will provide the United Kingdom with substantial employment opportunities. Tarmac—a British company—is also involved in building the infrastructure for the line.

Those companies are funding the development work themselves: private capital is going into the project development group. The work is now well advanced. Subject to parliamentary approval of the Bill, the promoters expect to be able to invite private sector bids for the concession to build and operate the scheme early next year, including one from the project development group.

Let me make two points about the way in which the project development group will work in relation to eventual bidding for the scheme. I suspect, from what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, that there may be a hint of misapprehension about the group's role. In wishing to ensure that the taxpayer's involvement was minimal at this stage, the promoters determined to use the device of a project development group funded by the private sector, with expertise drawn from the relevant sectors.

Those companies would, in effect, prepare a development brief which would then be the subject of tenders for the various aspects of the line—for its construction, for the construction of the rolling stock and for the operation of the line. At that point the project would be open for any company to bid, within EC rules. I should be disappointed if the only bid forthcoming was from the promoters.

Of course the promoters have become involved in the project, because they believe that it has a future, and no doubt they will want to tender for the work. I applaud their initiative in doing what they have done to provide mechanisms in the process for considering tenders that will ensure that members of the project development group do not enjoy an unreasonable advantage—that would be improper—but that, none the less, if the promoters do not win the contract, the costs that they have borne so far will be passed on to the successful bidders.

The members of the project development group are applying their skills to working the scheme up, and no doubt they look forward to bidding for the tender in open competition in due course. However, there is no guarantee whatever that they will be successful. If my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South is keen that British companies should be involved in tendering for the project, as he is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade he should use his extensive contacts to encourage as many British companies as possible to bid for the contract and beat off the foreign competition. The Government applaud and welcome the approach that the promoters have adopted towards the project development group. We think that that is the right way to proceed.

Grants have been mentioned, and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East said that an element of grant might be sought to support the project. I am sure that he and the promoters, and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), will understand the grant position well. The Government will consider any application for grant on its merits by examining the public benefits that will be secured by the scheme—those are conventionally known as the non-user benefits—and relating them to the amount of grant sought. I must not disguise the fact that we shall have to do that against the background of competing schemes and the overall availability of funds. The scheme is attractive, but it would be wrong of me to give guarantees about any level of grant that may be forthcoming in due course.

It is a great pleasure to see the hon. Member for Thurrock in his place. He is the Labour mascot for the other 15 Members of Parliament who represent Essex in the Tory interest. He is much loved by all of us and, I hate to say, will be greatly missed. However, if he will forgive me, I must tell him that I took exception to his accusation —I believe that I noted it accurately—that I had failed to give guarantees on travelcard.

Mr. Mackinlay

indicated assent.

Mr. Norris

The hon. Gentleman nods in assent. I do not know what I am supposed to say that would reassure him. He is a fairly literate chap, so I need not descend to monosyllables to make my point.

I was recently reported in the Evening Standard as having offered my resignation if travelcard were not to survive. As it happens, I had not done that, but when the next journalist rang to ask me whether it was true I thought that I had better say yes, because otherwise he might say that I was trying to climb down from the commitment.

Since then, I have repeatedly pointed out, and I welcome the opportunity to do so in the House, that anyone who understands how public transport operates in the capital city recognises that travelcard is not an option, but is essential. It is the method by which millions of people in this city make their journeys. If one did not preserve and develop the advantages of multimodal travel such as the scheme now offers, one would not be doing the residents of this great city a service.

Were it not for the appalling precedent, I would have been tempted to ask the hon. Gentleman to read my lips, but remembering when that expression was previously used, I thought that it might be ill advised. None the less, I tell the hon. Gentleman in the clearest possible terms that the travelcard is in no danger. It is safe in my hands—there I go again, with yet another inappropriate reference. I hope that I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that he should not be disturbed.

Indeed, I fear that my normally generous sense of humour might wane if he were to continue along that line, because I do not believe that he is the kind of chap who would like to mislead millions of people in this city and leave them in doubt about the continued availability of the most popular device for getting around it.

Mr. Mackinlay

rose—

Mr. Cohen

rose—

Mr. Norris

Before I give way to the hon. Member for Thurrock, may I give way to my good friend the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen)?

Mr. Cohen

I am grateful to my good friend the Minister for giving way to me. May I ask him two questions?- First, will the travelcard apply to tramlink? Secondly, although I appreciate that he is saying that he strongly favours keeping the travelcard, could that not mean a card completely different from the present travelcard? People can use the existing card all day to make as many journeys as they like, but could not the travelcard that the Minister means be one that runs out if someone makes too many journeys? Would that not be a completely different travelcard?

Mr. Norris

O, ye of little faith. It is important to relate travelcard to the Bill, and I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that everyone involved in the development of the scheme recognises that it should be part of the travelcard system, especially as about 70 per cent. of the people who will use tramlink will move on to other modes of travel.

Mr. Bennett

Where does it say that in the Bill?

Mr. Norris

It is not appropriate for that to be in the Bill, any more than it appears specifically in, for example, the Railways Bill. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Secretary of State will give the franchising director powers to require potential franchisees to be members of travelcard. I have made it plain that, with the leave of the House, I intend to introduce similar clauses in forthcoming legislation on the deregulation of buses in London. However, I must tell the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Leyton that negotiating the precise terms of entry into travelcard for Croydon tramlink is a matter for the promoters, for LT and for the other members of travelcard.

Mr. Mackinlay

rose—

Mr. Norris

Before I give way to the hon. Member for Thurrock, I shall answer the second question asked by the hon. Member for Leyton by saying that his fears are unfounded. The card will continue in the form that he and I—and millions of people in this city—recognise. No doubt the system will develop. For example, I believe that stored value ticketing, which will enable us to use the same facilities for transport as the phonecard currently provides for telephoning, is likely to be widely taken up.

Passengers will enjoy having a simple ticket, like the phonecard, which, if they need to get on the tube or the bus, will obviate the need for change so that they can use the system more easily. There is a great deal of merit in that. When one is totally convinced of the importance of the device in the public transport system, one is beyond the political stage of bantering about whether or not travelcard will survive. That parrot is well and truly dead.

Mr. Mackinlay

I welcome the Minister's reiteration that travelcard is safe: he has, in fairness, spelt that out in explicit terms this evening. Anyone reading the Official Report tomorrow morning who believed his utterances and his point to me in their entirety would also believe St. Paul who said within the walls of Damascus, "Quite honestly, I have always been preaching Christianity".

There was a stage when the Minister did wobble, to say the least, on the future of travelcard. The political reality —a London borough election next year—no doubt concentrated his mind. I welcome what he has said and if we can put the matter to rest, so be it, but it was important that we should have raised it tonight both in terms of the capacity of people to have the choice of ticketing throughout Greater London, through various modes of transport, and specifically in relation to the new, exciting tramlink. I hope that the Government and their successor will ensure that they are locked into a travelcard system as we presently know it.

Mr. Norris

I am sorry at the hint of sadness in the hon. Gentleman's voice that was implied by his reluctant acceptance that we might actually mean what we say. Of course, I understand that his deep knowledge of scripture brought to mind the concept of Pauline conversion, but neither that nor the London borough elections figured in my mind.

It is perfectly sensible, and it is important in the context of the Croydon tramlink, that the overwhelming view of operators, private and currently public, is that there is no need for legislative underpinning of a travelcard scheme because they believe that it offers huge advantages. They think that using a travelcard enables bus operators to get people on board much more quickly than currently. However, such an option to enter travelcard would not satisfy either hon. Members on either side of the House or myself. That is why I made it clear and quite explicit that travelcard will continue.

I sense that I would stray from the principal purposes of our proceedings tonight were I to digress further on the subject of travelcard and I shall not do so, but it is important. Of course, if 70 per cent. of the users of the Croydon tramlink transfer to other modes of travel, they will almost certainly want to do so with a travelcard. Therefore, the House should be aware that negotiations are foreseen by which Croydon tramlink would be part of the system. How revenue is apportioned is a complex calculation, as the hon. Gentleman knows, so I shall not go into it further.

The hon. Member for Thurrock said that he had been a prospective Member for Parliament for Croydon, although in my experience he had been a prospective Member for Parliament for most constituences before his happy arrival in the charming spot that he represents in God's own county. He asked for a guarantee that the scheme would not go bust. That was a breathtaking request, because it illustrates a profound ignorance of the way in which any market system works.

It certainly points me to the conclusion that one ought to draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the definition of the word "risk". The concept of transferring the risk in the project to the private sector is that it will be the job of the private sector to make sure that it is a profitable railway that offers a standard of service which customers appreciate and therefore continue their patronage of the railway. However, I cannot disguise from the House the accuracy of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North-East, the sponsor of the Bill, when he said that the essence of risk was precisely that there could be circumstances in which the owners of the project might have to seek alternative financing for it and that might result in the diminution of their own equity or even in its extinguishment.

The substantive point about which the House was concerned was whether the promoters could bring forward the Bill and then simply build parts of the tramlink. That point was raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, among others. As the House knows, I am not the sponsor of the Bill; my hon. Friend has done that job very ably in the House tonight. I merely remind the House that the Committee will no doubt wish to look at the guarantee that the whole project will be built. It will be a matter for the Committee. Its members are as yet unnamed and I can therefore say with some assurance that I know they will treat that matter with assiduity.

Mr. Bennett

I am sure that the Minister is aware ghat the Department normally gives evidence to the Committee on a Bill such as this. Will he confirm that, in his evidence, he will be asking for guarantees that the whole scheme is built, not just the more profitable bits of it?

Mr. Norris

I fear that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. He has been in the House long enough to know why. It is not appropriate for the Department to say that; it is for the Committee to determine whether it is appropriate and, if it is, to obtain it from the promoters of the Bill.

The Department will give evidence as to the desirability of the scheme, and the transport implications of the scheme; and, as I have told the House, the Department will be indicating that it favours the scheme.

The Bill has already passed its Second Reading and opposed Committee stages in the other place. The Committee there decided, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said, that the promoters had made out a case for the Bill to proceed and it was very complimentary about the scheme. There remain those who object to the scheme on various grounds and to various degrees—including, as I understand it, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham.

Mr. Merchant

I paused for a moment before intervening because I thought that my hon. Friend might be coming to a point which the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) raised earlier and which still presents quite a serious problem. What happens if the budget goes ahead and the railway is built? Historically, railways have often gone bankrupt, sometimes quite soon after they are built. Given that there is a good deal of injury to the people affected by the route being built, what happens if they find themselves with a new railway that has worked for two years and then cannot sustain itself?

Mr. Norris

My hon. Friend will understand that I am not speaking as the sponsor of the Bill but merely offering advice which I hope will be of help to him and his constituents.

Let me first explain that there will be no question but that compensation which is due to any person who is entitled to such compensation under the terms of the Bill, and in light of the scheme, will be paid. If the operators of the system become insolvent, no doubt they will have to seek an arrangement with their creditors, and if an arrangement ultimately results in their bankruptcy or liquidation, the responsibility for operating the railway will pass to another. As it will pass at a price which reflects the then partronage and ability to render the railway profitable, it will also ensure its rapid transition and its continuence.

My hon. Friend is well aware that there are many great buildings in London built by developers who did not survive. I remember reading an article in The Times by Simon Jenkins that pointed out that Cubitt and Nash, not to mention Reichmann, had all gone bust while building the greatest buildings in London. It may be a fate that will perennially beset developers with imagination. The last thing that happened was that the local council occupied the building or knocked it down. The facility is there and it will continue.

The merits of the scheme embodied in the Bill are such that I can invite the House to support it. The Government support it. [Interruption.] I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who says that if I say so, that is good enough for him. I look forward to him joining me in the Lobby later if required, although I hope that the Bill will receive an unopposed Second Reading.

I point out to those hon. Members who have it in mind to oppose the Bill—not that I believe that such a thought would pass through the minds of hon. Members—that it is an enabling measure. It will facilitate the development of the scheme to the point at which, for example, the project development group is able to make an application for grant. The amount of grant required and the efficacy of the scheme that is produced will ultimately be the test of whether the scheme will proceed.

The Committee will ensure that the legitimate interests of those affected by the Bill are properly dealt with. I have no doubt that it will examine carefully the point raised by the hon. Members for Thurrock and for Denton and Reddish about the necessity for adequate compensation. Knowing the promoters well—as the hon. Gentleman and I do—I recognise that they are organisations of substance and are not in the business of short-changing those with legitimate claims for disturbance or other compensation.

Although it is proper for hon. Members to express their concerns about the Bill, it is proper for the Bill to receive a Second Reading tonight so that it can proceed on its way to what it can represent—a valuable piece of imaginative and creative infrastructure in one of the most important development centres in the country, Croydon. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

8.52 pm

Mr. Malcolm Wicks (Croydon, North-West)

Before I add my support to the Bill, I was amused to hear the Minister refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) as the Labour mascot in Essex. I see him more as a beacon and a forerunner. Indeed, I know that role in formerly Tory Croydon, so I sympathise with my colleague.

While I welcome the Minister's support, I advise him, albeit humbly, to renew his acquaintance with a dictionary of political quotations over the summer recess. As he recognised when he was reciting them, to support the travelcard with "read my lips" and "safe in our hands" falls short of what we require. For a moment, I thought that we would get some Neville Chamberlain—waving the travelcard, the Minister would proclaim, "a travelcard in our time". The people of Croydon are locking up their travelcards tonight as they wait to get into hospitals that are safe in the Government's hands.

I have started on entirely the wrong note, because I rose to confirm the view of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) that the Bill has bipartisan support and the unanimous support of the substantial Labour group and the majority Conservative group on the Croydon council. Councillors have given their support after assessing the environmental factor and other factors that have been discussed today. They care about their environment and do not lightly support the measure. There is a strong consensus in Croydon for the measure, but there are some legitimate concerns that we need to recognise.

I have been told that Croydon last saw trams in 1951. Historians can correct me if I have got that slightly wrong. I am pleased that trams—albeit different, more modern and more energy-efficient ones—may soon be returning to Croydon as the first place in greater London for that to happen. That is an important factor.

I support the Bill for three major reasons: social, economic and environmental. I support it for social reasons because I am aware that the New Addington housing estate is isolated from the centre of Croydon in many respects. The estate has many strengths as well as many problems. In a sense, it is poor testimony to that phase of our housing and planning policy when such large estates were built.

Anything that we can do to enable the people in New Addington in the constituency of the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir. P. Beresford) to get better and faster access to the centre of Croydon, not least for employment purposes, will be an improvement. That is important because more than a third of the people of New Addington have no access to a car. As has been pointed out, there is no rail link for a substantial town of 25,000 people. In peak times, it takes a bus 45 minutes to get from Addington to the centre of Croydon.

Those are all important facts and powerful reasons for supporting a modern transport system, not least for the people of New Addington. It is certainly important for employment because Croydon, like other areas in the south, suffers from unemployment. According to official Department of Employment figures, 18.8 per cent. of the men in New Addington are unemployed. If we enable them to have better access to a wider employment market, that may make a helpful impression on that high unemployment figure. Therefore, I support the measure for social reasons.

Another social factor is the great diligence shown by the planners to make tramlink accessible to people with frailties or those who have difficulty gaining access to buses or trains. I am thinking of people with disabilities, especially those in wheelchairs, as well as people with heavy shopping or people pushing buggies. All those groups will welcome tramlink. The Bill is impressive in terms of the regard shown by the planners for ramps and ticket machines that will be accessible to people with disabilities. It will be possible for people to take their wheelchairs on to tramlink easily and information will be provided in braille for blind people or those with poor sight. I am impressed by the social policy aspect of the measure.

Like many business people and others in Croydon, I believe that the measure will have a positive impact on the economic health of Croydon. As has been said, it has been welcomed by the Croydon chamber of commerce. It improves, by definition, the east-west transport links. Therefore, its economic impact along the route could, broadly speaking, be beneficial. It also relates to a more national concern that was well articulated in 1989 by the Confederation of British Industry in a report on transport.

The CBI said, among other things, that the nation's transport infrastructure was hopelessly inadequate, that congestion had enormous economic costs and estimated them at £15 billion a year or in excess of £10 a week for every household—the costs of poor transport on our economy and our business often not calculated, often hidden. It went on to say: Public transport facilities should be greatly improved. Within our local economy of Croydon and other economies, tramlink helps to move things in the right direction.

We have rightly heard a lot about the environmental impact of the measure and clearly there are still doubts which have been articulated and which need further thought, as the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East is the first to recognise. We are still at the beginning of this story and there is time to improve on these matters. We need to make a balanced assessment and calculate both the potential negative impact on the environment and the beneficial impacts. We have heard about the former.. but not the latter.

Obviously, there are negative impacts. It may seem as though only a few houses will be affected, but if we lived in one of them, we would not want the railroad running through the middle of it. I will not break into song, although I remember one of that title. There may be only a few houses, but to those affected it is their house and it is important. I recognise that a larger number of houses will suffer an adverse environmental impact.

We must be greatly concerned about the impact on open spaces and the ancient woodland along the route. I am worried about these matters. An hon. Friend, who told me earlier that he had to leave the Chamber for a meeting, made some important points about open spaces. I do not know the details, but if we can persuade London Transport not to sell some open land for development, but to keep it as open space, perhaps we can make some environmental gain. I would be worried if we lost too many trees.

Let us see whether, through planting a wide variety of trees, we may come out of the scheme with more rather than fewer trees. I shall certainly urge the planners, as will my colleagues on the other side of the House who represent Croydon, to talk to the Ramblers Association and other organisations about these matters. I am bound to say that I am impressed by the way in which the planners, together with Labour and Conservative councillors, have loked at many of these things sensitively and in detail to develop a route that does the least environmental harm.

We have heard less about different types of environmental gains. We all know that in congested city areas, not least areas such as Croydon, the great enemy is the motor car. Many of us drive motor cars, so we cannot afford to be sanctimonious about this. We need to develop public transport systems with the right mix of public and private funding, which enable people often to opt for public transport rather than take the car.

The other day I looked at the 1991 census figures for Croydon and noticed that in part of the borough—indeed, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway)—some 10 per cent. of households now have three or more cars. We do not need to be very clever or great experts on conservation and the environment to know that we cannot go on buying more and more cars and using them more and more often. If, as a result of schemes such as Croydon tramlink, more of us are persuaded to use public transport rather than our own cars, environmental and energy gains become substantial.

I have been looking at figures and I am told that the car and motor vehicles more generally generate some 45 per cent. of the main greenhouse gas—carbon dioxide—and up to half the man-made emissions of nitrogen oxide. Those emissions contribute to acid rain. If one assesses the environmental impact as one should and develops an environmental impact statement for Croydon tramlink, there are items on both sides of the balance sheet, not just one. My judgment is that the environmental gains of the scheme outweigh the disadvantages. In Committee and through more consultation, we can look at those questions in more detail than perhaps we have so far.

Mr. Merchant

I accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument on pollution, and so on, but does he accept that tramlink would not be helpful in reducing pollution emissions from motor cars because the promoters say that only 10 per cent. of people who travel on tramlink will be taken from motor cars?

Mr. Wicks

It depends whether one regards that 10 per cent. as a significant or a small proportion. In the battle against the motor car and people's obsession with it, a 10 per cent. gain is important. It remains to be seen whether the atmosphere in the centre of Croydon will be improved if we can couple the tramlink with greater pedestrianisation and more curbs on the use of private cars. As in many other towns and cities, atmospheric pollution in Croydon is above EC guidelines and we should be concerned about that. I would welcome a 10 per cent. impact.

Concerns have been expressed by many groups and I want to meet those groups and hear more about their concerns. I wish to remain as open-minded as I can on those matters. Nevertheless, I am struck by the fact that the Association of Croydon Conservation Societies supports the measure in principle. I suppose that it welcomes its environmental impact.

For those three reasons—social, economic and environmental—I support the Bill. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South made a good point when he talked of the need to enable and encourage British companies to contribute fully to the scheme. As one of his humble constituents, I like to agree with him, and I agree with him on that matter—[Interruption.] I never tell people how I vote.

Asea Brown Boveri has already been mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) has in his constituency the works that are currently building trams. ABB is now building trams for Strasbourg, which is another important European city, alongside Croydon. It is building something called a "supertram". My hon. Friend has invited me to York to look at those trams—

Mr. Ottaway

The trams are being built in Derby. I know, because I went there the other day.

Mr. Wicks

I hope to go to York soon and have a more fruitful discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for York about the building of the trams. Things can happen in two places at almost the same time. My hon. Friend the Member for York is clear about where some of the trams are being built. If we can encourage British firms to put in good bids, gains will be made all round.

I am glad that the first trams in London for 40 years or more will be introduced before too long, with support from both sides of the House, in London's largest borough. In terms of population, Croydon would count as England's tenth city. I am bipartisan in regarding it as becoming a modern European town. It is already a major centre of business and retailing, but it has a council and community who care deeply about their environment and they support the measure for environmental as well as social and economic reasons.

I support the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East. The tramlink is good for Croydon and is on the right lines.

9.7 pm

Sir Paul Beresford (Croydon, Central)

It was intriguing to listen to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), who justified much of his position on this evening's debate on rambling. He said that he had been rambling through my constituency.

I entirely agree with many of the points that have been made, particularly those about New Addington. I welcome the prospect of a decent transport system for people in that area. I shall ignore the fact that the hon. Gentleman has pre-empted great portions of my speech while rambling across my constituency and the parks.

Considerable credit must be, and has been, given to Croydon council. It unanimously supported the Bill, and promoted and pushed it forward in conjuction with London Transport.

Many comments have been made about the positive aspects of tramlink—the light rail idea—and bringing together so many different councils, including Croydon, Merton, Sutton and Bromley, as well as London Transport and British Transport. That shows the difficulty which the council, as promoter, must have had when bringing together the different organisations involved in the project.

The scheme is essentially to be constructed and funded by the private sector. The fact that it is anticipated that it will be self-financing when it is up and running also highlights the extraordinary ability of the promoters in pushing the scheme forward.

The scheme's benefits have been mentioned. It will be a quiet, low-pollution service linking central Croydon with Wimbledon, New Addington and Beckenham—I suspect that there may be some dispute about that later. It will link trams, trains, buses. Many of the stations involved have been mentioned, including Wimbledon, West Croydon, East Croydon, Elmers End, Beckenham Junction, Mitcham Junction and Birkbeck. The potential benefits have been extensively promoted this evening.

I wish that, over the years, the same approach had been taken by the council and the Department of Transport to the M25 link with Croydon—but that issue related to earlier events today.

Much credit must be given to the promoters for the care and thought given to assisting passengers, particularly for shoppers and those using wheelchairs, prams and trollies, through the use of canopies over the bus stops and train stations, as well as modern technological devices such as automated ticket machines and information displays and television cameras. Those issues were mentioned by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West.

It is worth quoting from a fact sheet produced by the tramlink team in August 1992, which states: Whilst tramlink has been promoted by London Transport and the London borough of Croydon, it is intended that the scheme will be financed, constructed, and operated, by the private sector". That is an extremely commendable and bold statement, which greatly enhanced my attitude towards tramlink.

Unfortunately, the very next sentence in the statement states: A public sector contribution may be required to reflect the benefits to other road users of easing congestion". That may cause some Conservative Members difficulties. Such a scheme, which anticipates considerable public benefit, must strongly tempt my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London to slip into the scheme a pump-priming sum. However, such a proposal presupposes that, despite all the demands on the limited budget for future years, the funds will be available. It also presupposes that it would be only a small pump-priming fund.

The prospect of a tramlink in an urban district such as Croydon presents considerable difficulties for many people along the route, particularly where the route is new. Many residents live along the route that is already under way between Wimbledon and Croydon. Much of the route which runs through to New Addington is new. It has raised many fears with residents which may or may not turn out to be justified.

Certainly the residents' fears have been all too real for them since the initial planning of the development. The fears have been greatest among those who wish to sell their houses and move. The scheme will affect many of those people—certainly in their own minds, and those of the estate agents. Their properties will fall outside the normal remit of compensation. I know that purchase of the properties would be prompt, but many of the residents who qualify for compensation do not wish to have their properties purchased, but wish to remain.

I wonder why such a long and tedious technique—the use of the private Bill procedure to take the Bill through both Houses—was chosen. An alternative, which was available, has been mentioned. Given the openness and relative speed offered by the alternative, I was a little surprised that the private Bill procedure was chosen. There has been considerable consultation, and some support, but there has been also considerable vocal and written opposition. I have received one letter in favour of tramlink, but I have received hundreds—not all of which were organised—against the scheme. People are worried.

Nevertheless, the hundreds who wrote opposing the scheme will be probably portrayed as few compared with the numbers of people who will be served by the tramlink and who live further from the area of development.

I add my congratulations to the promoters. Many of the arguments in petitions have been met. Variations in the routes have been considered—perhaps the rambling of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) will be allowed to continue freely through my constituency.

Many points, even if they have not been met, have been carefully looked at and assessed, but a few things need elaboration, because we have still to come to the Committee on the subject.

Mention was made earlier of the Park Hill area. Many residents of Park Hill—with considerable justification—feel anger at the widening of Barclay road, Fairfield road and Chepstow road, and the bulldozing of trees that that has made necessary. I accept that the council has tried to replace the trees, but the claim that the project was needed but was not related to tramlink stretches the credibility somewhat.

The tram will run adjacent to properties in Addiscombe road and through the frontage of Lloyd park. There is justifiable concern in those areas. Many protestors anticipate environmental damage, and I have mentioned that the Lynden Hyrst residents association has been particularly vocal. I will use a slight exaggeration, but the residents feel that their toenails are trimmed by the scheme when they step out of their properties on to the pavement.

Many estate agents in the area believe that the development has reduced the value of local properties, but that will be overridden when the tramlink is running. I suspect that the estate agents will then use a reverse process and say that a property is worth more because the tramlink service is there, but until that day, there will be a considerable blight.

Going a little further, the tramlink service will progress down Gravel hill. The majority of local residents will be relatively unaffected—they will be across a multi-lane highway from the service, and also above it—but it is worth mentioning one petitioner; a lady who purchased a property before the announcement of the plans.

Her property is situated at what is effectively the bottom of the hill, where it is proposed that the tramlink will cross the multi-lane highway using an extensive and complicated system of lights. One can see in the plans that drawings that relate to tramlink noticeably—one could say, cynically—skirt the boundary of her property in such a way as to remove from the tramlink scheme the obligation of purchasing the property.

The lady would prefer to stay in her home—she has bought and extended it—but she does not want to stay with the tramlink running across her toes at the front of her garden. If tramlink proceeds, she would prefer to have her property purchased with full compensation. She would then move and start again. I believe that the promoters are looking seriously at the situation, and I encourage that. The knowledge that some public utilities may need to be changed in that area may well mean that the lady's hopes will be met.

It needs to be mentioned that the route will have a negative effect on the residents of the New Addington section in my constituency. Mention has been made of the prospect of park-and ride problems, and those problems need to be faced. However, the residents of Parkway and Central parade who live adjacent to the proposed tramlink face the prospect of living cheek by jowl with the route. That is particularly so when the route has to deviate to go around the medical centre. During the run-up to building the link, the perceived blight for those people will be considerable, even though the road is narrow at that point.

I expect that the blight will be considerable even when the tramlink is built, because that area is the stopping point at which the tram will move up to a blind junction and reverse down in front of and close to the properties of several people. Worst of all, I suspect that the rules and regulations on compensation are such that those residents will receive no compensation. I hope that I am proven wrong.

It is right that this paving Bill should progress through the House. The details show that it proposes a 10.-year period during which commencement of building must be undertaken. At this stage, we face the prospect of a £140 million building programme, but it appears that there is a touch of guesstimate rather than estimate in that figure.

Many of us are aware that the full assessment of the costs of key factors such as the realignment of public utilities has yet to be completed. I suspect that the original estimate of those costs may prove to be on the low side.

We need to bear in mind the importance of Croydon to such utilities as British Telecom, Thames Water, electricity suppliers, gas suppliers, cable companies and so on. I understand that building the tramlink will cause particular difficulties for British Telecom, because it has a key junction with key facilities at an important point. As I understand it, the effect of that has not yet been taken into account.

My personal view is that any funding beyond pump priming from national coffers would be wrong.

Mr. Merchant

My hon. Friend's point about British Telecom is a fair one. Is he aware that interference from electrical discharges would have an impact on British Telecom apparatus, and that large quantities of that apparatus would have to be moved? Does he agree that that charge should be levied on the promoters of the scheme?

Sir Paul Beresford

I understand that British Telecom will be a petitioner in Committee. It will probably be more appropriate to discuss points of such technical difficulty at that stage.

The promoters expect that the line will be self-sufficient once it is up and running. On that point, the most sceptical eyebrows have been raised. For example, the link between Wimbledon and West Croydon has been running for many years under the gentle hand of British Rail. The line is poorly utilised, and I understand that it is accepted as a loss maker. Anticipation of a marked improvement in use to such a degree that the viability of that line in revenue terms would be increased stretches credibility.

When one takes into account the fact that commuters may be required to pay a premium, especially at key peak times, one wonders about the potential viability of the line in the light of the competition that will definitely come from bus services as a result of deregulation and lower bus fares in real terms.

Mr. Congdon

Does my hon. Friend concede that one of the problems of the West Croydon to Wimbledon link is that British Rail has ensured that the service runs only once every 45 minutes, which misses out much of the market? More significantly, it would be linked only between West Croydon and Wimbledon, whereas tramlink links not only West Croydon and Wimbledon, but Wimbledon right through to East Croydon and beyond. That link to East Croydon is especially critical because it links Victoria and further south.

Sir Paul Beresford

I thank my hon. Friend for his points. The infrequency of the link could be related more to supply meeting demand, which, in that context, was not considered. I remain unconvinced that, apart from myself, the use of a line from Wimbledon straight through to New Addington would be of tremendous advantage to anyone. The attraction of using tramlink to travel from Wimbledon to Croydon and on to New Addington or Beckenham probably passes by most of the residents of Wimbledon and may continue to do so for some time, but I may be proved wrong.

There is the possibility that the Bill will be passed and left on the shelf for 10 years because the finances to build and run the scheme will not materialise. It worries me that, if that occurred, it would be difficult to remove the Bill from the statute book during that time. The plans will therefore blight the area for a further 10 years unless something is built into the Bill to allow Croydon council, perhaps, as one of the promoters, to withdraw it in the event that it proves not to be economically viable. Nevertheless, I support the Bill, as it is a paving Bill, because the crunch decision time will be when the bids are made.

9.27 pm

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)

I shall try to be brief, as I know that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) wants to speak.

I am a supporter of trams in London, although they are more like light railways these days than the old trams. Trams are an alternative to road building, and that is to be welcomed. I went to Croydon to look at the proposals for the scheme yesterday and also meant to see those who object, but due to the usual muddle, for which I take responsibility, I did not see them and I apologise to them.

There are merits in the proposals, as my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) said earlier. There would be big benefits in terms of creating employment, especially in the New Addington area, where 17 per cent. of the population of 25,000 are unemployed. The residents there are currently inadequately served, and under the scheme they would have the opportunity to get into central Croydon in 17 minutes, they would have access to part-time work in Purley, and they would have easy access to British Rail stations in central London. Those benefits should be taken into account.

Other advantages of an efficient public transport are the saving of travelling time, and a reduction in accidents and overall traffic congestion. However, I take on board the representations made by the objectors, that other traffic-calming measures would also be necessary if overall congestion is to be reduced.

My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made some good points about open space. One of my concerns was that the scheme would use the edge of woodlands, although it could be argued that it gives access to those woodlands. However, compensatory land and trees need to be provided, and the objections of the ramblers, for example, should be fully taken into account.

There should also be better compensation for those who are affected by blight. Such compensation relates not only to this scheme, but to many others where it is unfair that people on the edge of schemes do not receive compensation. The Department should look into improving the compensation schemes for people just outside the affected areas.

The trouble is that the schemes seem to be chosen at random—first docklands, now Croydon. Although they are worth while, there may be other areas that would benefit even more from similar projects. There is no co-ordinated Government approach to trams, and there have been no studies of where they might best be sited in London. There has been no commitment of public money, and local authorities have not been helped to encourage the private investment which the Government claim to want.

This is a serious criticism. The Government have not co-ordinated tram projects and light railways in London. There is plenty of scope for trams in east London; the docklands light railway could be extended to my part of the world—

Mr. Norris

The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair. The Manchester metro receives substantial Government support, as does the south Yorkshire supertram project. Indeed, the very purpose of section 56 is to provide grants for systems such as this. The hon. Gentleman's reference to east London reminds me of Barking, which has expressed an interest in a light rail project. We shall be interested to see what it comes up with.

The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that it would be quite wrong of the Department to set a national plan for light rail systems. Local communities should develop their own plans and then submit them to the Department. Such cases may be eligible for grant, and the Department considers each on its merits.

Mr. Cohen

I am grateful for that statement. I welcome the projects in Manchester and elsewhere. London lags behind the rest of the country. The Department has been a factor in that. Many local authorities wonder whether they would really find approval in the Department for schemes that may involve pump priming with public money.

Mr. Bennett

Would it not also be an advantage if rolling stock were interchangeable, and if encouragement were given to the buying of rolling stock made in Britain?

Mr. Cohen

Those are both good points, and they make the case for involving the Department and promoting trams throughout the country, particularly in London.

If mainly private money is involved, that is fine by me, but the gap will have to be filled with public funds. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) talked about a small element of pump priming, but for this scheme alone that is likely to amount to £45 million—probably good value for money, but hardly a small sum. I repeat that the Government should decide which areas should be given tram systems as a matter of priority, particularly in London. That is another argument for Department of Transport involvement.

There is some concern that fares may rise. I hope that they will he properly regulated, and that operators will not be given carte blanche to charge what they like. I also hope that pensioners will still be able to use their concessionary fare cards on the trams. With those provisos, I still think that there is merit in the scheme.

9.33 pm

Mr. Piers Merchant (Beckenham)

My views on this Bill seem to have had a good airing this evening already. It is almost as if, by a process of osmosis, hon. Members have discovered what I intended to say.

It will come as no surprise to the House to learn that I have serious reservations about the Bill: in fact, I do not like it at all. I have listened to the debate with great interest and I have heard echoes of my own concerns in many of the speeches given. I believe that, if one were to delve a bit deeper into hon. Members' views, one would find that many share a number of my grave doubts.

I have listened to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon). As I would have expected, he handled his brief with skill and charm. He is a close colleague of mine, whom I greatly respect; I admire his current work in his constituency and his past reputation as a councillor in Croydon borough. He is my next-door neighbour, so the House will not be surprised to hear me say that, but it is my genuine opinion of him.

I share my hon. Friend's views on most local issues, including the quality and quantity of British Rail services and the future of South Norwood country park, which are particularly relevant to the Bill. We have worked closely together to save the park from a proposed development by Bromley borough, which would have devastated it. I therefore find it peculiar that he is now supporting a scheme that involves some destruction of the park.

Mr. Congdon

I have never made a secret of the fact that I would have preferred the scheme not to go through South Norwood country park. There was an option at an earlier stage that the tramlink should go up Elmers End road, but, unfortunately, Bromley council was not prepared to accept such a route. I can understand that, but the decision was unfortunate; hence the need to go across the country park. I would stress to my hon. Friend, however, that the impact on the park has been minimised, and that the route goes nowhere near the environmentally sensitive areas of the lake and the wetlands.

Mr. Merchant

I appreciate that my hon. Friend has concerns about the country park, and I am glad that he has expressed them.

Two immediate options are open to the promoters. One is for the system to end at Elmers End. That would bring the system into the Beckenham area—which my hon. Friend and the promoters seem to feel is an important and significant location. It would probably be possible to build a park-and-ride facility there, because there is a great deal of undeveloped land around Elmers End station.

The tramlink will come in to Elmers End, but only on a tiny shuttle service, which is projected to carry so few passengers that one wonders whether it will be worth running an hourly service on the line. The rest of the route into Beckenham could be left aside.

If the promoters feel that there is an advantage to be gained from taking the link further into Beckenham—which I question—another possibility is for the tramlink to run further alongside the British Rail line up to New Beckenham. There is a British Rail line, running from Elmers End right through Beckenham, which stops at stations such as Clock House, which is as close to the centre of Beckenham as Beckenham Junction station. That line also provides a direct route up to central London. If I have time, I will express some broader criticisms of the route into Beckenham junction and the need for it.

I want to make it clear that, although I am very critical of the Bill and many of the things that the promoters have suggested, I am not critical of my hon. Friend. I appreciate his position; he is, in a sense, a vehicle for the promoters of the scheme. I also appreciate that he recognises the need to ameliorate the traffic problems that exist in central Croydon. But the essence of my case is that, if there are problems there that need tackling, I do not see why it needs to involve the Beckenham area and running a link right up to Beckenham Junction.

I shall now turn to some of the remarks that have been made by other speakers this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East, who put the case for the promoters, rather simply and quickly dismissed the possibility of running better services on existing British Rail lines. I should like to ask him, and through him the promoters, what detailed studies were carried out on the alternative routes that could have been built up around the existing British Rail system in that part of London.

I believe that, if such studies were carried out properly, one would see that it was perfectly possible to run a high level of service, if there is a demand for it, on existing British Rail lines, possibly with one or two fairly inexpensive adaptations, rather than building a whole new rail system costing, we are told, some £140 million.

Mr. Bennett

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that many of the problems between tramways in Britain as opposed to tramways in Europe is that Europe has a whole series of regulations that allow joint running between tramways and heavy railways? So far, those regulations do not exist in Britain.

Clearly, one of the problems with many tramway schemes is that they cannot run, even for short distances, on railway tracks on which heavy trains run. I realise that there could be a major problem with possible accidents, but I would have thought that, with modern signalling, it should be possible to have joint running.

Mr. Merchant

I entirely accept that point. It is a genuine one, and relevant to the argument. The Department of Transport recently produced a detailed briefing on light rail systems, but it makes rather arbitrary distinctions between trams, light rail systems, rapid transport systems. Indeed, at the end of the day, what is a railway?

There is no clear divide between any of those different systems, other than the definitions that are imposed on them. There is a slow transformation from the heavy rail system at one end to the miniature light railway at the other. Only where regulations are drafted does there become a legal distinction between the two.

There is scope for investigating the possibility of having lighter vehicles on British Rail lines, perhaps at times mixed with existing heavy British Rail rolling stock. It should be possible to find means of allowing the tracks to run in closer proximity than they do at the moment—perhaps to be interchangeable to an extent.

The point with which I was dealing before the hon. Gentleman intervened was the use of existing British Rail track, not for the rolling stock to run on, but for the tramlink to run alongside. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East rightly said, over a large section, but not all, of the route in Beckenham, that is exactly what is proposed.

However, my criticism relates to what my hon. Friend said. It particularly relates to the promoters, who say that, because these people have a British Rail line running at the bottom of their gardens, it does not matter that they should also have a light rail system operating there as well. It is a very peculiar argument that, if one is already troubled, it does not matter if one is troubled a great deal more, and troubled continuously.

For people who live close to a railway line, there is a great difference between a line that carries only a couple of services an hour and none after 8 pm, which is the situation over most of the stretch in Beckenham, and the line that runs from Beckenham Junction via Crystal Palace to Victoria. The former is very much a secondary line, although it is important for the people who travel on it.

That line is not heavily used. That will change with the arrival of tramlink into the area, as through trams will run possibly from 6 am until midnight, eight times an hour in each direction. That is a completely different situation. I reject the argument that it is acceptable to intensify use on that line. If anything, I believe that that is the one thing that should not happen. If we must have new transport systems in that area—something I challenge—they should not be in areas where people are already disturbed.

My constituency measures three miles by two miles and contains 14 BR stations serving destinations north, south, east and west. As some of my hon. Friends have explained, although there is a radial rail system in London which emerges from the centre of London, lines in my constituency run at perfect right angles to that. It is possible to travel east and west slightly more easily than it is to travel north and south. In addition to lines serving central London, it is possible to travel to Croydon on the existing BR system. However that service is difficult.

At present, there are two ways of travelling to Croydon. One way is via Addiscombe station, which will disappear under the tramway proposal, as that station will be removed and there will be no service to that area. Addiscombe is half a mile from East Croydon, and it is one and a half minutes by car—I know, because I have driven there.

Although I accept that that route is not as convenient as travelling right into the centre of Croydon, perhaps something could be done at the Croydon end to improve matters. However, there is a service at the moment from Beckenham to Croydon via Addiscombe. The other service runs via Crystal Palace.

With that transport infrastructure, it is questionable whether the people of Beckenham would benefit from the proposed tramlink.

Mr. Congdon

Will my hon. Friend at least concede that the best judgment about whether the people of Beckenham would see great value in tramlink lies with the assessment of the private operators as to whether the scheme would be viable? They judge that it would be viable as an integral part of the network. Will my hon. Friend at least concede that they, and not he or I, are the best people to judge?

Mr. Merchant

I have examined in extreme detail the assessments of the predicted number of passengers who would travel on every section of tramway. I have read the summaries and alternative proposals, which have been studied professionally and with great expertise. I believe that the promoters' figures for the use of the tramlink system are deeply and fatally flawed. I simply do not believe that the custom exists to make the system a viable project.

In addition, the prospect of capital finance emerging to make the project work is very unlikely. I suspect that, when people in the private sector are asked to come forward with large amounts of cash to finance the project, and they study in great detail the likely demand and passenger flow, they will conclude that it is a risk which is not worth taking.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North-East made great play about the private sector providing capital for the scheme. I am not against the private sector doing that if it wishes, but the promoters have made it clear to me —I have pursued the matter in some detail because it is of great importance to me—that they will definitely need the addition of public funds in order to raise sufficient money to build the tramway system.

We now have a curious situation. The promoters say that they would like to build the system but that they will need public money and that they hope to raise private money on the back of the public money that will be pledged.

In addition, my hon. Friend the Minister has said, quite rightly, that he can give no pledge about public money for the system. He said that he would consider any application and that he might be in favour, but rightly added many caveats. He said that he would need to be convinced that the system was viable and that it would have to take its place among other competing systems.

The House has passed other such Bills. Indeed, I was on the Committee on one of them, and I did not oppose it, because I do not oppose light rail on principle. The system will have to take its place among those other demands and, most crucially, it will have to take its place alongside other Government priorities.

Perhaps I am doing an unusual thing, but I am offering my hon. Friend the opportunity not to have to come up with a large sum of public money. I am offering him a way out by suggesting that, if the Bill does not go through and the scheme is not developed, he can save the money that he might otherwise have felt obliged to put into it.

Mr. Ottaway

In such an eventuality, the money could be used for improving the road infrastructure in Croydon.

Mr. Merchant

That is possible, but I am sure that, if the House were offered £40 million and hon. Gentlemen were invited to decide how to spend the money, there would be no shortage of requests for it to be spent on a wide variety of alternative projects, either in transport or elsewhere.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said something that was echoed by a number of other hon. Gentlemen and caused me considerable concern. He said that this was only an enabling Bill. The implication is that it therefore does not matter much, and that we should give the project the go-ahead and see what emerges after all the details have been worked out. If we reach that stage, to whom should the promoters go for permission to continue? They will have to go to no one because, if they have the money, they can go ahead with the scheme within the wide powers given by the Bill.

My interest is the ordinary people who live in my constituency and, to an extent, those who live elsewhere but will be affected by the project, who have expressed grave concern about the impact that building and operating the tramlink will have on their houses and daily lives. They have a right to be heard, and they are entitled to have their concerns taken into account.

I know that the Committee will consider much of their evidence, and I am glad about that, but it will know that this is only an enabling Bill, so its members may feel that, on balance, the principle of the Bill is acceptable so long as various measures are taken to look after the concerns of the hundreds of people who will be affected by the tramlink.

When the pressure is off—the pressure of the commercial and transport lobby, who are pushing the scheme so hard—will the promoters be prepared to talk to those people who live in the houses affected? I suspect that they will be far more interested in pushing ahead with the project, if they can get the money. So I am worried about the Bill being dismissed as simply an enabling Bill.

Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside)

We have just been through a similar debate in relation to Southampton. The House failed to pass a similar project because no provisions had been made for park and ride. Can my hon. Friend tell the House how much provision has been made in this case for car parks, so that people can park their cars before getting on the tramway system? That is fundamental to the viability of the system.

Mr. Merchant

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that, because it is essential. Very few, if any, light rail systems of this nature can operate without feeder passengers and park-and-ride facilities. That is simply because enough passengers cannot be attracted from a wide enough area to make such a system viable, particularly in the deregulated and competitive atmosphere that we are likely to face by the time the project, if it goes ahead, is built.

The only way in which such systems can become viable is by having good park-and-ride provision. There is no such provision in the system. It is not catered for by the Bill, and its promoters have been extremely coy about the possibility of it. In fact, they have effectively said that they have rejected the addition of park-and-ride facilities in most areas of the system.

In Beckenham, about which I am most concerned, the Beckenham Junction link has no park-and-ride facilities at all. That is of grave concern to my constituents, because they feel that the immediate danger they face is that people who use the system will come in—

Mr. Congdon

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 8.

Division No. 356]	[9.55 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Burns, Simon
Alexander, Richard	Burt, Alistair
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Butcher, John
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)	Butler, Peter
Allen, Graham	Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Amess, David	Cash, William
Ancram, Michael	Chapman, Sydney
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)	Clappison, James
Arbuthnot, James	Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Cohen, Harry
Austin-Walker, John	Colvin, Michael
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)	Congdon, David
Baldry, Tony	Conway, Derek
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Barnes, Harry	Corbyn, Jeremy
Bates, Michael	Cousins, Jim
Bayley, Hugh	Cox, Tom
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	Cryer, Bob
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.	Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Benton, Joe.	Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Beresford, Sir Paul	Day, Stephen
Bermingham, Gerald	Deva, Nirj Joseph
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Dewar, Donald
Boateng, Paul	Dixon, Don
Boswell, Tim	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Boyes, Roland	Dover, Den
Brandreth, Gyles	Dowd, Jim
Brazier, Julian	Duncan, Alan
Bright, Graham	Duncan-Smith, Iain
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Durant, Sir Anthony	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Eggar, Tim	Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Etherington, Bill	Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Maxton, John
Fishburn, Dudley	Milligan, Stephen
Forman, Nigel	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Forth, Eric	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	Morley, Elliot
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	Mowlam, Marjorie
Fraser, John	Mullin, Chris
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger	Nelson, Anthony
Fry, Peter	Nicholls, Patrick
Gallie, Phil	Norris, Steve
Gerrard, Neil	Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Gillan, Cheryl	Page, Richard
Godsiff, Roger	Paice, James
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Patnick, Irvine
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Pickles, Eric
Gorst, John	Pike, Peter L.
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Porter, David (Waveney)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Grocott, Bruce	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Gunnell, John	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Hague, William	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)	Prescott, John
Hampson, Dr Keith	Richards, Rod
Hardy, Peter	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Harris, David	Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Haselhurst, Alan	Rooney, Terry
Hayes, Jerry	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Heald, Oliver	Short, Clare
Hendry, Charles	Simpson, Alan
Heppell, John	Skinner, Dennis
Hinchliffe, David	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Hood, Jimmy	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Hoyle, Doug	Snape, Peter
Hunter, Andrew	Soames, Nicholas
Jack, Michael	Spearing, Nigel
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Spellar, John
Jenkin, Bernard	Sproat, Iain
Jessel, Toby	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Stephen, Michael
Khabra, Piara S.	Strang, Dr. Gavin
Kirkhope, Timothy	Straw, Jack
Knapman, Roger	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)	Thomason, Roy
Knight, Greg (Derby N)	Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Knox, Sir David	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)	Tracey, Richard
Legg, Barry	Trend, Michael
Leighton, Ron	Trotter, Neville
Lennox-Boyd, Mark	Wallace, James
Lewis, Terry	Waller, Gary
Lidington, David	Walley, Joan
Lightbown, David	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Llwyd, Elfyn	Watts, John
Loyden, Eddie	Wells, Bowen
Luff, Peter	Whittingdale, John
Lynne, Ms Liz	Wicks, Malcolm
McAvoy, Thomas	Willetts, David
McCartney, Ian	Winnick, David
McFall, John	Wise, Audrey
MacKay, Andrew	Wood, Timothy
Mackinlay, Andrew	Wray, Jimmy
Maclean, David	Yeo, Tim
McLeish, Henry
Madden, Max	Tellers for the Ayes:
Mahon, Alice	Mr. Vivian Bendall and Mr. Richard Ottaway.
Maitland, Lady Olga
Marek, Dr John

NOES
Beggs, Roy	Spink, Dr Robert
Bennett, Andrew F.	Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Horam, John	Tellers for the Noes:
Ross, William (E Londonderry)	Mr. Piers Merchant and Mr. Edward Leigh.
Shaw, David (Dover)

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

cc443-5
1. ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1993–94 52 words
c443
1. Class VIII, Vote 1 58 words
c443
2. Class VIII, Vote 3 99 words
c443
3. Class IX, Vote 1 71 words
cc443-4
4. Class IX, Vote 5 187 words
cc444-5
5. CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (NO. 2) BILL 235 words
cc445-69
2. Suppression of Terrorism (India) 12,745 words, 1 division
cc469-78
3. Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) 5,388 words
cc478-9
4. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 100 words
cc479-86
5. Leather Industry 4,141 words