| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Martin Salter (Reading, West) (Lab):
I welcome the revised instructions to the Select Committee, but the process is a bit like pulling teeth. We managed, as a result of a delegation I led from Reading borough council last February, to persuade the then Minister of
12 Jan 2006 : Column 470
State for Transport to start safeguarding the route to Reading from Maidenhead. I was grateful for that, and it has the support of all local authorities in the area.
The case for Reading versus Maidenhead has to be examined. But, as I have said before, Crossrail's publicity guide talks about an opportunity to connect the United Kingdom. I am a fan of Maidenhead, to a point. But we do not connect the UK from Maidenhead. Reading is the second busiest rail terminal in the country outside London. A huge number of businesses in the Thames valley, from Swindon through to Reading and Bracknell, rely on our public transport infrastructure. Indeed, it is one of the reasons they locate in the area, and one of the reasons why we have negative unemployment.
We need, as part of any eventual—I stress "eventual"—extension to Reading not to miss the opportunity to have a western link to London Heathrow airport. That is one of the things people have petitioned for; indeed, I am one of those petitioners, having organised the largest petition to Parliament on the issue from the western side of London. We need an absolute guarantee that we will end the farce of making business people, commuters, tourists and whoever, if they want to catch a train, as we want to encourage them to do, to London Heathrow—some 25 miles from Reading and just a 25-minute drive, in fact, outside rush hour—go 40 miles to Paddington, passing London Heathrow airport, then changing to the Heathrow Express and coming 20 miles back again. How good for the environment is that? How could we design such a transport system? If Crossrail comes to Reading, the opportunity must not be missed for a western link.
We have put together a comprehensive petition for Reading to be the western terminus. That has involved the Evening Post, Reading borough council, me and the business community. I am delighted that it has cross-party support, and the hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) is also a petitioner and fully supportive of that approach.
The people representing Maidenhead themselves reject the argument that Maidenhead is the logical western terminus. We have had petitions from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and the Maidenhead civic society. Many of the steps necessary to make a Reading extension viable also apply to Maidenhead.
Any western extension must meet certain criteria. There must be scope for a western link to Heathrow, and that is not in the plans at the moment. Most importantly, there must be no detrimental effect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) and others from further west have said, to existing high-speed services into London Paddington. That is crucial to the economies of Swindon, Bristol and elsewhere. From Reading, the second busiest rail interchange outside London, there is a high-speed service into London—if one can get a seat—every eight to 10 minutes at peak time. It is a 29-minute service. Who would want that disrupted by a metro stopping service running ahead of it, possibly using some of the same track? The argument is very complicated.
Mr. Rob Wilson (Reading, East) (Con):
As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, there is cross-party agreement
12 Jan 2006 : Column 471
across Reading about the concept of Crossrail, but will he join me in opposing a metro stopping service that reduces space for commuter trains and reduces freight?
Martin Salter: The last time I joined the hon. Member for Reading, East was when I was suing him, so I am happy to repeat the conversation that he and I had on the train last night. We regularly commute back to Reading and regularly witness the nonsense of the case that Crossrail would not, on the existing four-track system, impede the high-speed service. How many times does that service from the west country have to run on the slow line, the same line that Crossrail would use? In a rather unkind way, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if Crossrail is to come not just to Reading but to Maidenhead, there will have to be six-tracking, which is why the Secretary of State is absolutely right to be concerned about additional costs. Yes, there must be no negative impact on the existing freight network, and Crossrail could have an impact on that unless there is six-tracking to Reading, and possibly beyond. We also need the re-signalling already in Network Rail's programme, although we do not know when it will occur. And we need—this applies only to Reading, not Maidenhead—the multi-million pound, long-overdue redevelopment of Reading station. Reading's case must be considered, but it is not a simple one and it will have an impact on almost every other terminus in the western corridor.
Dr. Naysmith: I thank my hon. Friend for making so clearly the case that I have pressed on the Secretary of State on a number of occasions. It is almost impossible, and experts have analysed it, to envisage the current rail service to Reading and on to Bristol, the south-west and south Wales carrying on as it does. At the moment, at peak times, there is a 15-minute service from the two Bristol stations into London—unfortunately, it has one of the highest fares in the country, which is a different argument—and it is almost impossible to envisage that carrying on with only four tracks between Bristol and London.
