HL Deb 12 July 1991 vol 530 cc1632-41

1.33 p.m.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the Bill is to permit the building of a 15 kilometre extension of the Jubilee line from Green Park, in the West End, to Stratford in the east. Assuming Royal Assent is granted early in the new year, the extension should open in 1996. By the year 2001, the Jubilee line including the extension is expected to be carrying a total of 167 million passengers per year. That compares with the Victoria line which, by 2001, is expected to be carrying a total of 153 million passengers per year.

The Bill is promoted by London Transport. It was deposited in Parliament in November 1989. An additional provision was subsequently deposited. A further Bill (the No. 2 Bill) was deposited in November 1990. These were all considered by an Opposed Private Bill Committee in another place. They have now been consolidated into the Bill which is now before the House. It was given a Third Reading in the other place on the 24th June. The sound system in the Chamber appears to be "coming and going". If I change my position a little, perhaps it will improve.

The Bill proposes the biggest addition to the underground system since the Victoria line was built in the 1960s. The new extension will start in a tunnelled junction with the existing line, just south-east of Green Park station. It then runs under Westminster, Waterloo, London Bridge and Docklands. It will cross the Thames four times: here at Westminster, then between the Surrey Docks and the Isle of Dogs, then across to North Greenwich; and a fourth time from there to Canning Town. At Canning Town, the line will come to the surface. It will then follow the existing British Rail route—the North London line—to serve the communities of West Ham and Stratford in the Borough of Newham. It will terminate at Stratford.

The proposals for the Westminster station will be of special interest to the House. Your Lordships will recall that London Underground's original proposals involved works in Parliament Square. I am happy to say that the scheme has been completely revised. Our green square will not now be affected. All the work will now be confined to the Bridge Street site; that is, the existing station will be expanded on its existing site, below ground level, to provide all the new facilities needed. Above it, a new parliamentary building (phase 2) will be built, on a concrete "raft" over the station. The same architect, Mr. Michael Hopkins, will design both the new station and the parliamentary building. I believe that this will provide a very satisfactory outcome to the needs of both Parliament and the transport system.

The Jubilee line extension will bring many benefits to a wide area of London: it will be a major addition to the transport services to Docklands; it will help sustain inner-city regeneration there; it will link two of the main rail termini—Waterloo and London Bridge—with the West End and docklands; and, very significantly, it will bring parts of south-east London—notably Bermondsey and Greenwich—onto the tube map for the first time. The project has wide support. I believe that no one opposes the principle of its construction. However, I know that noble Lords will have certain concerns. I should like to touch very briefly on some of them.

I know that many of your Lordships have an interest in the subject of listed buildings and conservation areas. The House is rightly concerned to ensure that buildings of architectural importance are not demolished or interfered with, for the purposes of public works, without proper consideration.

In March your Lordships gave a Third Reading to the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill. There was one particular clause in that Bill which troubled your Lordships. My noble friend Lord Elton moved an amendment to delete it. The clause concerned the disapplication of the listed buildings provisions in the planning legislation. Your Lordships were concerned about the principle of interfering with the general law by a Private Bill.

Put shortly, when the safety Bill and the Jubilee Bill were deposited in Parliament, both contained a blanket disapplication of the listed buildings legislation. That approach attracted considerable criticism, inside and outside both Houses. As a result, a compromise was found. The promoters amended the Bills, so that they now contain a schedule which sets out the listed buildings, or buildings in conservation areas, which will be interfered with or demolished. That solution appealed to the Committee on this Bill in another place. It also satisfied those of your Lordships who sat on the opposed committee dealing with the Safety Measures Bill. I understand that it also has the support of the Government.

However, that does not mean to say that a provision of this kind will be used in every case involving listed buildings. Each case will have to be examined to determine whether the normal planning procedures should be followed or whether the circumstances justify the approach adopted in the Bill. In the case of the Safety Measures Bill, I am pleased to say that, after a full explanation, my noble friend Lord Elton withdrew his amendment.

