---

Mr. Darling: If my hon. Friend and I live to see Crossrail 1, we shall be happy. We can then turn our attention to Crossrail 2. Of course the Government are committed to the project. That is why we introduced an extensive Bill to make it possible. However, my hon. Friend's main point is important. Unless the project is kept to a manageable size—even then, it is very large—the same fate awaits it as befell the previous Crossrail project.

I cannot tell our colleagues on the Select Committee what to do—and would not try to do so— but I state no more than the obvious when I say that the more complex the project becomes and the more that is added to it, the greater the risk that it will not get going. There is almost unanimity in the House that the project should go ahead, although hon. Members have their individual concerns. The Government are committed to doing everything that we can to make it happen. However, we must try to keep it to a manageable size so that we can finance and deliver it.

Mr. Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con): Does the Secretary of State accept that it is also the Government's role, in trying to push the project forward, to take some control of its manageability? I accept that we have a hybrid Bill and it is ultimately for a Select Committee to determine the matter, but as the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) rightly pointed out, in London we want some progress on the basics of Crossrail. It must now be up to the Government to make their voice heard to ensure that the funding comes together, even if it is for a limited part of the Crossrail plan. We should not allow the Ebbsfleet to Reading aspect to delay progress. That must be the Government's role; it cannot be only the Select Committee's role. All hon. Members look to the Secretary of State for some guidance to ensure genuine progress.

Mr. Darling: Absolutely. That is why we introduced a Bill that established the principle of what the railway would comprise. It will run from Maidenhead through Shenfield to Abbey Wood. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the preceding two or three years, prospective other parts of the line were removed from the proposals simply to get something that would stack up and could be delivered. We are inviting the House to give instructions to the Committee to ensure, as far as possible, that that happens.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, hon. Members are entitled to put their views and make suggestions. A hybrid Bill means that the Select Committee will have the difficult task of hearing petitions from many people,
 
12 Jan 2006 : Column 453
 
some of whom may be against the whole Bill and others who have specific concerns about, for example, stations or waste disposal when the work is being done. When we get the Select Committee's report, the Government will have to take a view about how much we can accommodate. For example, if the Select Committee suggested that there should be a station every 100 yd, the Government would say no because the project would collapse.

We made a specific proposition, which the House endorsed, albeit after a vote, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I want it to get through as expeditiously as possible while taking account of people's legitimate concerns. However, we are bound to cause some difficulty in establishing the principle.

Mr. Pickles rose—

Dr. Doug Naysmith (Bristol, North-West) (Lab/Co-op) rose—

Mr. Darling: I know that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) is champing at the bit. He will have his moment shortly but I had better deal with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) first.

Dr. Naysmith: My right hon. Friend will recall that, when the matter was discussed in July, the effects of Crossrail on the west country, Bristol and the line from Wales were raised. Clearly, the problems remain major short-term and long-term worries for the future development of the line. What effect does he believe that today's proposals will have on those worries and fears? Will they help to assuage them or make them worse? The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) mentioned the huge congestion at Reading and if the proposals make it worse, that will not be helpful.

Mr. Darling: As I said to my hon. Friend in July, when Crossrail is completed, it will help west country services. From memory, approximately £1 billion of expenditure is designed to improve the approaches to Paddington station. One of the problems with them is the presence of various goods yards. Although there are not many goods trains every day, they are long and heavy and each manoeuvre can take six or seven minutes' capacity out of the line. It does not take many such instances, especially in the rush hour, to start holding up traffic. My hon. Friend, as a regular user of the line to Bristol and the south-west, knows that several pinch points need to be sorted out.

Since we had the debate in July, the new franchise for the Great Western line has been launched and I believe that that will lead to some improvements. Some disruption is inevitable when building a railway, but once Crossrail is completed, it will help because it means additional capacity and taking out some of the blockages that cause some of the current delays.

Meg Hillier (Hackney, South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op): I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) about the need for London, especially east London, to benefit from the project. If we
 
12 Jan 2006 : Column 454
 
get Crossrail, Hackney will experience an improvement in the lines from Enfield and Chingford and in the frequency of services. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and I represent the only inner London borough with no tubes and we are therefore grateful for any prospect of train improvement. However, will my right hon. Friend assure us that the complexity of Crossrail, which he has clearly outlined, will not have a detrimental impact on the Olympic developments, which are also a welcome contribution to Hackney?

Mr. Darling: I do not believe that they will. For the avoidance of doubt, I have long said that Crossrail would not be ready in time for the Olympics. It is independent of them but steps will be taken to ensure that it will not interfere with the first priority of delivering the Olympics and the transport infrastructure to support them, on which much work is already under way. The work can be phased in such a way as to ensure that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her welcome because there is no doubt that, when Crossrail is built, it will substantially benefit the east end of London, especially constituencies such as hers and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, where the need to improve employment and transport links is obvious. Both my hon. Friends have made representations about that.

Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con) rose—

Mr. Darling: I should really like to consider Brentwood and Ongar now rather than giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

Peter Luff: It is a simple point.

Mr. Darling: I am always nervous of those, but I shall let the hon. Gentleman make it.

Peter Luff: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for his courtesy. What additional capacity will be created on services to Paddington as a result of Crossrail?

Mr. Darling: The point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West was that part of the works will improve the access in and out of the various goods yards to the west of Paddington. That means that the line is less likely to be blocked by trains coming in and out of them. If the hon. Gentleman would like chapter and verse on the matter, I am more than happy to let him have it. However, in the context of the instructions to the Committee, it would not be such a good idea.

Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North and Sefton, East) (Lab): The people I represent will be alarmed by the generosity with which the project is being treated, in contrast to Merseytram 1, which my right hon. Friend refused. In those circumstances, he cannot rely on my vote for the motions.

Mr. Darling: It is kind of my right hon. Friend to tell me that, but it does not come as a surprise to me. I am not going to go into the merits of the Merseytram
 
12 Jan 2006 : Column 455
 
proposal now, for obvious reasons, not least that the company is now litigating against me and the Government. However, I note what he says.

To make a general point, I think that all of us, especially those who represent constituencies outside London, would do well to remember that the UK economy depends to a large extent on the well being of the London economy. That is a fact of life, and all our policies have to reflect that. That is not to say, however, that we should not make investments in different parts of the country, and we are doing so, but they have to be the right ones.

I am now going, whether the House likes it or not, to Brentwood and Ongar. The instruction does not allow for consideration by the Committee of the truncation of the route. When the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar raised this issue with me in July, he had tabled his own amendment—although it was not selected by the Speaker—which would have allowed the eastern terminal to be sited at Liverpool Street. I made the point that to have a railway line that ran only from Paddington to Liverpool Street simply would not stack up, and that it had to be longer than that. That proposal was just not acceptable.

I can help the hon. Gentleman to some extent, but probably not to the extent that he would like. My best advice is that the motion will allow the Select Committee to hear petitions, but not to decide that the route should be truncated further to the east of Shenfield. It could, however, hear petitions in relation to where exactly the terminus should be. For example, as I understand it, if there were a proposition that the station should not be where it is now but a short distance away from there, it would be within the competence of the Committee to decide on that.

It will be up to the Select Committee, acting on its own views and on the advice of the Officers of the House, to decide exactly what it does. However, it could not, for example, say, "Actually, the line should not end at Shenfield. It should terminate further to the east." I understand that issues have been raised relating to the siting of the Shenfield terminus, and petitions on that could be heard. Having said that, if the Select Committee chooses to hear petitions on that general principle—on advice, it believes that it can do so—I cannot prevent that. But I cannot assure the hon. Gentleman that the instruction that I am inviting the House to endorse today would have the effect of allowing people to argue that the terminus should be located not at Shenfield but further in.

The hon. Gentleman raised this matter with me in July, and I have had the chance to look and see what I said to him at the time, although my recollection is that it was in the context of his amendment, to which I referred.

---