HC Deb 01 July 1996 vol 280 cc694-702

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

12 midnight

Mr. Jim Dowd (Lewisham, West)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise an issue that is important to us in south-east London. I am also pleased to see the Minister in his place. I am well aware that his duties seem to entail responding to a disproportionate number of Adjournment debates; I do not know whether he receives performance-related pay. That highlights the importance that transport-related issues have for Members throughout the country, and especially in London, where the problems are often at their most acute.

I do not know whether the press reports that the summer will see the Minister finally being able to lay down his onerous burden are accurate. If that does happen, I for one will miss him, and I wish him well in whatever the future may bring.

The ability to travel easily into and through inner London on good public transport is becoming ever more urgent as road traffic grows and as greater priority is given by all political parties to environmental standards. In that regard, the prospects for the development of the east London line offer substantial potential for relatively rapid low-cost and cost-effective improvements to the transport system in south-east London in particular.

The dearth of tube services south of the river, and especially in south-east London, is a matter of historical fact and a continuing source of discontent for those of us who live there. The Minister's constituency, which is at least three times further from this place than my own, has a tube service reaching up to if not beyond the M25, deep into Essex. Yet the entire borough of Lewisham, an inner-London authority, has only two stations in the very north of the borough, at New Cross and New Cross Gate, neither of which is in my constituency. It is the potentiall of an expansion of services from those stations to which I wish to draw attention this evening.

The east London line has always has been the Cinderella of the London underground—or north London underground, as it could more accurately be described. It seems to have been viewed more as an awkward appendage to the overall system than as an integral part of it. The present position is even worse, because we have no service at all on the east London line. It has been closed since March last year for work to the Brunel tunnel under the Thames and other work associated with the Jubilee line extension.

The people in the area welcome the improvement and upgrading, but we were told that the line would be closed for only seven months. It remains closed, and, for a variety of reasons of which the Minister is well aware, as I have raised the matter with him on numerous occasions—I have a strong impression that his views on the handling of the matter are not very different from my own—the reopening will certainly not be until next summer, probably in August. That is a period getting on for 30 months, as opposed to the original seven.

The Minister will be relieved to know that I do not intend to belabour that aspect of the case. However, I will say that, although the people of south-east London have as much regard for our common architectural heritage as anyone, they place at least as much weight on having comprehensive, safe and reliable transport links as they do on being spectators in an industrial museum. Suffice it to say that it has been an object lesson on how not to run a railway. None the less, looking forward optimistically to the restoration of the service, it is imperative to maximise the benefits of the refurbished river crossing by examining ways of extending services both north and south.

As a lifelong resident of south-east London, I have long felt that the extension of the Bakerloo line from Elephant and Castle through Camberwell, Peckham, Dulwich, Forest Hill and Catford to Bromley and/or Croydon would be the most significant transformation of the public transport system in our part of the capital. However, the plans have been around for many decades, and the immense logistical and financial implications of their numerous permutations effectively pushes any such scheme firmly into the medium if not long term.

It is my firm belief that the development of the east London line services south from New Cross Gate via Forest Hill and Norwood Junction to East Croydon can, by the imaginative use of largely existing Railtrack infrastructure, effect the best and quickest extension of underground services into south-east London.

The east London line extension project has strong regeneration benefits for inner London and represents good value for money within London Transport's business criteria. It could be operational within the lifetime of the next Parliament if priority is given to authorisation and funding. With the creation of the important interchange at Canada Water linking to the millennium site on the Greenwich peninsula, and the opportunities for connection with direct services to Gatwick at East Croydon, the scale of the possible benefits becomes clearly apparent.

Government policies support the extension in principle. The public inquiry into the northern extension to the City and Dalston was held in autumn 1994, and just last week the Minister announced that he was "minded to approve" the project. I welcome that unreservedly.

A cash funding gap is currently forecast for the extension. London Underground is actively pursuing private finance initiative opportunities, but better value for money could be achieved by through running to and from Railtrack lines in south London. Subject to line capacity, it might be possible to provide crossovers on to Railtrack at New Cross Gate as a low-cost and rapid solution.

Final authorisation and contractual arrangements depend on a number of next steps, including the actions that I have just listed, progress with the PFI and an understanding of the funding gap that London Underground might have to cover. There is good support from other interests such as Railtrack, which is researching through-running options.

At present, the line is closed, but when it was last running, it made a small operating loss. It is recognised as an important cross-river public transport service east of Tower Bridge. It serves the boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Southwark and Lewisham; I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in his place. They are all inner-city communities involved in regeneration projects such as those in Bethnal Green and Deptford.

