You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Hansard > Commons Debates > Commons Debates by date > Commons Debates - previous sessions > Bound Volume Hansard - Debate
Previous SectionIndexHome Page

Jeremy Corbyn: I think that the Member has been misled. The last Bill to be carried over was the obnoxious City of London (Ward Elections) Bill, which we did so much to try to defeat. Will he give us some idea of his proposals for Crossrail? If we do not carry over the Bill, we shall have no project. The Bill is the basis of the project. I was hoping that he was going to say that he supported the carry-over and the expenditure on the development of Crossrail. Perhaps he could get to the point.

Mr. Chope: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, he is right to say that the last Bill to be carried over was the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill, but that was a private Bill, not a hybrid Bill. The point that I was making was that this would the first hybrid Bill to be carried over since the Channel Tunnel Bill. The hon. Gentleman also asked me to make a commitment to the Crossrail project, but no serious prospective Government—such as we are—would be prepared to write a blank cheque for any project, however desirable people might think it is. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking a blank cheque from me today for the Crossrail project, I am afraid that he is going to be disappointed, just as he will have been disappointed by the failure of his own Government to provide one. The Minister talked about this being a £10 billion project, but we know that it is already projected to be much more expensive.

We are not against the principle of a carry-over, because the whole essence of Conservative party policy is to ensure that we get good value for money. After all the work that has been done on the technical documentation, there would be no point in having to get it all replicated just for the sake of it. However, we must face up to the reality that the Bill has not yet been debated in the House. It was brought in at the tail end of this Government's term of office, and what the Minister has said cannot be regarded as a substitute for activity. There has been a notorious lack of activity by the Government in relation to this issue.

2.14 pm

Jane Griffiths (Reading, East) (Lab): I was a candidate for parliamentary election in 1996. As a resident of Reading, I was angry and upset when a Bill dealing with the previous version of Crossrail failed. It fell for procedural reasons that we all understand. As a candidate, however, I was quite joyful at the opportunity that that presented. I would suggest to hon. Members who will be seeking re-election in the coming weeks—not including myself—that matters that cause them grief could also cause them joy as a candidate.

Since my election in 1997, I have spoken up for Crossrail, and for Reading to be its western terminus, at every opportunity. So the publication and First Reading of the Crossrail Bill in February were very welcome, and I strongly support this motion, which would allow it to be carried over into the next Parliament. Of course I am sorry that I will not be here to carry on the fight for Crossrail, and for it to come to Reading, but I hope that
 
7 Apr 2005 : Column 1608
 
the people of Reading and Woodley, in my constituency, will keep up the pressure to make sure that whichever man replaces me continues to work for Crossrail, and that it comes to Reading.

I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) for her persistence in fighting for Crossrail, and for her work towards making the scheme happen, and to other hon. Members who represent constituencies on the fringe of London and just beyond.

While I am happy to support this motion to allow the scheme to go forward, I remain unhappy that Maidenhead is Crossrail's proposed western terminus. Since that decision was announced, I have talked to numerous people, organisations and industry bodies, and no one can understand it. One argument is that it would cost £300 million to electrify the stretch of track between Maidenhead and Reading, but that would be negligible given the estimated cost of £10 billion for the scheme. It has also been said that Cross London Rail Links Ltd was worried that it would be left with the cost of re-signalling Reading station, yet talks with representatives of Network Rail reveal that the scheme is in the budget for before the date of completion of Crossrail. The money is there, and the only money that Crossrail would be expected to pay would be for anything extra needed solely for Crossrail.

It has also been said that Crossrail is not coming to Reading because the company is worried about being left with the cost of upgrading Reading station. Yet a recent answer from the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), stated:

So there is nothing for Crossrail to worry about on that score.

I am bewildered as to the real reason for Crossrail not going to Reading. I fail to understand why it is not in the interest of the scheme to gain access to the interchange at Reading, feeding into services to the midlands, Wales and the south-west. Why does Crossrail not want to gain all the revenue from commuters travelling from Reading to the City of London, for whom this would still be a better service than going into Paddington and changing, either to the underground or to Crossrail itself? It is well known in transport circles that the fewer changes people have to make, the more likely they are to use public transport. Why make the journey more difficult for people than is necessary?

I recognise that people who have travelled long distances from areas significantly to the west of London are more likely to carry on into Paddington and transfer there, as they do now. I am sure, however, that there are many more in between who would come to Reading and transfer to Crossrail for the direct route into London and across to the Eurostar services that we shall soon have at Stratford. That will not happen if Maidenhead is Crossrail's western terminus.

It is even more disappointing because Reading people will lose out if the scheme does not come to Reading. Slots currently available to trains from Reading to the
 
7 Apr 2005 : Column 1609
 
stations between Reading and Paddington will be lost, so as to provide services for Crossrail. Even more worrying are the recent reports in Rail Freight Group News—a well respected publication—that the Bill will allow Crossrail exclusive use of the two slow lines from Maidenhead to Paddington, leaving the InterCity 125, Virgin Rail, other slower passenger services and freight to operate on the fast lines—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. What is worrying me is that the hon. Lady is now going a little too deeply into the contents of the Bill. We are debating a carry-over motion. I acknowledge that there can be some reference to the Bill in connection with the arguments for carry over or otherwise, but we cannot have a pseudo-Second Reading speech.

Jane Griffiths: I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall conclude my remarks. I support the carry-over motion and I hope that whoever succeeds me in this Chamber in the next Parliament works as hard as I have tried to do, and as my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have done, for Crossrail.

This is my last contribution in the House and I would like to thank Members on both sides of the Chamber for their friendship and support.

2.20 pm

John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD): May I confirm the support for the motion of those on the Liberal Democrat Benches? The Minister mentioned the widespread support throughout London for the Crossrail project, particularly in the business community and elsewhere. This is an important scheme for the economic development of London, but it has already suffered from too many delays, not least under the last Government. Its progress should not be impeded at this stage; it is important that it should be carried forward.

In the House and elsewhere, particularly in the Greater London assembly, the Liberal Democrats have supported the principle for Crossrail. We are committed to it and we are pleased, therefore, that the Government intend to go ahead in the next Parliament. I hope they do so expeditiously.

Notwithstanding our support, there are areas of concern, although today is not the day for that debate, as you have rightly said, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should highlight one or two key issues, such as the funding package, getting an early start to the core section, whether Crossrail should be a discrete railway and the need for serious consideration of links between Stansted and Heathrow, as well as links further west, which the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) mentioned. We should also examine the problem of trains coming up from the west country sharing the railway.

Next Section IndexHome Page