---

Crossrail Bill

The issue was considered as part of the cross-London rail links project and all the information is available in the Library. It would take the best part of the rest of the debate to read it all out, but in simple terms, the costs would arise from extending the railway line from Maidenhead to Reading, including construction costs and the consequent need for resignalling at Reading. There are also capacity problems at Reading. I did not say to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West that, in terms of time gained, the studies that were carried out showed that most people would find it quicker to get from Reading into Paddington and then change; it would be quicker to use the existing high-speed services than to use Crossrail, which would be a local service. The studies were carried out and the hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) is welcome to examine them. I may have said that construction costs were based on 2008 to 2015. If I remember rightly, it is 2007 to 2013. As I have said, there is a new central tunnel section for the stations to which I referred earlier. Major construction work is necessary at each station site as well as intermediate ventilation and emergency intervention shafts. It is my guess that a number of these areas may concern hon. Members and their constituents. I know that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway) will certainly be concerned about Hanbury street. These are matters that the petitioning process is designed precisely to address so that we can ascertain what we can do to try to address concerns, if that is possible. We have tried throughout the process to examine all the options and to come up with those that are the least environmentally damaging and the least inconvenient to people. Inevitably, the construction of a large-scale railway underneath one of the largest cities in the world is bound to have some element of disruption. I have mentioned that there are three outlying sections of the scheme to the west, the north-east and the south-east, and I hope that I have explained how they link with the existing network. Decisions about the route, the location of stations and so on were the subject of consultation both in 2003 and 2004. In addition to that, a number of plans have been put forward as alternatives to Crossrail, on which Members may wish to touch. However, I believe that the proposition that we have before us gives us a realistic chance of getting something constructed. It will take time, however, and it will be expensive. I believe that it will benefit London, the south-east and the whole country overall. I hope that, during the course of the afternoon, I have been able to address some of the points that have been raised. I suspect that the House will have quite a long time to consider these matters because of the process that has been established both in relation to this place and another place. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members, as well as their constituents, will have ample opportunity to have their concerns explored. Having considered these matters for the past three or four years, I am convinced that, if we do not do something about transport problems in London, not only London but the entire country will pay the price. I hope that, as we consider Crossrail and all the problems that we face, we can try together to reach some consensus in relation, first, to the building of Crossrail and, secondly, on the precise shape and form of it. I hope that we can avoid a situation where, in people’s desire to be helpful and to add bits on here and there, we do not end up killing the entire project. If we pass the Bill tonight, it will mark the biggest single development since Victorian times. It is a huge project with huge benefits. I commend the Bill to the House.