HL Deb 24 January 1994 vol 551 cc825-36
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the proposed new Channel Tunnel rail link. The House will recall that in March 1993 I announced a preferred route and asked Union Railways to lead the consultation on it. Union Railways carried out a huge consultation exercise, and reported to me in October. Its report is available in the Vote Office. I am now able to announce the Government's final conclusions on the route. Union Railways' report confirms that St. Pancras is preferable to King's Cross as the terminus on environmental, operational and commercial grounds. I therefore confirm the choice of St. Pancras as the London terminus. BR will no longer need to continue seeking powers to build the King's Cross low level station and will be withdrawing the King's Cross Bill. I intend to remove the safeguarding of the land and property affected by that project. Links from St. Pancras will be provided to the east and west coast main lines to facilitate through services to the Midlands, the north of England and Scotland; and Midland main line services will be retained at St. Pancras. I propose to seek powers in the hybrid Bill for the advance works for a new Thameslink station under St. Pancras, at Midland Road. This would be the optimum location for any eventual new Thameslink station serving the King's Cross and St. Pancras area. It is our intention that further improvements to Thameslink would be carried forward by the private sector. The use of any powers obtained will be a matter for the private sector promoters of the Channel Tunnel rail link, and of Thameslink, not the Government. I now turn to the route itself. The approach to St. Pancras has been one of the most contentious issues in London. The surface route along the north London line corridor would be difficult to construct and environmentally damaging. I considered the approach to St. Pancras in combination with three other options recommended by Union Railways for operational reasons. I have accepted a package which incorporates a tunnel, a grade-separated approach to the terminus, a short open concrete box at Stratford to allow for an emergency crossover, and advance works for a connection to Temple Mills. In Kent, there is no easy choice at Pepper Hill. The tunnel under the electricity switching station has to be ruled out because of high cost and grave threat to the construction programme. The choice between a tunnel under Pepper Hill and an alignment around it cannot be made without more information. Before taking a final decision I shall hold further consultations with those concerned. I confirm that there will be a short tunnel under the North Downs. I have accepted a 240 metre long tunnel at Hollingbourne to preserve the setting of the conservation area and reduce noise impacts; and a 170 metre long tunnel at Sandway under the Headcorn Road so as to reduce the impact on the conservation area. At Ashford, I have had to rule out the tunnel option to the west of Ashford on grounds of cost; but, as a consequence, and at the request of Ashford Borough Council, I have asked Union Railways to consider urgently the relative merits of the present northerly preferred route and a central route through Ashford but then proceeding on the surface in a north-westerly direction. The new international station at Ashford is now proceeding and will serve passengers both before and after the construction of a new rail link. At the Dollands Moor freight inspection facility adjacent to Eurotunnel's terminal, the Bill will allow for possible realignment to improve operations, with the further possibility of allowing international freight trains to have direct access to the rail link, thus removing the need for an additional freight inspection facility at Westenhanger. I shall also provide in the Bill for two freight passing loops in Kent, to keep open the option of taking more freight trains if demand justifies it in the future. I turn now to intermediate stations. The decision in October 1991 to route the rail link on an easterly approach into London was based in large part on the opportunities for regeneration. With that objective in mind, the Government's view remains that, subject to satisfactory finance, there should be at least one intermediate station between Ashford and London. Four possible locations—Stratford, Rainham, Ebbsfleet and Nashenden—have been looked at. The proposed domestic station at Nashenden has no private sector or local authority promoter or support. I have decided that it can be ruled out. That leaves Stratford, Rainharn and Ebbsfleet. Ebbsflett and Rainham are in direct competition, both being M.25 parkway stations. On present information, a combined international and domestic station at the northern site at Ebbsfleet seems the better parkway station option, but a final decision will depend upon the provision of satisfactory financing by the promoting group. The economic case for a station at Stratford has yet to be fully made. If the justification for one—in particular, the financial case—improves before the hybrid Bill is introduced, powers could be sought to build a longer box there than the one to which I referred earlier. I intend to issue planning directions in the next few weeks to safeguard the route announced today and St. Pancras. These directions will replace all of the existing safeguarding directions. I want to make it clear that the decisions on safeguarding the route announced today are final. Any changes which may be proposed by the private sector partner who will eventually build and operate the new link must be within the area safeguarded. Furthermore, any changes must not materially worsen the environmental impacts of the safeguarded route. The private sector will, however, have flexibility to decide on some operational features of the railway. I expect that the private sector will also want to consider carefully the phasing of the works. I recognise that there is considerable concern about blight. Homes wholly or substantially required for building the railway, together with those seriously affected by the works or operation of the railway, will be included in the safeguarded zone and will be offered voluntary purchase. Any other homes that may be affected by operational noise above the proposed threshold for noise insulation will qualify for purchase in cases of hardship. As I announced last November, the project will go ahead on the fastest possible timetable, with the private sector assuming full responsibility for construction and operation. The Government are willing in principle to provide substantial public sector support, in recognition not only of the significant domestic transport and regeneration benefits from the new line, but also of some of the very large benefits to international passengers. Government assistance will be provided partly through the transfer of European passenger services to the private sector partner as soon as the partner has been chosen. The total Government assistance to be provided will depend on the outcome of the competition to select the private sector partner, which will be launched very soon. A hybrid Bill is being drafted on the basis of the safeguarded route. We aim to have it ready by this autumn for consideration by the private sector and for the Government to take forward thereafter. The precise timing of the Bill's introduction will depend on the parliamentary timetable and the private sector's views. This solution will provide a fast rail link between London and the Channel Tunnel. It achieves all the Government's objectives. People who live in Kent will get further improved rail services to London. Rail travellers will receive the extra capacity when it is needed around the turn of the century. It provides a new railway which is sensitive to the land and townscapes through which it passes. It establishes a joint venture in which both the public and private sector play their roles. It is a further demonstration, coming on top of Dartford Bridge, the second Severn crossing, Heathrow express and the Jubilee Line extension, all of which have been built or are under construction, that the private finance initiative is now moving ahead fast". My Lords, that completes the Statement.

4.15 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement in this House. We welcome the Statement. However, it has taken something like six years of vacillation on the part of the Government to come to a decision. As from May of this year trains from Paris to Calais will travel at 180 miles an hour but will be obliged to complete the journey from Dover to London at an escargot pace of about 47 miles an hour—a true case of a two-speed Europe.

Was it not palpably clear years ago that a substantial non-user grant would be needed to make private investment viable for what is clearly a large and complex development? Equally, was it not ideological fantasy on the part of Conservative governments to believe that it was impossible to make public provision? That was the underlying commitment of the Channel Tunnel Act. Is it not clear that one of the difficulties was insufficient enthusiasm from the private sector for investment in the project? I hope the Minister will say what is meant by substantial public sector support from the Government. I refer to the paragraph of the Statement which states: The total Government assistance to be provided will depend on the outcome of the competition to select the private sector partner, which will be launched very soon". Is it not clear those bodies will be reluctant to come forward until they know what substantial public sector support is likely to be forthcoming from the Government? Vagueness is the enemy of progress in this matter.

Under Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 funding for British Rail was restricted to domestic rail services. International services were excluded. Why could the same criteria being applied on the basis of the Statement not have been introduced long ago? What the Government have introduced is a red herring as regards privatisation because even under the Channel Tunnel Act public money could have helped fund the link on the basis that it also improved domestic services. However, the Government stood in the way of that interpretation. Is the Government's contribution likely to include investment by the Government in Eurostar's new train sets and the upgrading of existing rail lines?

I turn to the question of safeguarding routes. It seems that the Government have agreed that there is to be a safeguarded route, subject, however, to some relatively minor areas in respect of which further consultation is said to be required. Does that qualification mean that the route is properly safeguarded in law? Is there not a risk that a partially safeguarded route is not protected and that today's Statement may simply amount to a preferred route as a matter of law? I do not know the answer to that question as I am not a planning lawyer. Perhaps the Minister will cast some light on the position.

I turn next to the environmental consequences. The Statement says: The surface route along the North London Line corridor would be difficult to construct and environmentally damaging". Is that not in marked contrast to the assertion made by the Secretary of State in another place on 22nd March 1993 when he said: In all but one case, the environmental impact of going for tunnelling would be worse or no better than not going for tunnelling"?—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/93; col. 614.] So what is the truth of the matter concerning the environmental consequences?

Perhaps the Minister will cast some light on the costs thrown away by the Government's pusillanimous approach. I hope that he will make a better fist of it than his predecessor did on 24th March last year when I asked him precisely that question. What will be the effect on Waterloo station of the operations to be carried out on the Channel Tunnel link?

Finally, can we have some assessment of the completion date which the Government have in mind? We have heard so many different estimates from the Government. On 18th May 1990 Mr. Roger Freeman said that it would be the year 2000; on 9th October 1991, Malcolm Rifkind, the then Secretary of State, said that it would be 2005; on 14th October 1991 the same Minister said again that it would be 2005; yet on 22nd March 1993 the present Secretary of State said that it would be the year 2000. We have heard a number of conflicting guesses from the Secretaries of State concerned. Perhaps the Minister can throw some light on the matter.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in your Lordships' House. Those of us, unlike the Minister, who have been through the process of considering the Channel Tunnel Bill and all the addenda attached to it over the years feel a modest sense of relief that something seems finally to have been decided, even though some aspects are shrouded in mystery, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, suggested.

First, we were told that Waterloo was adequate and there was no need for a further terminal. Then we were told that there was need for a further terminal, that the terminal would be King's Cross and that there would be tunnelling and people around Warwick Road would be compensated. All those phases proceeded like peeling the skin off an onion. I hope that now we have reached the core of the onion we can begin to make some progress.

Are the Government really satisfied that St. Pancras is the right option? I accept that that is what has been decided, and thank heavens for a decision. However, when your Lordships' Select Committee looked at the King's Cross Bill there seemed to be some question as to whether the structure of St. Pancras was adequate to deal with the heavyweight trains that would be required to go north-west and north-east from the station.

I am glad that the Thameslink station under St. Pancras is to be built because that seems to be a sensible connection. However, I wonder why it has to be built by the private sector. That is another example of piecemeal development. I fear that the pieces of the jigsaw will not fit together into a picture that we can recognise as a comprehensive rail service when the work is finished.

As regards the route itself I profess no expertise. I simply hope that those people affected will be properly compensated and that such planning blight as there will undoubtedly be does not continue for a minute longer than is absolutely necessary.

I am glad that the international station at Ashford is beginning to take shape. However, I wonder what Ashford council says about the decision to rule out the tunnel option. Does it have any views on either of the other options which were available or does it consider both to be unsatisfactory in relation to the tunnel option?

I am glad that there will be a passing loop for freight in Kent. It sounds rather like an old-fashioned single line railway where people exchanged sticks. It hardly seems part of 20th century technology, but it is better than having no proper freight link to the Channel Tunnel. A separate freight line is what is really required but I do not suppose that we shall get that out of this Government, even though the shipment of freight from our industries into the markets of Europe is probably the only serious reason for having a Channel tunnel in the first place.

I turn to the question of the station en route. The choice apparently now comes down to Stratford, Rainham, Ebbsfleet and Nashenden. I heard of Ebbsfleet only today. No doubt it is a very worthy place and a useful parkway. However, is that really part of any transport strategy? Presumably it is possible to drive round the M.25 to get to Ebbsfleet in order to catch a train to Paris. The question is whether it is possible to drive round the M.25 in the first place. I should have thought Stratford a much better option. I never supported the option of Stratford as the terminal for the route but it has connections with the Jubilee Line and the other metropolitan lines. One hopes that one of these days it will have connections with CrossRail. It is interesting that when the Government congratulate themselves on the wonderful decisions they have made on the Dartford bridge, the Severn crossing, the Heathrow express and the Jubilee Line extension, which they apparently see as the pinnacle of their success—although it has been difficult to get any of those routes accepted by the Government—they omit CrossRail. I should have thought that that was a vital part of the strategy, although I dare say that a number of people living in London under whose houses the railway would run do not agree with me. It seems to me that the proposals are still extremely piecemeal.

When the Government talk of environmental considerations they mean noise and disturbance from passing trains. That is important. But environmental considerations go wider. The Government should be providing a transport strategy which will get people out of their motor cars and on to public transport as often as possible. I should have thought that Stratford was a much better option in that respect than this place, Ebbsfleet, to which we shall all no doubt be taken at some stage. The Statement indicates that the financial case for Stratford has yet to be fully made—not the environmental or transport case. I wonder whether there is a danger that when the decision is finally made on the station en route the financial case for Ebbsfleet may be the most promising because it is a cheap site. I hope that the Government will not fall into the trap of accepting Ebbsfleet simply because it is a cheap site if it does not provide the connections to the transport network of the Greater London area which are so necessary.

We welcome the fact that a number of issues have now been cleared up and this important project can at last proceed, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis said, the timing considerations are still obscure. To say that the scheme can now move ahead as fast as possible is an ironic statement. We should have been able to travel on the railway from May this year.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for the welcome they gave to the Statement. I hope that that is an indication of a good start to the Statements that I may have to make in your Lordships' House. I am also pleased that I have brought relief to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and other noble Lords who have perhaps already been down this track on a number of occasions.

It is only fair to point out to both noble Lords that this is an extremely important decision. It is important in terms of the size of the project. It is also important because the route passes through an extremely busy part of our country. I am told that Kent is one of the most densely populated parts of the country. It is an area where a great many people live; it also has a number of areas of outstanding natural beauty which one naturally wants to try to protect as far as possible.

I do not accept the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about six years of vacillation. If we get the decision right, as I believe we have today, that is of great importance.

I should like to correct the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in case he gave some of your Lordships the idea that trains in France will travel at an average speed of 180 miles per hour. I was rather intrigued by the suggestion the first time I read it in the press. I have checked up. They will not. Trains may reach that speed on sections of the line but their average speed will be considerably less. When the whole project is finished and the rail link from London to the Channel Tunnel is open the journey time will be shortened by approximately half an hour. That is important. It is wrong to leave your Lordships with the belief that the trains on the other side of the channel will travel at 180 m.p.h. almost all the time. Engineers among your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that that is not the case.

I was asked in particular about the safeguarding position at Pepper Hill and Ashford. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that nothing is safeguarded at those two sites until the further studies have been completed and a decision made.

I believe that Waterloo will have an important part to play in the system in the future. Journey times from Waterloo, of course, will take a little longer than from St. Pancras, but there will be great advantages for those people who come from locations to the south and west of London. We believe that Waterloo will play an important part in the future operations of this line.

The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked me whether we were sure that St. Pancras was the correct site. Once he has had the opportunity to digest the enormous report, he will see the arguments that have been brought to bear and I believe that he will come to the same conclusions.

With regard to Ashford, as the Statement points out, at the request of Ashford Borough Council Union Railways has been asked to consider the relative merits of the two routes. Clearly it is involved. Ebbsfleet and Rainham are possible stations. Their attraction is that they are on the M.25. However, I made it clear that one site will be chosen, and we are at present looking more favourably at Ebbsfleet.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive my intervention, I had the impression from the Statement, although it is not clear, that there were three options, Stratford being one. Is the Minister now saying that the choice is in fact only between Ebbsfleet and Rainham?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I am sorry that I did not make myself clear. Ebbsfleet and Rainham have the same attraction—they are on the M.25. Different arguments apply for Stratford. That is my point. I hope that it satisfies the noble Lord.

4.32 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, contrary to what was said earlier, the Statement indicates that there will be substantial public expenditure in support of these developments. I appreciate that my noble friend is probably not in a position to give any precision to that announcement. However, knowing the way in which governments work, presumably the Government have in mind a maximum expenditure for this project beyond which they are not prepared to go. Could we know what that sum is?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, my noble friend reminds me that I did not answer one of the questions posed to me by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. He has given me an opportunity to do so.

How much money the Government are prepared to provide will depend on what comes out of the competition for the private sector promoter, which will start shortly. I cannot anticipate at this time the balance of the total sum of money between private and public capital.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, first, is the noble Lord aware that in the King's Cross area the local authorities and local amenity groups have spent thousands of pounds with regard to the King's Cross Bill. The Government are now withdrawing the Bill. What compensation will he made to the local authorities and others who have spent so much of local taxpayers' money in pursuing a Bill which the Government, on a whim, are withdrawing? Secondly, will the noble Lord tell the House how many homes and businesses will be involved in the scheme? Who will rehouse the people and relocate the businesses?

Lastly, did I hear the Minister correctly saying that in areas of blight people would be offered voluntary purchase? Does that mean purchase out of their own pockets? Let us suppose that already people are being made distraught by their mortgages and that businesses are going down the drain. What does the Minister mean by voluntary purchase? Are the Government taking any account of the human problems involved in the plans?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, perhaps I may answer the noble Baroness's last question first. Referring to the houses at the edge of the safeguarded direct route—not those which will have to be taken over and knocked down—by voluntary purchase I mean that the person who owns the house has the option of deciding whether or not he should take up a purchase offer from the private sector company which will be doing the work. It is not the owner's money. He will be given the money in exchange for his house, so to speak. It is the other way round from the way in which the noble Baroness considered the matter.

It is difficult to quantify the number of houses and businesses directly affected. However, it will affect few dwelling houses on the line of the safeguarded route. There will be more business consequences but we hope that the general improvements in the area brought about by the project, especially in east London, will more than compensate.

The noble Baroness referred to the King's Cross Bill. It is not the Government who are withdrawing it but British Rail. Whether people are paid something is a matter for British Rail.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth

My Lords, is the Minister aware that there will be a great sigh of relief from those of us who live in Kent that this six year tale of dithering, indecision and blight is at last coming to an end? However, for Ashford it has not yet come to an end. Will the Minister give some indication as to when a final decision will be taken that will produce the safeguarded line through Ashford?

On a more general point, given the folly of the previous Prime Minister with regard to the financing of the project, is the Minister aware that there will be a great welcome for the fact that there will now be a substantial public sector involvement in providing a decent rail service through Kent? Is that result probably not the most spectacular U-turn in the history of railways in Britain?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, the noble Lord ought to know that trains do not make U-turns. However, I am glad to note from his accent that I seem to be an honorary Kentish man, if he indeed lives in Kent.

Clearly we wish the Ashford route to be resolved as quickly as possible. We shall certainly move to settle the matter with the parties involved and with the borough council as soon as possible. Obviously we have to do so in time to have a hybrid Bill ready for the autumn.

Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on having finally settled on a route from St. Pancras, in particular if it involves the restoration of that splendid hotel next to the station. However, will the noble Lord tell us how the route will improve freight movements? I have always believed, as I think many people who support the Channel Tunnel project do, that freight rather than passenger traffic will make or break the Channel Tunnel project. How will the route help long distance freight from Glasgow, Birmingham, the Midlands generally and West Wales? I have in mind Milford Haven, which has a marvellous, under-used port for transatlantic traffic. How does St. Pancras fit into that pattern?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, the freight situation is a little complicated. The line we are discussing today is primarily for passenger traffic. However, as I mentioned in my Statement, if it is thought necessary, there will be provision for some freight movement. The important aspect about the link so far as concerns freight, is that as pressure on current lines in Kent builds up towards the end of the decade and into the next, and as the passenger link comes in, that will relieve some of the pressure on those lines to make room for what we trust will be an increasing amount of freight traffic, preferably exports going from the United Kingdom to the Continent.

Lord Morris

My Lords, I, too, welcome my noble friend repeating the Statement. Does my noble friend agree that although Her Majesty's Government have been accused by the Opposition of dithering and blight, if they had not gone through, most responsibly, a very lengthy consultation exercise, noble Lords opposite would have complained even further? One bears in mind that Her Majesty's Government saw that considerable report in October. It is a remarkable achievement that they came to a decision so expeditiously. I congratulate my noble friend on so doing.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind remarks. He is absolutely right. If the Government had come to a hurried decision about this whole issue, the Opposition would have complained that they should have taken their time. The Government having taken their time, the Opposition complain about that. That is their way, and I would not expect otherwise.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, having taken part in the King's Cross Select Committee, I was rather surprised to hear that St. Pancras is such a worthy station. The evidence that was produced in front of the committee was that King's Cross was very much the preferred option. One of the issues brought up in the Select Committee was that the underground system which is to service that station will be overcrowded, given the introduction of so many passengers from the channel service. Is the Minister aware of that, and are there any plans to improve the underground system?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, obviously the noble Lord has a point about the way in which passengers come in to the new terminus at St. Pancras and fan out once they have arrived. On the present analysis, we believe that the underground station at King's Cross may have sufficient capacity to cater for passengers for the domestic services. Above that level we have to look at further dispersal methods and at improving the way in which passengers come to and from the station. Although my geography of London is not terrific, I would not have thought that there is too much difference between King's Cross and St. Pancras in that respect.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, further to my noble friend's question, does this not again bear on the Stratford situation? If the trains stop at Stratford rather than the other places in Essex or Kent, there will be a considerable siphoning off of passengers onto the Jubilee Line and onto the Docklands Light Railway to go down to Canary Wharf and on, we hope, to CrossRail. That will relieve congestion at St. Pancras. Should that not be a very weighty consideration when deciding which of the stations we should choose?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, the noble Lord puts a good case, and one which is no doubt part of the argument in favour of a stop at Stratford. Equally, there is a similar argument for a stop at either Rainham or Ebbsfleet to allow for access onto the M.25. People will want to use their motor cars to get to the railhead in order to go to the Continent.

Lord Sefton of Garston

My Lords, is the Minister as concerned as I am, along with many other people in the north west, about the link with the west coast mainline? I understand from the department that if that link is to be achieved major works have to be carried out in the direction of Hampstead. I understand that the link is called the "Hampstead cord". Can the Minister give an assurance that the same level of urgency will be applied to doing those works in order to establish the link between the west coast mainline and the tunnel as seems to be attached to all the other railway projects that we are to have in and out of London?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, it is not just the importance of getting in and out of London which makes the Channel Tunnel so important. It is the links to the rest of the country—even further north perhaps than those in which the noble Lord is interested. I am not a railway man, but my understanding is that there is a link to the west of London which allows for freight and other traffic to make the loop from the Channel Tunnel out, round London and in a northerly direction.

Lord Sefton of Garston

My Lords, will the Minister be so kind as to check with the department? I have a letter telling me that work has to be done.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, of course I will check on that point.

Baroness White

My Lords, can the noble Lord say anything about the link with the ports in Wales, in the west?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, my understanding is that there are links in the complicated rail system round London that enable links not just with the north of the country—which of course the noble Lord and I believe to be important—but also with Wales, which the noble Baroness thinks is important.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, before we move on perhaps I may come back to the matter of Stratford, Rainham and Ebbsfleet about which the Minister was questioned earlier. How long is the investigation likely to take? What happens if satisfactory financing by the promoting group is not forthcoming?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, we are perfectly confident that there will be satisfactory finance from the private sector for the whole project, if that is the noble Lord's question. So far as the three stations that we discussed are concerned, we feel that it is too soon to make a final decision now. As I mentioned earlier, a key factor will be what the private sector puts up by way of finance and also by way of argument, so far as those stations are concerned. I can assure the noble Lord that those decisions will be taken before the introduction of a Bill.