EXPENDITURE IN CONNECTION WITH SECURING CONSTRUCTION OF WORKS (Hansard, 25 April 1996)

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse)
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 5—Related works: application of section 9 of the Transport and Works Act 1992.
Government amendments Nos. 1, 2, 9 and 10.
The Question is—[Interruption.] I am sorry. I call Mr. Tony Banks.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are moving so fast that I almost missed the train. I thank the Secretary of State for tabling the new clauses and amendments. When I proposed in Committee that Stratford should be named in the Bill, some of my colleagues tried to dissuade me from doing so on the ground that I would be defeated. When I explained that the amendment was exploratory and that we wished simply to go over the case, they seemed more satisfied. Even I did not expect that we would move to this particular position and I am deeply grateful to the Minister for having given an assurance at the end of a constructive debate that he would consider including Stratford within the Bill, and that he has done precisely that.
For the record, the campaign to name Stratford in the Bill and, indeed, to have the international station at Stratford, was waged—or I should say conducted; waged is too hostile and macho—by both the public and the private sector in the east end. During the campaign, we invited virtually all the Transport and Environment Ministers to the area so that they could see the site. I well remember the Minister standing at Holden point, a tower block which overlooks the Stratford railway lands, when it was pouring with rain. We were well protected and he was not, and I was worried that he might hold it against 609 us, but he did not. He—and, I am sure, others—was impressed by the scale of the potential in Stratford. One has to see the area to realise the scale of the potential. I am glad that the Under-Secretary will also be visiting. We look forward to letting him see what is possible at Stratford.
The campaign for Stratford was a good campaign. We worked together. It was necessary for us to argue coolly and rationally. There was not much point getting hot under the collar, which is perhaps one of my normal styles of doing things. When needs must, I can sup with the devil, although I always remember my long spoon and my manners, and the coolness with which I can maintain a good case. In the end, it was not the activities of Members of Parliament or the council which achieved success. It was simply a good case. It was good to see that Ministers were able to recognise that.
I am grateful to the Minister for tabling the new clauses and amendments. They have given enormous encouragement to the locality. I should just point out—this is really for another time—that we must make sure that when, as we can say now, the development goes ahead, the jobs that come to the east end and particularly the Stratford area match the needs of the people in the area. We do not want to see another Isle of Dogs, where the local people realised that they would not get the jobs. They suffered the conditions, but they did not get the benefits. We must make sure that the local people get the benefits because they deserve a break.
The international station at Stratford will be more than just a break. It will be a wonderful opportunity to look forward to the future with great confidence. So, again, I say thank you very much to Ministers present and past who took the time and trouble to come to Stratford, to hear our case and to listen to the lobbying from the public and private sector in the east end.
I should like to ask the Minister just one thing. Stratford will be regarded as a proposal of national significance under the Transport and Works Act 1992. Will the Minister explain for the record precisely what that will mean? The new clause does not mean that the development will necessarily take place, but I assume that when and if it does, we shall not have to argue the case for Stratford again. I welcome the new clause and amendments with much enthusiasm.

§ Mr. Stephen Timms (Newham, North-East)
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has said. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken in introducing the new clause and amendments. It is worth putting on the record the strong support by the private sector for the campaign in favour of Stratford station. The Stratford development partnership comprised organisations such as Land Securities, Tarmac Construction, John Mowlem and Company, P and 0 Developments and Laing Civil Engineering as well as the London borough of Newham, the university of East London, the Carpenters' Company and the London Docklands development corporation. All those bodies worked together effectively with politicians to advance the case. I, too, am delighted that the Government have accepted it. Just last week, the university of East London published with Lawrence and Wishart a book called "Rising in the East", which 610 drew attention to the Stratford station proposal and the benefits that would come from it, all in support of the new clause that we are considering.
It is encouraging that the conditions are now right for a major boost to the economy of east London over the next 20 years. This is our one chance to change things permanently for the better in the east end. We need to get on with it now that everyone—the Government, the local authority, the local institutions and the private sector—is pointing in the same direction.
I look forward to hearing the explanation, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West asked, of the implications of treating the proposal as one of national significance. I welcome the fact that it will be treated as such, but I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that that means that the matter will be expedited and that we can make progress.

§ Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)
I merely wish to say how pleased I have been to be associated with the excellent campaign for Stratford, from fairly early on. It was extremely well run. I enjoyed my visit to the site at an early stage. It has probably changed since then, but it is a remarkably good place. When I joined the campaign, there was no need for the Conservative party to find another Stratford to distract attention from the other one, which has been somewhat of an embarrassment to us.

§ Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate)
I, too, thank the Secretary of State for Transport for writing into the Bill that which I and my hon. Friends requested should be there, at the second sitting of the Standing Committee. When the request that Stratford should be named in the Bill was put to the Minister, he replied that it was not possible to do so because it would delay the passage of the Bill by introducing a rehybridising amendment. Will the Minister clarify what has changed in the comparatively short space of time since 7 March when I requested that Stratford be named in the Bill?

§ Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh)
I shall make a brief point about new clause 4(2) (b). Can the Minister assure us that the trains will be able to use the whole length of the new line, including the section between Ripple lane and the junction with the North London line north of St. Pancras? That would facilitate access for freight to and from the west coast main line. I appreciate that that is a detailed point, and if the Minister is not able to answer now, I should appreciate an answer later.

§ Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)
I have a query about new clause 4(2) (b), which deals with the connection with the west coast main line. I am delighted that such a connection is to be provided, but why was that not made explicit in the competition overview so that all the companies bidding for the contract to build the link could make specific proposals for the connection between St. Pancras and the west coast main line? It is clear from the Minister's statements, and from the letter that we received from the chairman of London and Continental Railways, that that was one of the measures that tipped the balance in favour of awarding the contract to London and Continental.

§ The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts)
My rather wet visit to Stratford did not dampen 611 my enthusiasm for the project. I can now confess that for quite some time I was a closet supporter of Stratford; subsequently, I have been able to come out.
The new clauses and amendments have three major effects. First, they make it explicit that the provision of the new station at Stratford and the dual-track connection with the North London line, for which no powers are granted in the Bill but which are none the less contained in the development agreement, are part of the works for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can make payments to London and Continental under the terms of the agreement. Secondly, the measures deal with the Transport and Works Act powers for Stratford station. Inserting in the Bill the provision that the scheme will be treated as a scheme of national significance will enable the proposal to be dealt with on the Floor of both Houses before the principle can be approved. What will remain will be local public inquiries to deal with the more general planning issues; but the principle will have been decided by the House—assuming that the House endorses it—on the basis that the scheme is of national significance.
Thirdly, the measures bring the regulatory regime for Stratford station into line with those for Ebbsfleet and St. Pancras stations. That could not have been done in the original text of the Bill, because at that stage Stratford was not included.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) asked what had changed between the second sitting of the Committee and the end of our proceedings. If we had included explicit powers to build Stratford station in the Bill subsequent to Second Reading and consideration in the Select Committee, that would have rehybridised the Bill, and would have caused delay. In a later debate in Committee, I gave an undertaking to the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) and others that I would seek ways in which Stratford station could be brought within the terms of the Bill, but in a way that would not rehybridise. That is what we have done in the new clauses and amendments.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) asked about freight. It is a requirement for the link to be built in such a way that freight can run on the line, but it is not a requirement that it shall run on the line. I take that to mean the whole line, but, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, it is a fairly detailed point. I will write to him and place a copy of the letter in the Library; that will enable me to go into the details.
I commend the new clause to the House.

§ Mr. Timms
May I ask the Minister a simple question? Does the designating of Stratford station and the connection with the west coast main line as "of national significance" mean that they will be presented as Government proposals when the Transport and Works Act procedure is reached?

§ Mr. Watts
No. They will have to be presented by London and Continental Railways, as promoters of the project. However, a motion will be proposed to the House by a Minister of the Crown—presumably my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or me—and the House will then be able to decide on the principle.