---

Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab): I am grateful for this opportunity to make a contribution to the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) and my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) have already outlined the issues relating to south London, and I am particularly pleased to see that under the motions on the Order Paper we are going to consider the Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet extension.

My constituency sits at the confluence of the south circular, the A102 approach road to the Blackwall tunnel, the A2 and the A20. Without those important improvements in our public transport network along the   south-east of the Thames, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead said, the development of that area of the Thames Gateway and the new housing and jobs that it will generate will be affected and many more people will end up in traffic jams somewhere in my constituency as they travel to and from London. Our road network is already congested, especially at peak times, so improvements in the public transport network are essential and I am pleased that they are being considered.

Crossrail will give us 40 per cent. of the additional transport capacity that we need in central London and, like others, I do not want that part of the development to fall as a result of the additional schemes that people are requesting. I draw the attention of Select Committee
 
12 Jan 2006 : Column 477
 
members to the fact that, historically, south-east London has suffered enormously from lack of investment in its public transport infrastructure. When people talk about the London underground, they often think that it covers the whole of London. Indeed, the criticism can be levelled at the Mayor of London that he sometimes talks as though the whole of London is served by the underground, but south-east London is not. An arc around the Thames all the way to Lambeth—almost a quarter of the whole of London—is not served by the London underground. That is why it is essential that we make the most of schemes such as Crossrail. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich pointed out that a six-mile stretch from Custom House to Abbey Wood, the cost of which will be in the hundreds of millions, will have no station, bypassing one of the most strategic transport hubs in south-east London. That makes no sense. On a cost-benefit basis alone, it must make sense to consider that development.

My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead pointed out some of the historical facts about Woolwich; for example, the loss of jobs that we have suffered over the last 50 years. On figures for 2000, 25 of the top 20 per cent. most deprived wards in the country were in the London borough of Greenwich and, according to the 2004 figures, it is the 23rd most deprived local authority area. The development of Woolwich is essential not only for regeneration but as a strategic hub for our part of south-east London. It makes no sense to build a six-mile railway with no station, especially when it bypasses such a major town centre as Woolwich. I urge the Select Committee to take that on board.

2.32 pm

Mr. Rob Wilson (Reading, East) (Con): My brief comments will be about Crossrail and Reading station, which is in my constituency. As I have said many times before, nobody doubts that the construction of an east-west rail link in London will have powerful economic advantages and benefits for London, so in that regard I strongly support Crossrail and certainly do not want to stand in the way of its progress.

However, Crossrail's significance for us to the west of London much depends on what we get from it. If Crossrail were to contribute to unplugging the bottlenecks on the national rail network through much-needed funding for Reading station, I should support it. If it were to bring more fast and semi-fast commuter services to London, I should support and welcome it. If it were to provide a link to Heathrow, as the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) said, I should welcome it. That is the type of Crossrail that I should like to see terminating in Reading, East.

However, that does not seem to be the proposal that we shall actually get. It looks as though it will be a metro service that stops at every little station between Reading and London, which means that there will be fewer fast and semi-fast commuter services than at present. Such a metro service will force freight on to the roads. It will not have a link to Europe's most important airport. The scheme will be expensive but will add nothing positive to the transport infrastructure in the west of London; it will reduce capacity in the infrastructure rather than positively benefit it.
 
12 Jan 2006 : Column 478
 

Crossrail could be fantastic for Reading, but we do not want it at any cost. I hope that the Secretary of State hears that loud and clear.

2.34 pm

Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): The motions attempt to clear up the confusion surrounding the instruction as initially set out by the Government and, indeed, the confusion of the debate on Second Reading, for it is clear that the instruction to the Select Committee that was set out during that debate had a twofold effect. First, the Select Committee had to interpret the principle of the Bill, so it could not accept petitions that did not deal with that principle. Secondly, the Select Committee could consider only those matters prescribed by the instruction. It could not consider any matter of its choice, despite the confusion of the debate on Second Reading and the Government's belief that the Select Committee could do so.

The motions will have two practical results. First, they will clear up the confusion, clarify the Select Committee's remit and extend the instruction. In practical terms, as we have heard during much of the debate this afternoon, the Select Committee will now be able to examine the proposals to extend Crossrail to both the east and the west, which the instruction as set out on Second Reading would not have allowed it to do. Secondly, as a result of another of the motions, the Select Committee will be able to consider a number of possibly essential engineering changes—frankly, all of which might have been anticipated and incorporated into the original Bill.

The motions have a number of important and as yet unresolved implications, however, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify them in his remarks in a few minutes. First, what is the cost of the works as designated by the motions? Even though, as the Secretary of State said earlier, the Government do not necessarily wish those works to be undertaken, I am sure that they have a view on the costs. I should be surprised if they did not have a view on them before introducing the motions today.

Secondly, if the items in the motions are to become part of the Crossrail project after the Select Committee has considered them, is it right that they cannot be initially added to the Bill? Will they require separate orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992? The Government have been considering Crossrail for long enough now, and this is an untidy and cumbersome method of adding to the Bill some very important considerations for Crossrail.

We are dealing with motions that relate to items that either the Government need to clear up or have been identified post the debate of 19 July. What happens if other engineering works and other items emerge? Will the Minister clarify exactly how the Government propose to deal with them? Will another stream of motions be put before the House?

Importantly, the motions do not clarify a number of other unresolved issues: Crossrail's impact on other services, such as freight; the interaction with other networks; the governance of the network; the regulatory regime associated with Crossrail; and the power of the Office of Rail Regulation. Most importantly, the motions give no flavour to Crossrail's
 
12 Jan 2006 : Column 479
 
funding. The House will give effect to motions to pursue the biggest civil engineering project in Europe without any regard to its financing. Exactly by whom and how will that be financed? When do the Government propose to tell us the details of how it will be financed?

The Secretary of State said earlier—I am sure that the Minister will say so, as well—that the Government have asked Sir Michael Lyons to look at the funding of the project. That has attracted comment. However, that may well be their position, but it is far from clear whether a review that looks at the funding of large-scale national infrastructure projects should be conducted without considering local government funding. So we are left with the suspicion that the referral to Lyons is nothing more than putting the project out into the long grass, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said earlier.

In conclusion, I shall ask my colleagues to support the motions—I want to reaffirm the Conservative party's commitment to the principle of Crossrail—but there should be no more delays and procrastination from the Government. When will we hear the full details of Crossrail's funding? I trust that we will do so in time for the debate on Third Reading.

2.39 pm

---