Martin Salter: I very much concur with my hon. Friend. Whatever the question is, the answer is not Maidenhead, for all the reasons that I have outlined. Even Reading will require significant additional investment, and that is why the motion must be approved. The case for Reading must be examined properly and in detail by the Select Committee, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) will ensure that that happens.
This motion is good news, as it represents a significant departure from the Government's position outlined in the debate on 19 July. I was not happy with some of the assurances that I received then, which is why I abstained in the vote. I am pleased that there will be proper consideration, but a line must be drawn, and I hope that the Minister will do that when he replies to the debate.
As I said in an intervention, in the past the use of the Transport and Works Act 1992 has resulted in the petitioners being regarded as the applicant. If there is to be an extension beyond Paddington or Ealing Broadway to Reading and Maidenhead, it is vital that
12 Jan 2006 : Column 472
the applicant is either Crossrail or Network Rail, as it would be monstrously unfair to lay the burden on the petitioners, the local authorities or local businesses.
I remind the Secretary of State of his reply to me on 19 July, when he said that the project must be kept manageable. That is true, as we must avoid the disaster that took place under the previous Government. I regret that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), the Opposition spokesman, tried to make party political points, but I shall make one in return: letting the Crossrail project run into the sand in 1989 was a disaster. Constituencies to the west of London need Crossrail even more than Reading does, and I do not want the case for an extension to Reading or anywhere else to limit the chances of my colleagues representing those areas.
I want to offer three conclusions to the House. First, the case for Reading rather than Maidenhead must be heard, and I am pleased that that is going to happen. Secondly, any application under the Transport and Works Act 1992 must be made by the Government, Network Rail or Crossrail, and not by the petitioners themselves.
My third point is the most important, and has to do with the proper assessment of the likely costs. I have no doubt that, following examination of the relevant factors— such as the western terminus and all the others that I outlined earlier—the Select Committee will conclude that the scheme will have to be phased. A workable and achievable Crossrail phase 1 could deliver for communities around London a properly costed scheme to provide rail access to Reading and other places to the west at a later stage. That would be preferable to a fudge or an imperfect scheme that would be neither fish nor fowl.
By all means let us vote for the motion, and ensure that the case is examined properly, but let us also ensure that Crossrail can deliver the maximum benefit in the shortest possible time. The people who rely on the scheme and on Crossrail have waited long enough.
2.13 pm
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con): The Secretary of State will know that I have spoken on this matter several times, and that the project will have a devastating effect on part of my constituency. There is much concern that answers have not been given about the effect on people's lives and properties, and that the long term is not clear. The Government have a duty to clarify matters and to give firm commitments, so that people know exactly where things are going.
Today's debate has given prominence to discussions about Reading and Maidenhead. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) raised concerns about Shenfield, but I hope that the Secretary of State will also look at issues that I have raised in the past in connection with Romford. Given the lack of time, however, I shall be brief, and confine myself to a couple of specific points.
First, the Secretary of State will know that many of the powers proposed in the motion are deeply worrying to me and my constituents. Paragraph (m) provides for
That poses more questions than answers. That is a great pity, as we are far enough along with the Bill to have more answers than questions. I hope that the Minister winding up the debate will say more about the provision, which clearly implies that new land will be needed for the revised plans.
When will my constituents in Romford know the Government's final plans for the Crossrail depot in the centre of the town? Many people there fear that they will undergo more suffering as a result of the Government's decision to build what they are sure will be a monstrosity in a densely residential and highly populated area. I am especially worried by the further plans for the Romford depot and surrounding areas that are contained in the supplementary environmental statement.
Secondly, the Secretary of State made a written statement on 13 December. I hope that the Minister will say whether the £100 million that the right hon. Gentleman has made available for Crossrail's further development is less than what Cross London Rail Links asked for. Alternatively, does Crossrail have a blank cheque for as much development as it wants?
Those and other concerns must be addressed. The Secretary of State must realise that the lives of many people, in my constituency and across the east end of London, are being torn apart by the proposals. No one doubts that Crossrail will bring some benefits, but he must accept that the mechanisms have to be right. Moreover, he has to understand the impact that the proposals are having on people in my area, even as we sit in the House and debate them.
2.17 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |