HL Deb 16 January 1986 vol 469 cc1157-9
Baroness Burton of Coventry

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of their Airports Policy (Cmnd. 9542), what progress has been made on the decision to construct a rail link to Stansted Airport; and whether they have received details of the study to be undertaken by the British Railways Board in consultation with the British Airports Authority (Cmnd. 9542 para. 530).

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness)

My Lords, the British Railways Board has completed its study, and the Government received an investment proposal in November for a double-track spur from the Liverpool Street-Cambridge line to a new station to be constructed beneath the new airport terminal building. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport is now considering the proposal and will reach a decision as soon as possible.

Baroness Burton of Coventry

My Lords, is it not correct that a more modest scheme is now being considered by the Government, whereas the Inspector stated in his report that a high-quality rail link should be provided? Does the Minister recall that Mr. Ridley, in his Statement in another place on 5th June, said that it may not be economic to provide a rail link? That was seven months ago. Can the Minister be a little more helpful as to when we might expect a reply?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, at the time it was impossible for us to determine whether the rail link would be economic but, as the noble Baroness points out in her Question, such a rail link had to be financially justified, according to paragraph 530 of the White Paper. Such a scheme was put before us in November and my right honourable friend is giving it urgent attention.

Baroness Burton of Coventry

My Lords, further on that point is it not correct that no scheme, modest or otherwise, can be available before the 1990s? This will mean the subsidisation of Stansted for at least a further 10 years. Who is to provide that subsidy?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right when she says that the scheme will not come into effect until 1990, or just thereafter. However, my understanding is that the scheme is financially justified and must, therefore, stand on its own feet.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, does the Minister recall that even some of us who oppose the development of Stansted to the extent suggested by the Government nevertheless consider that a rail link is absolutely essential? If finance is the problem, should not the Government assist in the same way as they would in the production of a road infrastructure?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. Yes, I recall that many noble Lords and Members in another place said that a rail link was essential. One has been presented to us that is financially justified, and my right honourable friend is considering it.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, may I press the Minister a little further on that, because it seems to many of us that this is an important point? Do the Government not accept that if the rail link is not justified on its own financial merits, the expansion of Stansted itself comes under severe question?

The Earl of Caithness

No, my Lords. I think the two are not related in that way.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, is the Minister aware that a rail link at Stansted will not be very popular unless facilities from the Underground at Liverpool Street station to the main line are improved immensely?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I understand that there is capacity at Liverpool Street station. As the noble Lord will be aware, a Bill has been laid before another place.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that British Rail is considering a direct line to Heathrow? If so, does this not confirm also the need for a direct line to Stansted? It seems to be bad housekeeping for the Government to spend millions of pounds on the development of aircraft to save half an hour on a journey and then cause people to travel with great inconvenience to the airport to pick up the plane.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, on the Heathrow question without notice. However, I shall write to him.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, will the Government not accept that the absence of a rail link to Stansted will put enormous pressure on the road system in the east of London if the expansion of Stansted goes ahead to the level envisaged?

The Earl of Caithness

Yes, my Lords. If there is not a rail link there will be extra pressure on the roads, but a rail link that is financially justified has been proposed.

Baroness Burton of Coventry

My Lords, while it is obvious that Stansted will not be viable without a rail link, it is doubtful that it will be viable with one. Is it not correct that it is proposed to put up the charges for using Stansted to meet the cost of the railway? As Stansted cannot at the moment attract enough custom, is it likely to attract more if the charges are increased?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the noble Baroness is, with her great knowledge, more aware than I am of airports and what happens at them. As I understand it, there is an expected increase in the number of passengers at Stansted from about 1 million at the moment to 7 million or 8 million. That should justify it.

Lord Annan

My Lords, is it not a fact that British Rail so often tries to evade its social obligations, as it is at present doing with modernising the line on the southern region, which would help the Channel tunnel?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the noble Lord is more advanced than I if he knows that there is a Channel tunnel.

Back to