The Bill now before the House follows the compromise I described. Some 45 buildings and structures, either listed or unlisted but within conservation areas, are included in the schedule to the Bill (Schedule 9). But only one listed building (grade II) will require demolition. That is the building above Westminster station: Nos. 1 and 2 Bridge Street. The new Buildings Sub-Committee and the Select Committee on Services in the other place support its demolition. They have held both formal and informal meetings with the promoters. In its report of 15th May 1990, the Select Committee referred to the proposals for Nos. 1 and 2 Bridge Street put forward by Michael Hopkins, the architect appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment for phase 2 of the new parliamentary building project. It said: We consider that Mr. Hopkins has made out a strong case for replacing the existing buildings—which even in their original form we regard as being architecturally mediocre—and we wish to support this in principle". The committee sitting on the Bill in another place approved the report of the Select Committee. However, it made it a condition of demolition that a resolution approving a design for the new parliamentary building had to be passed by the other place before demolition.

I believe that the loss of one Listed Building is a very limited impact for a project of this magnitude. The promoters have given an undertaking that they will maintain full and close consultation with English Heritage and the relevant local planning authorities, throughout the whole period of works, in respect of the buildings listed in the schedule. I hope noble Lords will accept the approach that has now been adopted.

The architecture of the new stations has been given special attention. It is intended that the calibre of the architects appointed will contribute greatly to the creation of a transport system worthy of the 21st century. The architects who have been commissioned have been very carefully selected following interview and review of the work of over 70 practices.

The environment is a matter about which your Lordships have a great and continuing interest. I believe that the promoters are acting in an equally responsible way here too. An independent consultancy was commissioned to carry out an environmental assessment of the proposals. The consultants' report (the environmental statement) was published in March 1990. There have since been two addenda to cover major revisions to the proposals. I deposited copies of each of those in the Library about two weeks ago.

The chairman of LT and LUL, Mr. Wilfrid Newton, has given an undertaking that London Underground will adopt the consultants' recommendations. Those recommendations provide ways to mitigate possible impacts of the project. They are being built into the design and into a code of construction practice.

Your Lordships have always had a special interest in planning for the disabled. Nowhere is that more important than in transport investment. At present, wheelchair users cannot travel on the "deep tube" parts of the London Underground system. The extension, however, will be designed from the outset to make their journeys possible. Every one of the new stations will have lifts built in. I hope the day will come when that will apply to old stations. Subject to approval by the Railway Inspectorate and the LFCDA—I am afraid I do not know what that means —disabled people will therefore be carried on the deep-level tube for the first time. Studies are now going ahead to find ways in which that can be extended to the whole system.

Other forms of disability are being planned for too. Detailed design of stations will meet the needs of people who are hearing-impaired or sight-impaired. Examples are an extra 50 centimetres on handrails beyond the end of stairs; colouring white the first and last risers on each flight of stairs; and care in design to avoid sharp objects and sharp edges. As your Lordships know, a particular hobby-horse of mine is provision for "wheels"—not just for the disabled, but for people with heavy luggage, parents with push-chairs, and so on. Many of those measures help meet their needs too. I believe that these new station designs are a sign of real progress in providing for disabled people, and for able-bodied people with special needs. I am sure that the House will join me in welcoming it.

The most important consideration of all is safety. Your Lordships will know well the recommendations of the Fennell Report following the King's Cross fire. We recently considered some of the improvements resulting from those recommendations in the Safety Measures Bill which related to three existing stations. London's underground system was the world's first. The first line the Metropolitan) opened in 1863. The first deep-level tube (the Northern line) celebrated its centenary last year (1990). There is always a requirement for modernisation, and a review of modern standards. For this major new extension, however, the opportunity exists to build in maximum safety from the outset. The Jubilee line extension project has already developed a safety plan to make safety the top design priority.

I hope that noble Lords will support the Bill. It will bring real benefits to wide areas of London. It will be of great assistance in urban regeneration. I urge the House to give the Bill the Second Reading that it deserves.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time —(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)

1.45 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Baroness for the exemplary way in which she introduced the Bill and anticipated problems which some of us wish to address to her. She did all that despite temporary acronymic and microphonic difficulties. I have to speak for myself. I represented a London constituency in another place for a considerable time and as a Londoner I support the extension of the Jubilee line. I endorse the Bill. I admired the way in which the noble Baroness dealt with questions relating to the disabled and to able-bodied people with special needs. She even addressed, almost automatically—she felt that she would need to in my case—the environmental implications. She also properly referred to the safety implications which are of considerable interest to all.

The extension will provide new access facilities to the London Underground system, particularly for the residents of south London. That will undoubtedly be of benefit. Some anxiety was expressed in another place about Jubilee Gardens and Canning Town, to which the noble Baroness did not refer. Those issues will be picked up when the matter is dealt with by the Select Committee.

There is no doubt that London will be exposed to considerable inconvenience. That is inevitable with a development of this size. It will cause some perturbation while it goes on, but it is the end product that matters.

I should like to ask the Minister how the development will be financed, because that is a matter of considerable interest. As one would expect, there is no indication of that, nor should there be, in the Bill. It is for the Government, who in effect nationalised London Transport and who clearly have some responsibility in this matter, to give a clear indication to Londoners as to who will pick up the hill. I do not mean this Bill; I mean the financial bill.

One understands that the developers have indicated considerable interest in providing some financial support. But what are the details? How do the Government propose that the development will be financed? Will the passengers be expected to pick up the main burden through increased fares?

Quite apart from the helpfulness of the noble Baroness, the promoters have been extremely helpful in the supply of briefings which I imagine have not been confined to me. If they had been, I should be grateful but surprised. As I said, there are the interests of the petitioners. When people petition against Bills, they have to go to considerable expense. Some people with legitimate concerns are not financially well endowed, but they feel that they need to be represented by counsel. One can only hope that wherever possible the promoters of the Bill will seek to mitigate any inequities that necessarily arise in situations of this kind. One hopes that they will use their endeavours to enter into compromises even while the Bill is being considered in this place because one would expect that of them.

I became a little concerned that the Bill seeks to remove some consultation procedures in dealing with certain aspects of the development that is to take place. I wish to know why. It seems to be a departure in principle from the line closures which have been covered by other legislation. To some degree, it seems to be inconsistent with the London Regional Transport Act 1984 whereby the London Regional Passengers' Committee was set up and given the right to receive objections from London transport users. On that basis, it makes recommendations to the Minister who has to take account of a variety of economic and social issues before coming to conclusions, in order to ensure that passengers' interests are taken into account.

It is true that in this instance London Regional Transport has asked passengers to submit views in writing, and to that degree the views have been taken into account. Nevertheless, the rights of the consumer have in some measure been reduced. One wonders whether that is necessary. One clause in particular removes the need to fulfil statutory obligations to which I have referred, such as the closing of the stretch of line between Green Park and Charing Cross. I wonder why that is necessary.

I warmly welcome the Statement made by the Minister, Mr. Freeman, at col. 780 of Hansard in another place on 24th June this year when he said that that would not set a precedent.

I hope that the promoters of the Bill will give further consideration to ways and means whereby Jubilee Gardens may be preserved. The noble Baroness was good enough to refer to disapplying listed building controls in a limited way. Here again, one feels reassured by her remarks. The issue caused anxiety in another place but it is clear from what she said that the promoters will approach this difficult and often controversial issue with caution and care.

Having raised one or two additional points, I hope that the Bill will proceed to a satisfactory conclusion. In the interim I hope that the promoters will take further account of the anxieties that have already been proclaimed in the petitions which have been lodged. No doubt there will be other problems as the work proceeds. I am sure that the promoters will take account of the sensitivity of the matter and accord those who are concerned the greatest possible consideration.

1.55 p.m.

Lord Mountevans

My Lords, I join the general welcome which the Bill has enjoyed this afternoon. I welcome it particularly because it seems to me that it confirms the Government's commitment to expanding London's public transport infrastructure and also because it contains an element of private funding. I share the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in finding out just what that element of the total costs will be.

In detail, one must welcome the expansion of the Waterloo underground station and the four new crossings of the River Thames, none of which will be accessible or available to the private motorist. That must help us with our congestion problems. One must welcome the fact that of the 12 stations involved, nine will offer interchange with other underground routes; six will offer interchange with British Rail and three will have significant bus interchanges. I feel that all these facilities will serve to enhance our public transport in London. Many will contribute, through opening up new route opportunities, to a substantial reduction in road congestion.

Thanks to the two speeches already made, I have only one reservation on which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, touched; that is, congestion. I do not wish to pre-empt either this House or another place, but those of us who are active in the London transport field know that in a few years' time we hope to have work proceeding on the King's Cross international station. We shall have the Jubilee line extension, the subject of the Bill. We shall have East-West cross rail and projects to rebuild underground stations at Victoria, Tottenham Court Road, Holborn Kingsway and London Bridge.

I feel that the latter is something of a microcosm of the problem. I can see a time when we or London Transport rebuild London Bridge to cope with the safety and congestion requirements treated in the Bill on safety measures. We know that the Jubilee line extension will go through the Borough Market area. We know that British Rail has plans to enhance its surface network around Borough Market and it is not impossible that the link to the Channel Tunnel will also be in the area.

All these contribute to local congestion while the work is in progress. The other projects which I have mentioned, plus road ventures which I have not, will contribute to congestion on a much wider scale. My noble friend has already told us that Chelsea-Hackney has been deferred on previous occasions on grounds of congestion. Can he confirm that the Department of Transport, which after all is funding in part or in whole so many of these projects, keeps a wall chart of the projects, showing when they take place and trying to phase the timetable so that both local and more widespread congestion is minimised? I strongly support the Bill.

1.57 p.m.

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

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Baroness Gardner of Parkes on her introduction of the Bill. I welcome the opportunity to set out briefly for your Lordships the Government's position on it.

The Government whole-heartedly support the Bill. The Jubilee line extension is vital to the maintenance of the momentum for regeneration in Docklands. It will also bring substantial benefits to the surrounding areas, many of which are not currently well served by public transport. My noble friend described some of them.

In the Docklands, London has a very great asset: an area of tremendous potential close to the heart of the capital which became available for development when the docks closed. It is already a great success and a tribute to what can be done when the public and private sectors co-operate. The Jubilee line is, however, essential if Docklands is to realise its full potential. That potential is to become no less than London's third city alongside the City of London and the West End, providing capacity for growth and helping London to maintain its competitive position as Europe's first city.

The Docklands Light Railway has proved to be a very effective catalyst. But development has exceeded all the expectations when the DLR was planned. The DLR is being upgraded and the extension to Bank will open shortly. This initial service will more than double the capacity of the DLR compared with what was available at the beginning of the year. When a second Bank platform is opened, more than three times the capacity that was available in January will be provided. However, even this will not be enough. Docklands urgently needs the high capacity, arterial route which the Jubilee line will provide.

The Jubilee line extension will provide a fast link to all poi its of the compass: to the north and north-west via the existing Jubilee line from Baker Street and Green Park; from the west and south-west by interchanging with the District and Circle lines at Westminster; from the south-west counties via Waterloo; from Kent and south-east London via the British Rail lines into London Bridge; and from the east and north-east on the lines into Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street via Stratford and West Ham. It is these high quality connections which the Isle of Dogs must have if it is to grow and provide approaching 150,000 jobs by the end of the first decade of the next century.

It would be wrong, however, for me to overlook the benefit; which the extension will bring to areas of East London outside the Isle of Dogs. Not only will the line open up Docklands to a wide catchment area, it will also promote renewal in the surrounding areas—in Southwark, Bermondsey, Tower Hamlets, Newham and the Greenwich peninsula. The extension has a very much broader role than just supporting commercial development on the Isle of Dogs: the effect it will have in fostering inner city regeneration will be much wider.

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked about one of the most important features of the whole project when he asked how it is to be paid for. The line will need to be grant aided. Ring fenced grant will be provided. As for all such public projects, grant is determined annually each autumn for three years ahead. The Government believe that those who will benefit From the project should contribute towards its cost. There are several contributions from developers and the major contribution will provide some £400 million in cash. In addition passengers will contribute to the project through the payment of fares. No decision has yet been taken on whether any extra fares will be payable for this improved service. As I believe the noble Lord implied, a combination of various factors will come into play to pay for the line.

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, also asked me what the Government's attitude was to the closure of the Green Park to Charing Cross section of the existing line. The Government are familiar with the concern that has been expressed by the London Regional Passengers Committee and others about the use of Private Bill powers to secure permission to withdraw a railway service. I can assure your Lordships that the Government do not lightly support the setting aside of established statutory procedures. However, where such closures are an essential consequence of a railway proposal, the Government take the view that it is highly desirable that Parliament should decide on those closures at the same time as it considers whether the power that is sought to carry out the proposed works should be granted. In such cases the. disadvantages arising from a closure must be weighed against the benefits of the works proposed. It makes little sense for the two to be considered separately or for both to be considered in two separate procedures. At best that would involve a duplication of effort and at worst there would be a risk that Parliament's wishes might be frustrated. I hope therefore your Lordships will agree that this provision is a reasonable and appropriate one.

While I have stressed the very large benefits that the Jubilee Line will bring, I do not deny that a degree of disruption and inconvenience will be caused during the construction of the new line. Other noble Lords have referred to this matter. My noble friend Lord Mountevans asked me to confirm whether the Department of Transport keeps an eye on such disruption. I can assure my noble friend that the department is vigilant in this regard. As my noble friend mentioned, that is one reason why we felt it would not be wise to go ahead with both the Chelsea to Hackney line and the East West cross rail line at the same time.

I have visited some of the sites of the proposed Jubilee Line. One of the good things about the proposed construction is that a large amount of the spoil can be taken away by barge along the river. That will keep lorries off London roads. London Underground has gone to considerable lengths to minimise the impact on the areas through which the line will pass, and whose communities it will ultimately serve.

Like other noble Lords I note that there are 87 petitions against the Bill and the petitioners will have the opportunity of presenting their objections to the Select Committee. The committee will be in a very much better position than we are today to examine in detail the issues involved and it will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence.

I therefore wholeheartedly urge your Lordships to support the Second Reading of the Bill so that the benefits which the Bill will undoubtedly bring may be reaped without unnecessary delay.

2.5 p.m.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I particularly thank them for the support they have given to this project, which will be such a valuable one for London. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to Jubilee Gardens. I believe the compensation risk is the biggest factor that has determined the siting of the line. However, that matter, along with others, will be taken into consideration. As regards Canning Town, London Transport itself has accepted that the design for the station is not ideal. However, it would cost another £7 or £8 million to produce a design such as that used for Newham station. The developers would have to be satisfied that that extra cost was merited. On the other hand the station that will be provided at Canning Town has been designed by an eminent architect and will be of high quality.

Mention has been made of the number of petitions that have been presented. We are all aware of that fact. However, I believe the promoters have a positive approach towards genuine anxieties. They have already shown how willing they are to meet people to discuss changes where those changes are practical and possible. If a proposed change would prevent the line from proceeding, however, the promoters must of course stand firm. The promoters are to be congratulated on the response they have shown to petitions so far.

Every speaker has referred to the problem of congestion. My noble friend Lord Mountevans was concerned about this matter. I realise that the whole of London looks like a permanent building site and will probably continue to look like that for a long time. We must accept that there will be some congestion as a result of these proposals. It can be minimised, but a marvellous new underground line cannot be constructed without people suffering some inconvenience in the process. It will be worth suffering that inconvenience to obtain this new line. I again thank those who have spoken in the debate. I also thank the Minister for his helpful comments. I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.