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

I want to make a series of proposals about the future of Waterloo international station. The subject is of major importance to my constituents and the residents of south-west London. To most hon. Members, today may be Trafalgar day, but for our local people, the issue has been described as the second battle of Waterloo. Although I shall argue for a plan that will bring the greatest direct benefits to commuters in the south-west London area, I believe that our proposals make the best sense from a strategic transport perspective. They provide for the best use of platform and track at Waterloo when Eurostar leaves in 2007. The plan is a good transport solution, not parochial special pleading.

Let me first explain what a loss it will be to my constituents when Eurostar moves to St. Pancras. If the Under-Secretary speaks to Eurostar, she will find that many if not most of the regular, core users of the service—the people who go once or twice every week to Paris and Brussels—live in south-west London. If they continue to use Eurostar, their journeys will be half an hour or perhaps an hour longer. For many, the move to St. Pancras marks the end of convenient rail travel to the continent and they will return to the airlines. At a time when we are looking for more rail opportunities, we in south-west London are about to get fewer.

The Under-Secretary will also know that the track that enabled Eurostar to run into Waterloo was used before that for south-west London services. We gave up that track because Eurostar was such an important project and in the expectation that Eurostar would serve Waterloo for the long term. As one constituent said to me, "Now they don't need it, we would like it back, please."

Let us deal with the Arup report, which the Strategic Rail Authority commissioned and which was published last week, on "Alternative Uses for Waterloo International Station". We welcome that report. It lays to rest the suggestion that Waterloo international should be given over to shops rather than trains. It also emphasises that decisions need to be made quickly so that an exceptional opportunity is not missed and assets of great value and quality are not left idle.

As I interpret Arup, several proposed options for use of the station offer few realistic benefits. For example, diverting the diesel service from Paddington to Waterloo makes little sense, as Waterloo cannot accommodate diesel trains and, in any case, that would add some 20 minutes to the journey time. Diverting trains that currently have a Victoria destination to Waterloo would reproduce the same overcrowding that is cited as a problem at Victoria. That will get us nowhere.

Diverting trains from Charing Cross to Waterloo would cut those services off from London Bridge. Passengers with destinations in all the new offices developing to the east, including Canary Wharf, would find themselves arriving at Waterloo, piling into trains at Waterloo East or swamping the Jubilee line, which is already very crowded despite the addition of the seventh car. We would misuse the Jubilee line with that approach.

I recognise that commuters from the south-east require additional rail services. However, they will soon have the benefits from channel tunnel rail link 2, which will free up domestic capacity from Kent. Thameslink 2000 is in the pipeline. It is in the last stages of inquiry. That line meets not only the current but the future needs of the south-east as well as bringing regeneration and new opportunity to London Bridge. Let us not forget also, for the people of east London, the East London line and the docklands light railway extension, which are being progressed by Transport for London.

I accept that there is some scope in the argument that a temporary diversion from Charing Cross to Waterloo could speed up the building of Thameslink 2000, but some assumptions behind those numbers, particularly after having talked to the industry, suggest that the number of trains that would have to be diverted to achieve any serious benefit is quite heroic, considering the available track capacity. As I said before, that would leave us with commuters coming to Waterloo and attempting to reach their destinations with great difficulty—a recipe for chaos. I ask the Government to look at that option very closely before being persuaded by it.

We therefore come to services for south-west London as the obvious and best use of the former Eurostar platforms and access tracks. Using the Eurostar platforms for the Windsor line would be a pretty modest change involving some work on platforms, signalling and the platform entrances and exits. Commuters would at once see a performance benefit, so that South West Trains would no longer regularly have services stopping and waiting outside Waterloo. Nothing makes commuters more furious than being stopped in sight of their destination, hoping that a platform will be freed up.

Clearly, if, in addition to the Windsor line being shifted over, the Nine Elms viaduct was removed—it would no longer be needed by Eurostar—we could achieve a far greater improvement in reliability and have wider platforms, which I would argue is a needed safety measure at rush hour. All Members have to do is go to look at people piling off the trains. There would be real potential for more services.

The Nine Elms viaduct, as the Minister will remember, was put in place to allow Eurostar to cross over into its platforms, but at the cost of taking out a line that previously served South West Trains. The cost of removing the viaduct is estimated to be between £30 million and £80 million. It is a tidy sum, but it is minor in transport investment terms. There would be greater reliability, less overcrowding and potentially more services—very important gains. There would be benefits not only for my constituents, but for virtually every community along that south-west train line.

Beyond all that, there is the potential for a far more ambitious plan to build a flyover completely to upgrade the capacity to bring additional trains from Clapham junction into Waterloo, changing the role of those stations. That would finally accommodate the rapidly growing demand for rail services from Woking and beyond, but also meet the needs of south-west London commuters.

Transport for London has been very clear about its interest in considering an orbital rail scheme linking key stations in outer London to take pressure off radial routes and to provide a real alternative to the car, but that would require turning Clapham junction into a proper hub for stopping trains. The flyover—bringing additional trains into Waterloo, which I just mentioned—could be the linchpin to allowing that to happen and to creating the potential for proper orbital travel.

We are talking serious money, as the estimated amount is £300 million, but no one is saying that this should be done instantly. All the steps that I have spoken of could be staged, producing an immediate win, but leaving the option for more investment and more gains in the medium and long terms.

As a final option, I must mention Airtrack. This scheme, which would bring passengers by rail from Heathrow's terminal 5 via Staines and Richmond to Waterloo, is an option that the Government and BAA are seriously considering. It offers a way to cut Heathrow traffic congestion and improve air quality. My constituents would greatly value this service and the use of a former Eurostar platform would be ideal. My plans can accommodate that proposal.

We in south-west London have a growing need for more rail services to meet increasing demand with less crowding and less unreliability. In response to a written parliamentary question on 14 October 2005, the Department for Transport provided numbers that again showed South West Trains as the most overcrowded in London in 2003, and as the second most overcrowded in 2004. Industry players tell me that the projected growth in commuting is especially heavy in the south-west and that it will not be less than the predictions in the route utilisation strategy study of a 20 per cent. increase in demand from 2007 to 2017. The same report also warns that capacity for such growth might not be available.

Unusually, in considering the south-west commuter, the demand is exceptionally high in off-peak as well as peak periods. That is very different from the south-east, and again it demands additional service. We know from our own communities that the system is under pressure. In our areas of London, we are also aware that road congestion is worse year on year. Parts of my Constituency, in both Richmond and Kingston, are frequently close to gridlock. Without a step change in rail services, we will never be able to unlock the car traffic problem and make the shift from road use to public transport.

A few minutes ago, I listed all the new rail projects completed in or planned for east London. When I ask about similar investment in the core infrastructure in south-west London services, however, I usually get a blank look. After much thought, and having asked questions of a number of people, a member of the rail industry finally volunteered that there had been an upgrade in the power supply and some money for signalling, but no one could come up with anything else since privatisation. That is a long period to go without major investment in core infrastructure. In fact, the biggest thing that has happened to us since privatisation is losing a track to Eurostar, and then losing Eurostar.

The current South West Trains franchise expires in February 2007, and the replacement process is already under way. The Strategic Rail Authority-Department for Transport southern regional planning assessment will be published in spring 2006, when the Network Rail utilisation study for the south-west main line routes will also go to consultation. Time is of the essence. I urge the Minister to recognise the needs of south-west train users. The availability of a facility such as the Eurostar terminal is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. I hope that she will acknowledge the strength of our case, give us the decision timetable and move rapidly to formal consultation. My constituents are not being parochial when they come to the Minister and ask for this opportunity to improve rail service and transport in our area; it is desperately needed.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend Susan Kramer on securing this debate, and moreover, on the way that she has put forward the arguments on behalf of her constituents, my constituents and all the people who live in south-west London and the south-west area. She has made a cogent case, as does the Arup report, for ensuring that the five platforms at Waterloo, to be vacated by Eurostar in less than two years' time, should be used by trains from our area.

This is an historic opportunity, which we must seize. I am delighted that Arup and the Minister have rejected the argument that shops and offices could be built on those platforms, and that they will be used for public transport. This is the chance to make the moral and economic argument for more services for our areas. We have been starved of major public transport infrastructure in our areas, not just since privatisation, as my hon. Friend said, but for decades prior to that. Now is the time to put that right. My Constituency has 10 train stations, all serving the local population, funnelling into Waterloo. We have no access to the tube network, so the rail service is key to my constituents and absolutely essential.

Our hon. Friend Dr. Cable, who cannot be here today because he has gone to visit one of his schools celebrating Trafalgar day, wishes to be associated with those remarks, as he is part of our campaign. As he said to me, this is an historic day. On the 200th anniversary of Trafalgar, this is the battle for Waterloo, and we are waging it because we believe that these services are essential.

I share some of my constituents' problems, because I commute on the train from Surbiton station on almost every day that the House sits. We find the congestion just outside Waterloo, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park referred, to be one of the most galling experiences of that journey. Sometimes, one can sit outside Waterloo, almost within touching distance of the station, for 10 minutes, which is exceedingly frustrating. This is a kind of solution to that problem. It can deal with the overcrowding, which can still be a major problem. I have often experienced feeling like a sardine in some carriages, despite some good refurbishments by South West Trains in recent months.

When the invitation to tender is made, no doubt in March next year, whoever wins the franchise should be asked to include proposals in their bid as to how not only mainline services from far afield but suburban services will utilise the benefits of more platforms. Even if suburban trains do not go into the five platforms vacated by Eurostar, the benefits would be huge. If mainline services were moved, platform use would be much more flexible.

I urge the Minister to make a speedy decision. I know that a number of feasibility studies are necessary in the light of the Arup report, but may we have an early decision in principle—well before the invitations to tender—that the platforms will be used for services from the existing South West Trains franchise area? That is critical and, as my hon. Friend said, there are several ways in which to make it happen over a short period. There is the £10 million investment to bring in the Windsor line; there is the £30 million investment to free up the extra line that the Nine Elms viaduct uses; and there is the more expensive investment required to secure maximum flexibility at Clapham Junction. All that could be done in a staged way to deal with what is a very practical problem. It would provide huge value for money for the taxpayer, and it would mean a huge potential transport gain for the Government. I urge the Government to take that opportunity.

I congratulate Susan Kramer on securing the debate, and thank her for describing her ambitions for the future of Waterloo station and the train service in her area.

As the hon. Lady and Mr. Davey will know, last week, in response to a question from Dr. Cable, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the five platforms at Waterloo International would be retained for domestic passenger use after Eurostar moves to the new channel tunnel rail link terminal at St Pancras in 2007. That announcement removed uncertainty about the future use of Waterloo International, especially given press speculation about the development of the site which surfaced during the summer.

We are now focusing on three phases of further work. They involve short-term options for improving performance and capacity on South West Trains by diverting existing services to the international platforms, medium-term flexibility to use the platforms as a diversionary destination for trains that would otherwise be disrupted by Thameslink works, and potential longer-term step change improvements that would require significant additional investment.

We need to do more work. Improving the use of Waterloo is often not as straightforward as it might seem, and most of the complexities concern infrastructure constraints further down the line. What may seem a perfectly sensible proposal at the Waterloo end, such as running longer trains into the longer platforms, needs to be considered in the context of the rest of the infrastructure along the route. We need to consider, for instance, whether the platforms at stations along the line of route are long enough for the purpose.

I should make clear that we have not turned our back on redevelopment of the station, and do not wish to do so. Property projects could bring significant benefits, and help contribute to the meeting of costs. We are, however, determined that train use should come first. We are not waiting for any development scheme before beginning to use the terminal, and any property proposals would have to conform to rail needs rather than vice versa.

The Department for Transport is now beginning to examine the options, and the initial analysis should be completed by spring next year. That will allow the conclusions to be fed into the franchise specification and tender documents for the South West Trains franchise, which is due to go out to competition next spring.

Will there be time for the Department's conclusions to be debated before they are fed into the bid specification, so that there can be some accountability for them?

I am afraid that I cannot give any further details of the timing, as it is not specifically within my brief. I shall, however, ensure that my fellow Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend Derek Twigg, gives the hon. Gentleman the information.

The report sets out in detail a number of issues that need to be addressed before Waterloo can be used for domestic services. It is also clear from the report that platform availability at Waterloo is not the only constraint on capacity, and as a result a number of other schemes may be required for full use of the available capacity.

Hon. Members will be aware that Eurostar services actually join the route into Waterloo relatively close to Waterloo station in the vicinity of Vauxhall, using the Stewarts lane viaduct. Constraints on capacity exist further out from Waterloo and thus the availability of platforms at Waterloo, although easing the problems at the station, does not totally solve all problems for passengers entering London on South West Trains services.

Some improvements are deliverable in the short term while others may be deliverable over a longer time scale once affordability and value for money have been determined. Given the time scales to which we are working, we are focusing on what benefits can be gained for passengers in the short term, so that the platforms do not lie idle for a substantial period after Eurostar's move to St. Pancras, although it is inevitable that some delay will occur, as conversion works are required.

For a number of reasons, the international station as currently configured cannot be used for domestic services, and works will be required to alter the station layout for domestic passengers. That may at first sight seem rather strange, but it must be remembered that the international station was designed for low-frequency, long-distance services with passenger flows being generally in only one direction at a time and with long train dwell times on the platforms. Commuter services, on the other hand, are typified by relatively high-frequency, quick-turnaround services, with a number of competing passenger flows. As a result, work will be required to allow the international platforms to function properly as a domestic station, and a number of small infrastructure schemes are likely to be required to allow domestic services to use the platforms.

In the short term, the provision of additional platforms at Waterloo can be used to improve performance further since the number of platforms available for services will increase. As I have said, the next stage of work will assess which train services can be moved into the available platforms to improve performance most. South West Trains is obviously the candidate most likely to use the platforms, but given the track layout at Waterloo it is likely that Windsor line services—those to Reading, Putney, Hounslow and Richmond, which will be of specific interest to the hon. Member for Richmond Park—would be strong candidates for use of the platforms. However, performance and platforming analysis will be carried out to judge whether that is the correct assumption.

We will assess whether any additional peak-period services can be added to take up the capacity available. That will need to be carefully considered, and we shall have to ensure that any additional services that could be provided can be afforded, can provide value for money for the taxpayer and are not detrimental to overall performance.

Once we have determined the short-term options, we will further assess the longer-term requirements for the route as a whole. We shall look at whether the station can be used to mitigate the impact of other rail projects during their implementation phases. For example, the additional platforms might be of use as a temporary terminus for some services that will be impacted during the construction phase of Thameslink.

In the longer term, a number of options exist, which need to be examined in greater detail and that would lead to fuller utilisation of the platforms. All those options require some significant infrastructure enhancements and are likely to be costly. Waterloo main line services, such as longer-distance services to Southampton, Portsmouth, Weymouth and so on, could be shifted to the international platforms and lengthened to, for example, 15 cars. However, that would require significant infrastructure enhancements in the Clapham area, such as a flyover, to move the service group to the south side of the route approaching Waterloo. That would be a costly exercise and would require removal of the Stewarts lane flyover, which links the south-eastern lines approaching Victoria to the Waterloo route, and the reinstatement of tracks approaching Waterloo. Again, such options will need to be examined in further analysis.

Other infrastructure changes further from Waterloo, such as platform lengthening, would also be required. The report notes that such works could cost £300 million but I stress that that is only an estimate. I quote it so that hon. Members become aware of the scale of investment that might be required fully to utilise the platforms.

As I have noted, further work is currently under way to assess further and costly elements that are under consideration. In the short term, we are focusing on schemes that can be implemented quickly. The work will identify a programme to convert the station from international to domestic use as quickly as possible so that benefits can swiftly be passed on to the passenger.

By later next year, drawing on that and other pieces of work such as the south-west main line route utilisation strategy, the southern regional planning assessment, which covers that corridor, Transport for London's route corridor plan and the agreed south-west franchise, we shall be able to develop a longer term strategy for the route to utilise fully the platforms at Waterloo. It will be important to ensure that any schemes highlighted are judged against considerations of affordability and value for money.

To conclude, the decision by the Government to retain Waterloo International for domestic passenger services allows for the longer term development of the railway into Waterloo and removes one of the constraints limiting that possible development in future years. Other barriers remain to be tackled, and I hope that Members will note that it is not as simple as just running more trains into the vacated platforms. The work we are pursuing at present will provide benefits for passengers in the short term and scope for growth in the longer term. It thus recognises the importance of Waterloo in London's transport network as a hub for future development.

I am grateful to the Minister for her comments and I am sure that they will be of some reassurance to my constituents and those of my hon. Friend Susan Kramer. Can the Minister tell us whether the implication of what she has said is that she supports the general notion that train services from south-west London and the wider south-west area are the favoured option for the use of those platforms both in the short term and possibly in the longer term as the investments are staged?

I hope that I was able to reassure the hon. Gentleman that there are several layers of use for the platforms, serving the longer routes to Waterloo and the suburban routes that serve the constituencies of the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Richmond Park. We also need to ensure that we have the capacity to use Waterloo for back-up—for the redirection of trains as other major infrastructure projects, such as Crossrail, are undertaken. There are many potential benefits for London commuters, including those in the constituencies of both hon. Members. We have to judge those benefits against the investment available to us to ensure that value for money considerations are applied at all stages.

Can the Minister give a tiny clarification? If I understand her correctly, the non-South West Trains schemes are possible diversion schemes to deal with a temporary issue, due to infrastructure projects elsewhere, but the long-term future of those platforms is within the South West Trains remit.

That is certainly my understanding and I assure the hon. Lady that if I am in any way misinterpreting the information it will be corrected.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Three o'clock.