HL Deb 10 October 1990 vol 522 cc281-7

3.12 p.m.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice; namely, to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement about the East-West London underground Crossrail.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)

My Lords, as I informed your Lordships' House in Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Errol of Hale yesterday, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has given the go-ahead to the East-West Crossrail. This will be the first major British Rail gauge line to be built in the London area this century. It will cost £1.4 billion and will link Liverpool Street and Paddington.

My right honourable friend intends to safeguard both this Crossrail and the Chelsea-Hackney line through the planning system. In that way the Chelsea-Hackney line will be protected as an option for later implementation.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for making that statement to the House. I was aware that a Written Question had been answered yesterday. The rest of your Lordships will not be so aware. It did not appear in the Minute and has not appeared in Hansard. It is therefore useful to have that statement from the Government on the record of your Lordships' House.

If noble Lords have some difficulty in reading their notes this afternoon because the lighting is dim, I should explain that it is because the television cameras are not here. First, our proceedings are not being broadcast today and therefore television cameras are not present. Secondly, the television cameras are at a certain party conference where information is more readily given than to your Lordships' House.

It is unfortunate that when the noble Lord, Lord Errol of Hale, raised a Question on this subject in oral Questions on Monday, he was given an equivocal Answer. Yet the following day it was possible to give this information to the serried ranks of Conservatives gathered in Bournemouth. What a pity that when Parliament is sitting—and Parliament is sitting when your Lordships are sitting—this information is not given to us directly rather than having to be prised out by a Private Notice Question.

Perhaps I may also say in passing that I was surprised, and perhaps Her Gracious Majesty will also be surprised, to find that certain items of the gracious Speech were also announced to the Conservative Party conference yesterday; namely, that there is to be legislation to impose penalties—

Noble Lords

Question!

Lord Belstead

My Lords, the Leader of the House makes the decision whether or not a Private Notice Question shall be asked. I readily acceded to the noble Lord's request. The noble Lord is pushing the rules of order a little, and perhaps would now like to move to the Question he wishes to ask.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I naturally accede to what the noble Lord the Leader of the House says. I am grateful for the opportunity to address this subject. It was necessary to make the point and I made it.

Let me say straight away that the Crossrail link is to be welcomed. It will reduce congestion, particularly around the Paddington area. One would like to see both Crossrail links put into action quickly. The unfortunate point about the statement is that we understand that the Bill—

Noble Lords

Order! Question!

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I am replying to a statement from the Government.

Noble Lords

Question!

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I will put my remarks in the form of a question. Can the Minister tell me why the legislative programme should be delayed for a further 12 months? Can the noble Lord say what will be the total cost of this rail link to the Exchequer? Is the noble Lord aware that while I welcome the rail link because of the reduction in congestion which will occur at Paddington as a result of the connection with the Heathrow link, nevertheless it is only a first step in sorting out the traffic problems of London? Is the noble Lord aware that it is a welcome step, but does not yet amount to a strategy for transport for London?

Lord Underhill

My Lords—

Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Leader of the House a question. When we have a Private Notice Question is it not still a Question? Is it not entirely wrong for it to be turned into a statement?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, my noble and learned friend is correct. However, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, turned to the terms of his Question, albeit a little belatedly. I suggest my noble friend Lord Brabazon replies to the noble Lord and we continue in the way suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I shall deal as briefly as I can with the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked. The first question was why a Bill will not be ready for deposit in November. The decision not to deposit a Bill until November 1991 should not be regarded as wasting a year. We expect London Transport and British Rail to use that time to good effect consulting fully with all those affected in refining the design. That should minimise opposition to the Bill and help to ensure a smoother passage through Parliament.

The cost of the project is £1.4 billion at March 1990 prices. The noble Lord also asked about other steps to improve transport in London. This is only one of a number of schemes which are going ahead, including the Jubilee Line extension to Docklands; there is a Bill before another place now. The cost of that will be over £1 billion. There will be extensions of the Docklands Light Railway to Bank and Beckton, and major upgrading of existing network to make the best possible use of existing lines. That is to cost £1.8 billion and includes upgrading of the Central and Northern Lines, enlargement of key stations, more trains and lengthening of platforms on Network SouthEast.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I looked carefully at the Companion to the Standing Orders, and realised that a Private Notice Question should not be the subject of general debate. However, there are a number of questions I should like to ask the Minister arising from the welcome Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.

I was in a position yesterday to listen to the television broadcast of the Secretary of State's statement to the Conservative conference. I was amazed when I heard the statement made regarding the acceptance of the Crossrail link in the light of questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Errol of Hale, and the supplementary questions.

I respect the integrity and honesty of the Minister now before us, but I should like to ask whether the department was aware that an announcement was to be made to the Conservative Party conference yesterday. If so, did the Secretary of State give instructions that no Statement was to be made to this House on Monday so that it could be made to the Conservative Party conference yesterday?

My next question is this. The Secretary of State made clear that he was content for this legislation to wait until November 1991 before its introduction in this House. I happened to be looking at the business plan of LRT published in March this year in which LRT was confidently expecting that the Bill would be introduced to Parliament this November. We are informed this morning in certain organs of the press that the department gave instructions some months ago not to proceed with the Bill this November. Will the Minister say whether or not that is correct?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, as regards the Question I answered on Monday, I believe I was very clear. I said in my original Answer to my noble friend that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State hopes to make an announcement shortly, and that is exactly what he did.

Noble Lords

Oh!

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I have stood at this Dispatch Box on previous occasions and been criticised for using words such as "shortly" and "soon" when events have taken weeks or months. This time I have been able to do better, and I hope that your Lordships are pleased about that.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about the Bill. I have already spoken about the deposit of a Bill in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. However, it is the case that if it had been possible to take decisions on the East-West Crossrail earlier, it might have been possible to deposit a Bill this year. As I have already made clear, the sums involved are extremely large and the project had to be considered alongside other competing claims during the public expenditure discussions.

Lord Erroll of Hale

My Lords, as the originator of this whole subject, may I say that I tabled my Question in all innocence in order to seek information about the project. I am delighted to have learned so much. However, will my noble friend arrange for the immediate publication of an up-to-date map of where the East-West Crossrail is likely to go? At present we are solely reliant on the sketch plan in the Central London Rail Study which was published almost two years ago.

My noble friend did let fall that the tunnel will now conform to the British standard rail loading gauge, which was not indicated in the original scheme. Does that mean that freight trains will now be permitted to use this crossrail link during night hours and thereby further disturb the peace and tranquility of those unfortunate enough to live immediately above it?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, as my noble friend said, we have a sketch plan in the Central London Rail Study which was published last year. A more detailed and technical report will be available shortly and I shall make certain that my noble friend receives a copy. When I say "shortly", I am speaking in terms of about a week or so.

In regard to the carriage of freight, I regret that I do not have an immediate answer for my noble friend and I will have to write to him.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, in the interests of the House as a whole perhaps I may turn to the constitutional point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and, indeed, by the noble Lord in his reply. Is it not the case that, when the Minister replied to his noble friend on Monday, Ministers knew perfectly well that a statement was to be made by the Secretary of State at the Conservative Party conference on Tuesday? Further, is it not the constitutional position that when this House is sitting, Parliament is sitting? Therefore, the way that this matter has been handled is, in my view, unquestionably in contempt of this House. The least that the noble Lord can do on behalf of the Government is to apologise to the House.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, if I have offended the House then, of course, I apologise. I have already referred to what I said on Monday in my reply to my noble friend. I was then able to answer a Written Question from my noble friend which was available yesterday afternoon. Unfortunately it has not yet been printed in Hansard because Written Questions are not printed in Hansard if the House sits too late, as it did last night. It was, of course, available elsewhere in the House.

Lord Jenkin of Roding

My Lords, will my noble friend accept that for many of us the fact that the statement has been made is extremely welcome and that that is much more important than where it was made? Secondly, can my noble friend give further information about the Heathrow Express Railway Bill. From what one has read so far there has been no indication that it will be possible for trains on that railway, when it has been approved and built, to continue on to Liverpool Street, yet I know that that has been in the minds of Ministers. Can my noble friend throw any light on that matter?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for welcoming the announcement, however it was made. It is, of course, a major project from whatever angle one looks at it. The Heathrow Express Railway Bill is currently being considered in another place. I understand—I am open to correction —that it is not proposed that the Heathrow Express railway should join with the new East-West Crossrail. If I am wrong, I shall write to my noble friend.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, as it appears that the debate has now been widened by one or two noble Lords, perhaps I may put a further question. In his speech to the Conservative Party conference yesterday why did not the Secretary of State make any reference to how this project will be funded? I understand that a statement was made by LRT spokesmen yesterday that public funds are essential if this project is to proceed.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, the line will indeed be publicly funded. It will cost £1.4 billion of public funds.

Lord Jenkins of Hillhead

My Lords, there now seems to be general agreement in this House that the announcement that has been made is welcome and that your Lordships have not been left to learn about it entirely from the Conservative Party conference. As that is due entirely to the initiative of my noble friend Lord Tordoff in asking this Private Notice Question, will not the Leader of the House consider whether he should withdraw? It really was an intolerably portentious rebuke of my noble friend.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, the situation is entirely clear. The position that my noble friend Lord Brabazon took in answering Questions has been covered. An arranged Parliamentary Question was then tabled in order to treat the House with every courtesy, which was answered but not printed for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Brabazon. Under those circumstances I did not hesitate in agreeing to the Private Notice Question today.

Lord Jenkins of Hillhead

My Lords, will the noble Lord apply himself to the point that I put to him and not to an entirely different point?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I am sorry, but there is nothing that I can add to what I have already said.

Lord Marsh

My Lords, does not the noble Lord believe that it would assist the House to consider more easily the constitutional implications which have been raised by carrying out an inquiry among former Cabinet Ministers in this House to see whether there are any who have not saved up juicy statements for party conferences?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I note what the noble Lord said.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I have a question for the Leader of the House which arises from the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, when putting his Private Notice Question. The noble Lord referred to the television cameras and said that they were not here in this Chamber today because they were at the Tory Party conference. This matter was raised on Monday by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition when he pointed out that the television cameras were not here on that day.

Yesterday they were in the Chamber to cover the Broadcasting Bill but, lo and behold, they have disappeared again today. No doubt they will not be here tomorrow.

A Noble Lord

Why not? We have the Broadcasting Bill tomorrow.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

Of course, my Lords; thank you for the correction. There is a serious point here. This House is part of Parliament. I believe that we are entitled to be treated properly by the electronic media. If the television people—

Lord Denham

Question!

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I am coming to that. If the Chief Whip will allow me to develop my argument I shall be much faster on the point that I wish to make.

Noble Lords

Order!

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, the question I wish to ask—

Lord Denham

Order!

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, if the noble Lord keeps heckling from the Front Bench—

Lord Denham

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord realises that this House has its own rules. The same procedure applies to a Question of which private notice has been given; namely that questions must be asked and speeches must not be made. It is a perfectly simple request to make to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that he should put what he is saying in the form of a question. That is all I am asking and I hope that he will do that.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, yes.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me. He was pretty widely out of order because his question was not about the East-West Crossrail which is contained in the terms of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. If the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has a question on the East-West Crossrail I shall be delighted to try to amplify the replies of my noble friend Lord Brabazon. Otherwise, the noble Lord must not pursue that line of questioning and we should move on to the next business.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, of course I defer to the Leader of the House. I had understood that the Private Notice Question was finished. I did not wish to mix up this point with that Question. Perhaps I may bring the matter to a conclusion. Bearing in mind that the broadcasters are playing fast and loose with this House, I wonder whether he and perhaps the House can ask the Broadcasting Committee to look at the whole question of the future relationship between the broadcasters and this House.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, it is very important that I should make the point that that matter does not arise from the present Question. It is very important that we do not have a running business session in the House. The Private Notice Question is finished. However, I shall be very happy to discuss with the noble Lord outside the House the matter which concerns him.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I ask the Chief Whip this question: is it in order to make speeches from a sitting position?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, it is not. As I am in a standing position at the Box perhaps I may now suggest that we move on to the next business.