§ The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young)With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Thameslink 2000 project.
Thameslink services, introduced in 1988, currently provide rail links between north and south London through the City. Capacity is limited by the nature of the infrastructure, especially bottlenecks around London Bridge, which means that, at present, no more than six trains per hour in each direction can be accommodated. The Thameslink 2000 project will provide additional track and station capacity for those cross-London services.
The centrepiece will be a new low-level station at St. Pancras adjoining the channel tunnel rail link terminal. In addition, there will be two new rail flyovers at New Cross Gate and Bermondsey, an extra platform and track at London Bridge, additional tracks through Borough Market, rebuilding works at Blackfriars and Farringdon, and a new connection to the east coast main line north of King's Cross.
The project will quadruple capacity on the existing route from six to 24 trains per hour in each direction. By strengthening the link between the rail network north and south of London, it will provide significant new opportunities for services from points as far afield as Brighton, Eastbourne and Bognor Regis in the south, to Bedford, Cambridge and Peterborough in the north. It will enhance access links to both Gatwick and Stansted airports.
The project will make it easier for passengers to travel by rail to and from the channel tunnel rail link terminal at St. Pancras, and it will relieve road congestion in London. The project's estimated total cost is about £650 million, and the analysis of its costs and benefits shows that it offers excellent value for money, with a benefit-cost ratio of nearly 3:1.
The construction of the channel tunnel rail link terminal at St. Pancras provides a unique opportunity to take forward Thameslink 2000 in parallel. The Government have therefore decided that the successful bidder for the CTRL project should provide the main station structure for Thameslink 2000 and the link to the Great Northern line. We will make available sufficient funding to cover the cost of those works. Railtrack—once in the private sector—will undertake the remaining infrastructure works, including the fitting out of the station.
In addition, the franchising director has negotiated terms with Railtrack that provide Railtrack with the necessary assurance of funding for the additional services provided by Thameslink 2000. Because of the additional revenue generated by the services, it is expected that the effects on franchise operators of the additional services will be broadly neutral.
The cost of the Government's contribution towards the capital costs of the project will depend on the outcome of the CTRL competition, but I expect it to be around £100 million out of the total capital cost of £650 million. With joint funding, and Railtrack and the CTRL promoter taking construction risk, this will be an excellent example of the private and public sectors combining to take forward a major investment project.
724 The Government will also take Railtrack's need to fund Thameslink 2000 into account in decisions on Railtrack's capital structure for flotation. I am in no doubt that prospective investors in Railtrack will welcome this commitment to Thameslink 2000.
On current plans, Thameslink 2000 services can be expected to start within six years. The precise timing will depend on progress on the CTRL—on which I hope to make a statement shortly—and on the time taken for Railtrack to secure the necessary authorisation for the works under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
The Government remain committed to the progressive, strategic enhancement of the capital's transport infrastructure. Work on the Jubilee line extension is in full swing. Today's announcement provides a green light for Thameslink 2000. Because of the timing considerations resulting from the interaction with the CTRL, Thameslink will now precede work on the crossrail project for enhancing capacity on east-west, cross-London routes. Thameslink 2000 will be a valuable addition to London's infrastructure—complementing the channel tunnel rail link, providing new service opportunities for train operators, and providing additional capacity for commuters into London.
The Government's support for Thameslink is good news for London, but not for London alone; rail users across the south-east will benefit from the increased capacity that it provides. The project is clear evidence of the capacity of a railway firmly rooted in the private sector to take forward major investment projects. Far from fragmenting the railway, we are adding extra capacity and providing a better integrated network. Today's announcement demonstrates our commitment to a dynamic, expanding railway for the next century.
§ Ms Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood)The Labour party greatly welcomes the Secretary of State's long-overdue announcement of the further development of Thameslink—which will, among other things, significantly enhance train capacity north-south across London and improve capacity at Charing Cross, which currently suffers many hold-ups. As the right hon. Gentleman said, Thameslink 2000 will also provide capacity at St. Pancras to deal with passengers arriving on the channel tunnel rail link. That, of course, explains the timing of the announcement, because the Secretary of State will shortly announce the award of the drastically delayed channel tunnel rail link project.
Given that motivation, will the Secretary of State tell the House clearly and exactly when work will start on this project? Does the Secretary of State agree that it is deeply regrettable that the project has been so badly delayed as a result of rail privatisation?
§ Ms ShortThat is not nonsense—it is absolutely true. The Minister should not intervene in that way.
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is even more regrettable that the project will cost the taxpayer a massively increased amount of money as a result of rail privatisation? [Laughter.] Hon. Members should not laugh—that is true. That is their Government's policy.
725 Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the old Greater London council funded the original British Rail feasibility study, which brought back into use a small section of railway south of Farringdon that had not been used for passenger services since the first world war, allowing the north-south connection to be made? Conservative Members might wish to know that was achieved by the GLC and British Rail.
Is the Secretary of State aware that British Rail established the Bedford-Brighton service, which runs every 15 minutes, in 1988—and that British Rail had plans to expand the system, in the way that the right hon. Gentleman has announced today, from 1990? British Rail had a Bill ready in 1991, but the Department of Transport would not allow the Bill to be deposited. Is the Secretary of State also aware that, following the 1992 election, everything was subsumed in the preparation for privatisation, and this valuable project was further delayed?
Is the Secretary of State aware that, even more tragically, if the project had gone forward in 1991, it would not only be up and running now, but would be largely paid for, since it is a project that would have been self-financing under the old British Rail system? I understand that, under the privatisation structure, it has been more difficult and expensive for the Secretary of State to carry the project forward, because he has had to arrange further funding for the franchising director to pay extra leasing charges to the rolling stock companies and extra track access charges to Railtrack. I also understand that the Secretary of State must have faced difficulties in persuading the Treasury to release much larger amounts of taxpayers' money than would have been necessary to take the project forward in 1991.
Will the Secretary of State admit that the project clearly demonstrates the folly of rail privatisation? The Thameslink project has been delayed by at least five years, and will cost the taxpayer much more because of privatisation. Even at this late stage, will the Secretary of State learn the folly of his ways and agree to halt the process of rail privatisation? It is holding back investment and costing the taxpayer more, as the Thameslink project clearly demonstrates.
§ Sir George YoungIt would be churlish of me not to welcome the remarks welcoming my announcement that the hon. Lady made at the beginning of her question, but, with respect, she has totally missed the point. It is precisely because we are privatising Railtrack that we can make progress with the capital investment without the need to impose extra obligations on the taxpayer or to borrow more money.
The hon. Lady would be unable to make the statement that I have just made, because she would not proceed with the privatisation of Railtrack. The hon. Lady is not allowed to make any public expenditure commitments, and she could not have made the statement that I have just made because, under a nationalised Railtrack, it would cost extra money. It is because we are privatising Railtrack that we can make faster progress with the project than the Labour party could.
On the hon. Lady's more specific questions, I made it clear in my statement that there will not be any impact on the franchising director's budget. The effect will be 726 neutral, because the additional revenues generated by the capital investment will remove the need for subsidy. On the question of progress, I said that we hoped the project would be up and running within six years. I hope that Railtrack will proceed with the Transport and Works Act 1992 process towards the end of the year.
§ Mr. Peter Brooke (City of London and Westminster, South)Given that a recent comparative study of European capitals put London in first place both for international access and for access within the city, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on today's announcement? May I press him on the timing of a further statement about crossrail?
§ Sir George YoungAs I implied in my statement, I hope to make a statement shortly about the progress that we are making with the channel tunnel rail link, but at this stage I cannot go any further in answer to my right hon. Friend's request.
§ Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh)We welcome the Secretary of State's announcement about the progress—at last—of Thameslink, although we have some reservations about the routeing through London Bridge, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is somewhat concerned.
Will the Secretary of State tell us his views on the effect of linking the Thameslink project with the channel tunnel rail link, because that could be a recipe for further delay? Will the Secretary of State give an assurance today that the Thameslink projects can be carried out as advance works for the channel tunnel rail link works? That is a very important point. I am equally concerned that it now appears that crossrail will be delayed until after Thameslink and the channel tunnel rail link are in place. Is that so?
Finally, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that provision will be made for an interchange at Farringdon to connect Thameslink with crossrail? That is a very important point for overall access to the system.
§ Sir George YoungOn the first question, there have been informal consultations with the London boroughs involved, and they have given a general welcome to what is planned, but they have reserved their position under the Transport and Works Act 1992. That process will give the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and others an opportunity to make their points to the inspector about the impact of the works on specific buildings and on the environment.
As for the CTRL, the box required for the station for Thameslink 2000 is an integral part of the St. Pancras tunnel, and the works will proceed in parallel.
I owe my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) a response on crossrail. As I said in my statement, I expect crossrail to come after the Jubilee line extension and Thameslink 2000. That is a sensible sequence; I am sure that the House will recognise that we cannot do all these major projects at the same time.
The Farringdon interchange will be a matter for crossrail when that project begins.
§ Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet)I had the responsibility—nay, the privilege—as a Back Bencher, of 727 introducing the original Thameslink Bill—the British Rail (London) Bill—to the House as opposed private business. I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which is, in effect, a mark 2 development of that original project. Will he confirm that this project will be a boon not just for all Londoners but for many people wanting to cross London from one side to the other? Of all the projects brought before this House, this must be the ideal one for employing private finance.
§ Sir George YoungI pay tribute to my hon. Friend's pioneering work in promoting legislation in earlier Parliaments which assisted the development of the railways. When he joined the Government, I inherited from him a private Bill dealing with King's Cross, which I then had the privilege of promoting.
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the benefits go far wider than Londoners alone. Those who want to travel through London will benefit enormously from the strengthening of the links between the rail network to the north and south of London. My hon. Friend is quite right to stand back and take a strategic view of my announcement.
§ Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate)I declare an interest as a Member sponsored by the rail drivers' union, ASLEF. I welcome the Government's long-awaited decision on the project; but does not Railtrack's financial investment depend on the Government wiping out part of Railtrack's outstanding debt? Far from being rooted firmly in the private sector, will not the bulk of the money for the project come from the public sector—although such profits as are made, if the Government do not rethink rail privatisation, will go into private pockets?
§ Sir George YoungIt would be churlish of me not to thank the hon. Lady for welcoming the project. I am delighted that ASLEF may also support it. The figures I quoted show that the Government are making a modest contribution: £100 million out of £650 million. As I said in the statement, we shall take account of Thameslink 2000 when setting the capital structure for Railtrack, but I expect that Railtrack with Thameslink will be a more attractive investment for investors, because it offers the potential for growth.
§ Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling)Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents and I will warmly welcome today's announcement, providing that it benefits my constituency as well as other parts of the south-east? Is he further aware that the Thameslink services extend at the moment along the Kent coast line only as far as Sevenoaks? Can he assure me that, as a result of today's important announcement, Thameslink services can be extended along the Maidstone East line and through Tonbridge along the Kent coast line as well?
§ Sir George YoungThe answer to my right hon. Friend's last point is yes. A number of train operators will be looking to offer additional services as a result of the expansion of capacity.
The announcement will certainly be of benefit to Kent commuters going to Charing Cross, because it increases capacity around Borough Market, where there is often 728 congestion. Extra provision for Thameslink traffic will ease the flow of Kent commuter traffic into Charing Cross.
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a welcome for this announcement, in principle, on both sides of the House? That welcome, however, is qualified, because there is little in it that could not have been done some 10 years ago. The right hon. Gentleman has merely announced linkages and an enhancement of the current service.
Does the Secretary of State agree that a drawback of Thameslink 2000 is the lack of an interchange with the Central line, which is important pending the east-west opening of crossrail? Would it not be better to look at the possibility of an interchange in the Snow Hill area—there is none at the moment—to make the service of even greater use?
§ Sir George YoungI should like to reflect on the hon. Gentleman's last point. He is right, in that I have detected a broad welcome for my announcement, although there has been some carping criticism from Opposition Members about the Government's investment in London Transport. It is worth putting on record the fact that total investment by London Transport in the current year is forecast to be about £1 billion, which is four times as great in real terms as in 1979.
§ Sir Michael Grylls (North-West Surrey)Does my right hon. Friend agree that his announcement is yet another example—no doubt others will follow—of removing the dead hand of nationalisation from the railway network, and enabling private sector capital to come forward to provide important and badly needed infrastructure?
Will my right hon. Friend be a little kind to the Opposition, who are in a difficult position? They bitterly fought the privatisation of the railways, and therefore cannot welcome something that they would have welcomed had the railways still been nationalised.
§ Sir George YoungMy hon. Friend is right. A dilemma confronts the Labour party. Many of the projects to which my hon. Friend has alluded are possible only because we have privatised nationalised industries. Without embracing the Government's approach, the Opposition would not be able to make progress with projects such as the one that I have announced, without increasing either borrowing or taxation.
My hon. Friend rightly says that several projects in London are being taken forward under the private finance initiative. There is the Lewisham extension of the docklands light railway. Other examples are the Heathrow express, Northern line trains and the Jubilee line extension. All these imaginative partnerships between the public and private sectors have been taken forward by a Conservative Government.
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)May I also welcome the Secretary of State's announcement, and remind him that the GLC came up with the proposal 15 years ago? It is a pity that crossrail has been put on the back burner, as it were. Crossrail would be far more significant to London than a developer-led Jubilee line extension.
729 Is any new rolling stock involved in the Secretary of State's announcement? If so, where will it come from? When will the right hon. Gentleman make an announcement about the channel tunnel rail link?
§ Sir George YoungThere is no question of crossrail being cancelled. It is a project to which we are committed. If the hon. Gentleman considers publications such as those produced by London First, he will note the recognition that there must be a sequence of major projects. That is exactly what we are doing. We have the Jubilee line extension. We shall then implement the project that I have announced. Crossrail can take its place after that.
Most sensible commentators recognise that there is a limit to the number of major transport infrastructure projects that London can cope with at any one time. It may be that the GLC thought of the project that I have announced. It thought of quite a lot of things, but it did not always find the resources with which to take them forward.
I hope that there will be additional investment in rolling stock to provide the additional services that will be made possible by Thameslink 2000. That will be a matter for the train operating companies as they negotiate with the franchising director to introduce the extra services that they will want to provide as the project comes to fruition.
§ Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North)My right hon. Friend has said that existing links between Stansted and Gatwick are to be improved. Rather sadly, he failed to mention that most excellent of all airports, Luton, where, as he will know, a new project is being formulated that will bring about a new rail link between the town and the airport. Perhaps he will tell me whether any funds might be directed to that quarter. If not, perhaps he will tell me what plans he has for the new airport link.
§ Sir George YoungI recently spent a morning at Luton airport, when I was informed about the ambitions that the airport company has to build an additional station closer to the airport than the existing one. I was told also of the company's plans to improve links between the airport and the station. That is something that my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London has much in mind as he considers the transport supplementary grant that is available to Luton each year. Within the resources that may be available, we shall do what we can to assist the imaginative project to which my hon. Friend has referred.
§ Mr. Jim Dowd (Lewisham, West)Although I welcome the general thrust of the proposal, is the Secretary of State able to assure people in inner south-east London especially that due consideration will be given to stations along the lines being served by Thameslink being used to provide access to the service? The Thameslink line to Sevenoaks was extremely valuable, and extremely well used. Unfortunately, it had to be withdrawn. That meant that people in inner south-east London had no access to the benefits of Thameslink.
§ Sir George YoungThat was a positive contribution, and I shall see whether we can take that forward with the train operating companies, which will be responsible for service provision.
§ Sir Peter Fry (Wellingborough)I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, on behalf of my constituents, who will find it much easier to reach more parts of London and the south of England more quickly. They will, however, be able to take the greatest advantage of the new development only if there are adequate connections, not just from Wellingborough station but from Kettering and Market Harborough into Bedford. In view of the forthcoming privatisation of the midland main line, will my right hon. Friend please bear that in mind, and ensure that my constituents can take maximum advantage of his announcement?
§ Sir George YoungI am grateful to my hon. Friend. This picks up a point made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd). Removing the bottleneck between the north and the south of London will make it possible to provide services over and above those currently on offer. I expect that the market will respond to that, and that it will then be possible to undertake journeys that simply cannot be made at the moment. That will increase the demand for rail services, which is what every hon. Member would like to see.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Does the Secretary of State agree that this project, like many others, is connected to the channel tunnel project? Does he further agree that the channel tunnel project is up to the neck in debt, and that few people, it seems, are anxious to bail it out? Will he state on behalf of the Government that under no circumstances will the Tory Government take part in the bailing out of the channel tunnel experiment? If the Tory Government will not do that, is he going to call on his friend, Sir George Younger, other Tory ex-Members of Parliament and banks, and have a Bromsgrove bail-out system?
§ Sir George YoungThe hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that there is a legislative prohibition on the Government giving assistance to Eurotunnel. It is worth pointing out that it was a Labour Government who cancelled a publicly funded channel tunnel project; it was a Conservative Government who managed to get it built, through private enterprise.
§ Mr. David Congdon (Croydon, North-East)Does my right hon. Friend agree that, for people south of the river, in places such as Croydon, one thing that will make it less likely that they will use the train to go north is the current frequency of the Thameslink service? He will appreciate that the residents of Croydon will warmly welcome this enormous extra investment in the public transport infrastructure in London, but has he made any assessment of the impact of the transfer of people from road to rail?
§ Sir George YoungIt is indeed good news for Croydon, for precisely the reasons that my hon. Friend outlines. In my statement, I said that the project would help to relieve road congestion by making a number of journeys possible by train that are not currently practicable and that are therefore made by car. Initial assessments show that Thameslink 2000 will increase rail travel by about 3 per cent. in the south-east area, and I expect that some of that will be diversion from the road.
§ Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stretford)The Secretary of State mentioned the benefits in terms of access to the channel 731 tunnel, but does he understand the frustration that exists on the west coast main line? Although the Thameslink 2000 project, welcome though it may be, will benefit some, it will do nothing for the many people who get poor service and poor access. It is also apparent from the statement that there is no overall structure and planning framework by which services will be improved nationally. Does that mean that, so long as we have this lousy Government, we shall have lousy services on the west coast?
§ Sir George YoungI am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has disturbed what otherwise was a consensus that this is a sensible project with which to proceed, at least from new Labour, if not from old Labour. The whole thrust of my announcement was that it would be possible for additional services to be provided by rail. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
So far as the west coast main line is concerned, the hon. Gentleman will know that, initially, we are taking forward, also under the private finance initiative, signalling projects, on which we hope to make good progress during 1996.
§ Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West)My right hon. Friend has been involved in London politics as a councillor and Member of Parliament for many years. Can he remember a time when there have been as many railway projects under consideration, planning and construction—realistic lines, which will come about in our lifetime? Does he consider that the rather churlish response of the Opposition reflects the fact that they know that this is considerably in excess of anything planned by the then Labour-controlled GLC, or anything that they could manage if they were in government?
§ Sir George YoungMy hon. Friend is absolutely right. He was also kind enough to draw attention to my long connection with London politics—a connection which, sadly, the boundary commission may be bringing to an end.
I have mentioned a number of the other projects that are currently under way. The Central line is to undergo £750 million-worth of modernisation, and to receive 85 new trains; £400 million-worth of Northern line trains will come into service in 1996; and the tendering process to choose the private consortium for the Lewisham extension should be completed in the spring. There are many other projects, including the Heathrow express and the Jubilee line extension. It is difficult to sustain the argument that the Government are not investing in public transport in the capital.
§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)The Secretary of State would expect me, as the Member of Parliament representing the area surrounding London Bridge, to support cross-London rail routes. I presume, however, that he would not expect me to support the alignment south of Blackfriars, given the prospect of substantial demolition of residential and commercial properties and Borough market.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that his announcement does not prejudice the right of the inquiry to decide that that route should not go ahead, and that residents and other interested parties are entitled to argue 732 that there is a viable alternative route south of Blackfriars bridge, via the Elephant and Castle and Herne Hill? That would not involve nearly as much disruption and demolition.
§ Sir George YoungIt would indeed be possible for the hon. Gentleman's constituents to argue to the inspector, under the process provided for by the Transport and Works Act 1992, both that they object to the proposal and that they can suggest an alternative way of meeting the need. It would then be up to the inspector to judge the merits of the argument, and to submit them in his report to me.
§ Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)I welcome the way in which my right hon. Friend used his statement to trail an announcement relating to the promoter of the channel tunnel rail link. As he knows, the Government have chosen Ebbsfleet, 19 minutes from St. Pancras, as the channel tunnel rail link intermediate station: that will provide my constituents with magnificent connections to all parts of the country, north and south.
§ Sir George YoungI am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I have said on one or two occasions that I hope to make an announcement about the channel tunnel rail link shortly; I can say no more at this stage.
§ Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk)Today's announcement will be welcome in East Anglia, particularly in King's Lynn and west Norfolk. The borough council has lobbied hard for the project, not least because it will provide new economic opportunities.
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent announcement that the King's Lynn to London route is to have new Networkers, and can he confirm it? More broadly, does he agree that his statement shows the Government's commitment to public transport?
§ Sir George YoungI am grateful to my hon. Friend: what he has said is, indeed, the case. The Thameslink 2000 diagram, which I have before me, reveals new opportunities for the King's Lynn-Cambridge-Royston line, through connections and the opening up of destinations in the south.
I thank my hon. Friend for what he said towards the end of his remarks. The Government are indeed committed to driving up standards on the railways, and enabling them to play a greater part in taking traffic off the roads.
§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)My right hon. Friend has spoken of the benefits for the south coast from Brighton to Bognor Regis. The Kent lines through Eltham and New Eltham will benefit particularly from the flyover at New Cross and the Borough Market junction proposals. Do the Liberals seriously want Borough Market junction to be taken out of the scheme? Virtually everyone has been fighting for better public transport links in south London for the past 20 years.
§ Sir George YoungAs a north London Member, I hesitate to intervene in a dispute between south London Members. My hon. Friend was right in what he said at the beginning, however: Thameslink 2000 will provide enormous opportunities for people in south-east London.