| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
John Austin (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab): I think that all hon. Members agree about Crossrail's social, economic and environmental importance. I support two of the petitioners, and wish to make it clear that I do not want anything to delay the scheme's progress.
There has been cross-party consensus about the importance of the Thames Gateway. It is not merely the passion of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister: when Lord Heseltine and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) were the responsible Ministers, they too recognised the importance of the area's regeneration to the country's economy. The progress being made with the Crossrail scheme gives us an opportunity to ensure that that regeneration comes about. I hope that the minor differences about the scheme that exist do not detract from that vision.
The Thames Gateway is crucial to this country's economy, and will make a vital contribution to providing the 200,000 additional homes that the south-east needs. London alone needs 45,000 new homes a year and lack of supply is driving up prices. The impact on affordability results in chronic problems of recruitment and retention for businesses and the public sector, and Crossrail is crucial to addressing those issues. Of the four growth areas designated in the sustainable communities plan, the Thames Gateway, with 3,000 hectares of brownfield sites, is well placed to provide the 120,000 homes and 300,000 new jobs envisaged in the plan.
The bulk of the development will take place on the original Crossrail route between central London and Ebbsfleet, including the Isle of Dogs zone, the east
12 Jan 2006 : Column 474
London area—including the Royals and Stratford—the Woolwich, Belvedere and Erith zone and the Kent Thamesside zone. Those four zones are to provide 70,000 new homes and 252,000 new jobs. Up to half that total could be attracted or generated by the Crossrail link.
In the present plans, the line stops at Abbey Wood. The debate has seemed at times to be like a London black cab—"Not south of the river, guv." I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) has pointed out that the current plan contains only one station south of the river—Abbey Wood in my constituency. A terminal and an interchange with the north Kent line at Abbey Wood will be of crucial importance and benefit to my constituents in Abbey Wood and Thamesmead. There will be some short-term problems, including congestion, especially if the Thames Gateway bridge is built. But without the extension to Ebbsfleet, the Belvedere, Erith and Kent Thamesside zones will not benefit from the scheme.
Similarly, Woolwich will not get the full benefits unless a station is provided at Woolwich. My right hon. Friend today, and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) in a debate on 20 October 2005, made the case for a station at Woolwich, which is a transport hub, especially for the south of Greenwich, an area that my hon. Friend represents. Not to have a station there, with Crossrail going through, or under, the town, makes no sense. Nor does it make any sense in terms of the vision for the development of the Royal Arsenal site.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) made some comments about money coming to London, but I remind him that a lot of money has been spent on the west coast main line, which he is probably on at this very moment, winging his way back to Knowsley. Despite the affluence of the south-east, parts of London, including the south-east and east, have some of the most chronically deprived areas in the country. The Woolwich Arsenal site, which used to be in my constituency but is now in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, once employed 80,000 people and, over a 50-year period, lost the equivalent of a coal mine and a coal-mining village a year—the largest job loss anywhere in the country. That is why Crossrail is crucial to the regeneration of the area.
Of the 416 hectares of prime employment land in Bexley, 92 per cent. lies in the north of the borough. In Belvedere alone, there are 229 hectares, with 30 per cent. available for development, and there are a further 50 hectares in Erith—along the line of the original proposed Crossrail route to Ebbsfleet. In the past 10 years or so, half of the new homes in Bexley have been in the five northerly wards on the original route. The largest housing site in Bexley is the old Erith quarry, a couple of minutes' walk from Erith station. Land is available in Erith for the potential development of 3,000 new homes, more than 90 per cent. of which are within walking distance of Erith or Slade Green stations.
That part of south-east London and north-west Kent has a real problem with reliance on car-borne traffic. A Crossrail link from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet, serving
12 Jan 2006 : Column 475
Belvedere, Erith, Slade Green and Dartford, would be a crucial element in achieving the goals of the Thames Gateway. It has been said that there would be a rapid interchange at Abbey Wood, with only a five-minute delay, but any delay at any change—as any transport analysis shows—is a significant disadvantage when competing with strong car use.
It has also been suggested that Ebbsfleet, a major job creation centre, will have a direct link to central London through the Channel tunnel rail link, but that will fail to connect the key residential and employment sites in the southern section of the Thames Gateway and will fail to give my constituents access to the employment opportunities there. I am aware that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the decision to terminate at Abbey Wood was taken on technical grounds—I understand them to involve track sharing—but no explanation or justification has been given of why that cannot be overcome in the first phase of development as opposed to the later phases. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) will take those issues into consideration in the Committee.
Nothing that any of the petitioners have put forward should delay the Bill's progress. I am convinced that the Government are determined to see it through and to realise the vision that we have for the south-east.
2.24 pm
Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con): I want to be absolutely clear that when the Bill was published and I took legal advice from the Clerks and others concerned with parliamentary procedure, the explanation that the Secretary of State gave today about the importance of the principle was something that I understood to be an established fact. I understand the difficulty of amending the long title of a Bill. There appear in the long title the words
I was concerned that my constituents would not get an opportunity to petition, but I was told that that was wrong.
I was completely amazed by what the Secretary of State said on Second Reading: that, no, the Select Committee would have the opportunity to consider whether Shenfield should be a terminus. The Secretary of State went further by differentiating between the principle and the route. In column 1125 in the Official Report of 19 July he said:
"Our instruction goes further, in that it suggests the route. I repeat, however, that if someone came along and said that the stations or the termini should be different, the Select Committee may well want to consider that."—[Official Report, 19 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 1125.]
We have to remember that, with the exception of the late petitioners, the only reason the instruction is here today is that the Secretary of State was wrong in his understanding of the law. This new instruction is there to make good his promises, except for one regarding Shenfield.
The Secretary of State said, "I thought you were referring to Liverpool Street station. I said what I did because I thought you wanted a terminus there." Well,
12 Jan 2006 : Column 476
so what? Would it matter whether I had suggested Liverpool Street, Stratford or Timbuktu? What I asked the Secretary of State was whether my constituents could petition the Select Committee about having the terminus at Shenfield, and whether the Select Committee could make a recommendation. The answer to both those questions was yes. Frankly, it is reneging on both those promises now to say that those matters should not be considered.
Let me be absolutely clear. All I want is the opportunity for my constituents to make a case for the terminus not to come to Shenfield. All I ask is that that is considered—not just politely listened to, but considered by the Select Committee. All I want is for the Select Committee to make a recommendation to the Government. It may be that the Committee decides not to make a recommendation about Shenfield. I am a democrat; I can accept that. What I cannot accept is that when a promise has been made at the Dispatch Box by a Secretary of State for Transport, a few months later he can renege on it and say that we were at cross-purposes.
Members have an opportunity to read Hansard. They can see the ordinary interpretation of the words used and the context in which the question was asked. I firmly believe that this is a matter of principle. I have always taken the Secretary of State at his word. I have never questioned his word or his honour in the many times I have been opposite him at the Dispatch Box. My constituents have been very badly let down. They have been asked to take part in a strange parliamentary pantomime, in which they can petition, and be politely listened to, but no matter how strong their case, no recommendation can be made. That bring politics into disrepute; it brings this place into disrepute; and it falls very badly on the shoulders of the Secretary of State.
2.28 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |