London River Crossings (Hansard, 19 December 1994)

§ 8. Mr. Evennett
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for an additional river crossing between Dartford and Blackwall; and if he will make a statement.

§ 9. Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will decide on the new route for the east London river crossing.

§ Mr. Norris
Several proposals have been made, including alternatives to the previously planned east London river crossing. I am still considering how those proposals should be taken forward.

§ Mr. Evennett
I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the considerable congestion at the Blackwall tunnel every day and of the fact that my constituents are getting rather cross because their journey to work is bad? Furthermore, does he agree that the development and regeneration of the riverside, including 1385 the Thamesmead, Erith and Belvedere areas of my constituency, desperately require another crossing point to make it feasible for industry to relocate there?

§ Mr. Norris
My hon. Friend makes two very important points. First, he draws attention to the Blackwall tunnel, about which I can sympathise with him. He will be aware of our efforts, which mean that vehicles do not now collide with traffic from the north-bound tunnel. Nevertheless, we still have a problem trying to avoid the stoppages that occur too frequently. I can promise my hon. Friend that I am considering the problem urgently to see what more we can do.
Secondly, I endorse the general principle that he outlined which is that, essentially, the river crossings are about the economic regeneration of areas north and south of the river, areas that are represented by him and by other hon. Members. I am sure that he will agree that the appropriate outcome of our consultation on the various options will be a solution that local authorities themselves accept as being in their best interests in getting the right balance between any environmental impact and the economic regeneration which we all agree is so urgently needed.

§ Mr. Townsend
Number 9, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker
It has been called. The supplementary question is now required.

§ Mr. Townsend
When deciding the future of the east London river crossing, will my hon. Friend persuade the Secretary of State to pay far more attention to the crucial environmental aspects of the route and, in particular, will he ensure that Oxleas wood is not damaged in any way? May I invite my hon. Friend and his dog to walk the route with me on new year's day?

§ Mr. Norris
His hon. Friend does not have a dog but I am sure that I could hire one for the day. Were I not otherwise committed, my hon. Friend's offer would not be unattractive. I have, in fact, walked that route a number of times. My hon. Friend will know that some time ago—nearly two years ago, I think—I made it clear that we would not be proceeding with the Oxleas wood scheme, for precisely the reasons that he has outlined. I did not think that it was an appropriate way to proceed but. as he knows, what remains at issue is the strategic objective that the east London river crossing was planned to deliver—that is, a link between the A13 and the A2, which remains of considerable importance for the economic regeneration of the region, as I said earlier.

§ Mr. Spearing
Is the Minister aware that I have opposed the east London river crossing unless an extension of the docklands light railway were to run across it? As for the objective that he has just outlined—joining two trunk roads—would it not be good value for money, in the light of today's report, to extend the DLR by a single line tunnel under the Thames to relieve the congestion at Blackwall and on the other road crossings, which are a second priority for east London at the moment?

§ Mr. Norris
Without speculating on how the crossing might be achieved, I acknowledge the appropriateness of the hon. Gentleman's observation. Clearly, if the DLR were to be extended on whatever crossing were provided for the road, the value, certainly in terms of value for 1386 money, would be in attaching the rail crossing to the road crossing. If the consequence of that were, for example, the ability to revitalise Thamesmead, which I know is of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) and to others, that would clearly commend it as an option. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that local authorities in the area, especially Bexley, Greenwich and others, have been concerned about the impact of locally generated traffic on such a crossing, and it will be necessary to take their concern into account. That is what the consultation process is for.

§ Mr. Austin-Walker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) for inviting the Minister to my constituency. Does the Minister agree that today's report by the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment casts severe doubt on the supposed economic advantages of the east London river crossing? What about the environmental damage that would be caused in an area where pollution already exceeds European guideline levels? Does the Minister not think that now is the time to put some resources into the railway crossing at Woolwich and into the provision of a Woolwich metro, which would do so much to regenerate the Thames gateway north and south of the river?

§ Mr. Norris
On the first point, I do not believe that the SACTRA report has a significant implication for the scheme about which the hon. Gentleman is talking. On the second point about the environmental consequences of the scheme, which is a slightly different issue, I remind him of what I said earlier. No one doubts that infrastructure of any sort will have some environmental implications. The decision for him, for his constituents, for his local authority and the local authorities on the other side of the, river, given that there is widespread agreement that we need more crossings of the river to facilitate economic regeneration, is how to balance the environmental consequences of the scheme and the economic consequences, and the job mobility that goes with that, of not providing the scheme.
The Woolwich metro is a good scheme. It is one of the options at which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will look in the context of London river crossings. At this stage, it remains a good scheme, on which we are working.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to meet a cross-party deputation to discuss the Woolwich rail link, which would make a great deal of difference to all. Does he accept that about four fifths of extra traffic growth comes from increased economic prosperity and not from building new roads? If we want east London, north and south of the river, to share in that prosperity, we must have the crossings that we are contemplating. Will my hon. Friend try to ensure that whatever comes across the Thames does not turn south-west towards Brighton, but goes towards Dover, as that would meet the crossing's published purpose?

§ Mr. Norris
I will, of course, meet a delegation if my hon. Friend cares to bring one. If it is an all-party delegation, it will be so much the better for that. I note his other observations, and I believe that there is a great deal in what he says.