Passenger business doubled in the 10 years to 1994, largely through docklands redevelopment. London Transport has long recognised that the line's revenue potential and the economic benefits for London have been limited by its use simply as a cross-river shuttle, and its policy is to extend the line to serve a larger area, and preferably link with the Railtrack lines north and south of the river.

The Government's transport strategy for London was published in May, and recognises the potential of an extended east London line. It states: Some schemes, notably the East Thames Crossings and East London Line, are of particular importance to the achievement … of regeneration. The Government's strategic guidance for London's planning authorities that was also published in May includes the objectives to maximise the environmental and economic benefits of serving London's transport needs by public modes in preference to the private car and improve the attractiveness of all forms of public transport to provide a viable alternative to the private car and secure modal shift and to support new rail infrastructure where justified, both in response to demand and to assist regeneration".

Technical advice is that through main line trains could use an extended east London line, subject to some modifications of the existing line. It was used by British Rail until the 1960s, and the design of the strengthened Brunel tunnel permits use by some national train types.

A through-running study reviewing routing options is due later this year from Railtrack, and the project would be better value for money if through running via a southern extension was introduced at a similar date to the northern extension, although work on the northern extension is much further advanced, as I shall explain. Subject to available line capacity—I recognise that as a constraint, especially with the as yet unclear development of Thameslink 2000—it should be possible to provide the crossover I mentioned for a low-cost and rapid solution for the southern extension.

The southern extension from New Cross via Forest Hill and Norwood junction to East Croydon also has the distinct advantage above all the other southern extension options of not needing any special powers under the Transport and Works Act 1992, or other special powers. Opportunities for through running to increase further passenger traffic would have the benefit of providing through commuter trains between north and south London, serving the City of London at a new station on the site of Bishopsgate goods yard, and linking outer-London centres such as Croydon directly to docklands—Croydon being one of the south-east's major commercial centres outside London.

The east London line projects score well on all calculators of regeneration benefits and London Underground's value-for-money criteria; however, a cash-funding gap is forecast for the northern extension. The schemes accord with the Government's funding priorities as set out in the joint Department of Transport/Government Office for London transport strategy, which was also published in May, which stated as priorities new and improved river crossings downstream of Tower Bridge … projects which sustain and enhance London's economic position … projects which exploit the contributions that private finance can make".

The east London line extensions are listed in the Department of Transport and the Government Office for London's third tranche of schemes after existing and committed projects. The Department of Transport and the Government Office of London have advised that progress and timing of the east London line extensions now depend on securing private finance. London Underground Ltd. launched a major consultation exercise in April to seek views on how the project can best be structured to achieve successful private finance involvement, and is to consult further with train operating companies.

The East London Line Group, which, as the Minister will be aware, is a joint body representing the common interests of all the boroughs along the route, together with local communities, regeneration partnerships and businesses in the areas affected, has a crucial role to play. It has already been active in raising partnership finance and assisting site preparation, which has included Hackney council, London Industrial and Dalston City Partnership securing £2 million from the European regional development fund for refurbishment of the Dalston viaduct. Hackney and Tower Hamlets councils have worked with Railtrack Property and English Partnership to secure the go-ahead for the almost £2 million-worth demolition of Bishopsgate goods yard.

Other crucial elements are required to be put into place to take the schemes forward. With rail privatisation, the rail network in London has a mixed economy for planning and authorisation, ranging from statutory railway regulatory agencies and Government Departments to the public sector, London Underground and its newly enlarged PFI powers, to the private sector Railtrack and other train operating companies. The east London line and its extensions are at the interface between all those different ownerships and responsibilities, and it will require positive support and effort and innovative decisions to take the project forward expeditiously.

The Government need to provide guidance on the scale of any funding gap that may be bridged in recognition of the projects' benefits to London's regeneration and the many London boroughs that have access to the single regeneration budget, transport policies and programmes funding and ERDF money that are not available either to Railtrack or London Underground.

The East London Line Group has offered to work closely with London Underground on marketing the reopened line and seeking better connections with other rail and bus services, although the best marketing tool for a transport service would be that it serves the places where people are and the places they want and need to go. The extension of the east London line falls neatly into that pattern.

The list of necessary next steps show that, with the PFI and main line privatisation, the path towards an extended east London line is not simple. Much needs to be done by others. Railtrack, for example, is helping with assessment of the extensions for through running. Nevertheless, it would greatly assist the project if the Minister could give commitments—not necessarily now, but certainly in the near future—to endorsing the re-marketing of the line on, we hope, its reopening in the summer of next year, and to giving a definite date by which a decision will be made on the northern extension.

That will give confidence and certainty to the private sector—the key to levering in private finance moneys and to the project development process. The Government must agree in principle that the initial east London line extensions should open as a cross-river link in time for the Greenwich millennium exhibition. They must indicate their willingness to consider what core funding may be appropriate as a contribution towards the extensions project once any funding gap has been better defined by London Underground Ltd.

The Minister must facilitate urgent discussions between LUL, Railtrack, the franchising director and the rail regulator on matters of joint and individual interest concerning through running, which must be settled before the tenders are sought. In view of the level of complexity, I ask the Minister to press the Government Office for London to appoint a co-ordinator to ensure that the necessary progress on this matter is made as soon as possible.

This is a complicated issue, requiring effort and commitment by a number of bodies and individuals. Within that context, the southern extension via New Cross Gate and Forest Hill to Croydon offers the most straightforward option, and the benefits that it could bring to large numbers of people in east London—both north and south of the river—will more than justify the exertions involved. The hon. Member for Southwark arid Bermondsey has asked for thirty seconds to speak in the debate, and he may be fortunate in seeking catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

12.15 am
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

First, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) and, on behalf of the neighbouring borough of Southwark, I endorse entirely the case that he made. Secondly, although we have clearly suffered from the long-term closure, there is great expectation about the reopening of the line. Thirdly, all the stations currently on the line serve a vital use. Fourthly, of all the five cross-river underground lines, the east London line has the greatest potential for regenerative advantage at the least cost and with the greatest ease for the citizens of Southwark, and for those citizens of the area where the Minister lives and beyond.

I hope that there can be an amber light now and a green light soon for an east London line extension to follow the succesful Jubilee line extension that was breaking new ground only last week. I hope that the Minister can be positive, and I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West said on behalf of his borough, his constituency and his colleagues in south-east London.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham', West on securing this debate, and I am extremely grateful to him for his kind personal remarks. The trouble is that mutual congratulation is a dangerous sport in this place, although I am probably rather more relaxed about it than the hon. Gentleman. But I am extremely grateful to him, not only for having raised the issue tonight, but for all the support that he has given to the east London line through what he rightly said has been a difficult time.

I acknowledge straight away that this has been an extremely unsatisfactory process for constituents, including those of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). In the limited time available, we do not want to go over that history. However, I confirm that the Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society is working closely with London Underground to make sure that the historical aspects of the tunnel are fully studied, analysed and recorded. The line is expected to be ready to reopen in the summer of next year, and it will reopen in a better shape than ever.

About £75 million is going into the line, bringing real and visible improvements to both the trains and the infrastructure and underpinning the future of the line. As well as the new station at Canada Water—which the hon. Gentleman rightly said will be vital for access to the millennium festival and to the swathe of stations east of the east London line—the stations at Whitechapel, Shadwell, Wapping, Rotherhithe and Surrey Quays are all being renovated and cleaned, and their brickwork is being repointed. There will be a spectacular difference. Those stations are beautiful in their own right. They have some fine industrial archaeology, which might be frustrating on occasions, but which is worth preserving and celebrating. That also means that they will be in good order to survive for the use of future generations, and they will be a lot more attractive.

We are going to improve the trains as part of the big train refurbishment programme. They will be smarter, cleaner and more comfortable. We will be renewing the signalling system, which will make the service a lot more reliable. There will be new train arrival indicators, station closed circuit television, clocks and so forth, and the train radio and tunnel telephone systems are also being replaced.

In addition to the more visible signs of improvement, we are going to renew sections of the track, completely overhauling the pumps and the drainage and installing additional track-side power supplies. So our joint hope is that, when all that transpires in the summer of next year, we will have a first-class system as a lynchpin to the two extensions.

As the hon. Member for Lewisham, West said, the interest is now in looking at the future—in terms both of the northern extension and of the prospects south of the river, which are every bit as exciting as he suggests. First, on the works north of the river, as he says, I have issued a "minded to" letter already for the northern extensions. I think that we have made it clear that, in the event that the work proceeds, it will need to do so as a private finance initiative project.

London Underground is reassured that there is a degree of interest in that project and in taking it forward. None of the three of us here represents that part of London, but we are acutely aware of it. Hackney is, I think, the only borough north of the river that does not have any tube station. There is no doubt that putting a rail facility in from Dalston and Highbury and Islington down into the east London line and accessing the City in that way will be a major improvement. As a lot of the track bed is already in place and the cost of refitting the line will be relatively modest, it seems an opportunity well worth taking.

I am obliged not to express any further opinions on the attractiveness or otherwise of the details of the scheme, because of the quasi-judicial role that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is required to exercise. We have initiated the scheme with London Underground, and have always been clear about its advantages for London. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is included in the strategy document. I can make it clear that I think that it will serve a worthwhile purpose.

On the extensions to the south, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the prospect of the line going from East Croydon through to Canada Water and then north is very exciting. Obviously, the train path issues must be studied with Railtrack—in terms of Thameslink and the other competing services on the line. On other occasions, I have found it frustrating that the limiting factor for a new proposal—I am thinking of the west London line—is not so much the willingness of the rail company to run the service, or of passengers to use it, as the fact that there are limitations on train paths, which are almost insuperable, for technical and safety reasons.

The hon. Gentleman made a good point. We have to ensure that we explore as many of the rolling-stock opportunities as we can. Where it is possible to offer longer through services, I am sure that, the more we are able to stitch in the east London line to services both north and south, the greater benefit there will be—decongestion, opening up the hon. Gentleman's area and, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey suggested, perhaps even opening up parts of Camberwell, Peckham, and possibly Denmark Hill and the loop through to Victoria. There are some tremendous possibilities, which are worth exploring.

I have always felt that the east London line was something of a Cinderella. Ironically, unlike the Jubilee line, at more than £2,000 million, the east London line—at what we might describe as £100 million in envelope terms for the extensions—is probably a fairly modest bet, but it is just as important to the areas it will serve. The hon. Gentleman has made his point very well: there is nothing like the density of rail link in this part of south-east London as exists in almost every other quadrant of the city.

The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions about the future of the line. First, he asked about re-marketing of the line on reopening. He is right: that needs to be treated as a specific exercise. I know that London Underground is very keen to win back substantial custom on the line. To put it bluntly, having invested £75 million in substantial improvements, the one thing it does not want to do is let them go by default. London Underground wants to ensure that the marketing is forceful, and brings home to people just what a good service there is from north to south.

As for the Transport and Works Act order application, I understand that a final decision letter could be issued by the end of this month, or very soon thereafter. I am afraid that I cannot give a more precise date.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether we could give a commitment that the extensions could open as a cross-river link in time for the Greenwich millennium exhibition. I agree that that is a very desirable objective, although we shall have to deal with a number of issues that exist in the real world—not least, affordability and value for money—and obviously the PF1 competition will have to run its course. We will have a reopened line through to Canada Water that will facilitate some of the millennium traffic.

The hon. Gentleman is right about the time scale. I think that we are both committed to agitating for the development in order to make it a reality and a success.

As for the funding gap, I look forward to receiving furtehr advice from London Underground on the possibilities for financing of the scheme. LUL has undertaken to come back to me either later this month or early next month on the figures that it is now hearing. I can make no promises at this stage, because I do not yet know what the financing prospects are, but when I talk to London Underground, I shall bear in mind the strong desirability of an effective package.

As for the urgent discussions among London Underground, Railtrack, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising, the regulator and others, the point has been extremely well made. We have an interface between two different systems, and it may be a question of underground trains running on Railtrack track.

Personally, I have always felt entirely relaxed about the ownership of the new scheme. Whether it is owned by a train operating company, London Underground or a third party seems to me much less important than that the scheme goes ahead. The PFI discussions may well make it obvious who should take on the financing, but I am assured that the process of joint urgent discussion being led by London Underground is now under way. My officials stand ready to help in any way they can in the event that their services are needed.

The hon. Gentleman's points about access to a better public transport system for a huge number of people in the south-east quadrant of London underpin the whole debate. The historic reasons for not building the underground railway south of the river are reasonably well known, certainly to the hon. Gentleman and others with experience of London. We must now plug the gaps, which, as we all know, are large and not inexpensive.

However, together with the Docklands light railway extension, and hopefully, in due course, the Woolwich metro project—which we mentioned in the strategy document—this development will enable us to take much of the traffic off roads in that quadrant and use some of the public transport capacity that is inherent there. At present, there is heavy traffic in the area.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having raised the issue. This has been a useful exchange, and I thank him again for the supportive and constructive way in which he has dealt with the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Twelve midnight.