---

Crossrail Bill

The start of this debate was perhaps a little more muddled than I had anticipated, and I welcome the clarity that the Secretary of State brought. As hon. Members know, we have been waiting for this Bill for a long time. Speaking as a commuter in London for the past 25 years, commuting has been the best of times and the worst of times. The emotions that commuters experience range from relief when everything runs smoothly to frustration and, at the tail end, to exasperation when their train sits outside a station for 10 or 15 minutes without explanation. London’s commuters and businesses want and have been desperate for Crossrail. Importantly, it is not an upgrade, an extension to an existing system or a tweak to an existing line. It is new capacity, which we need, and a new influx of spaces for London, which continues to grow, and the economy of which continues to grow. Crossrail also provides the necessary proof that we are not prepared simply to rest on the laurels of our Victorian forefathers for another century. Crossrail is not without its critics, who come in all shapes and sizes. They include community groups that will be directly affected and, perhaps more surprisingly, Network Rail and many other players in the rail industry. I shall say more about that shortly, but first I shall focus on four main subjects: responses to the Crossrail Bill environmental statement, the rail industry’s fears about the impact on freight and passenger services, the impact on the Olympics, and Crossrail’s funding. The responses to the environmental statement may be the best indicator of what local communities will think of the Bill. A range of issues were raised and it is difficult to say which are the most important, but I shall list just a few: availability of the statement, alternative alignments for the central tunnel, alternative schemes, construction working hours, noise and pollution, location of spoils, spoil mountains, and locations of shafts and work site. One of the most significant issues, however, was whether the proposals complied with the relevant European Union directives. I know that the Government took on board concerns about the process by extending the time frame and making information more readily available, but I hope the Minister will confirm that he is satisfied that the statement complies with those directives in all respects. Many responses questioned the availability of evidence that alternative alignments had been considered. That applied to alternative alignments through Spitalfields and Whitechapel. There was also concern about proposed sites such as the one at Hanbury street, which I know also concerns some Members, and about the disposal of spoil at Mile End. I am sure that many if not all Members have been lobbied about alternative schemes by organisations such as Superlink, and I shall say more about that as well. The environmental statement acknowledges the requirement for an outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant, but many respondents assert that it has not been met. The Bill has months, if not years, of work behind it. There is little evidence to suggest that Superlink has devoted the same effort, time and expenditure to its proposals: indeed, it is clear that it has not done so. It has, however, raised issues with which I hope the Minister will deal in a way that addresses my concerns and those felt, I suspect, by other Members. One of the main issues is funding. I appreciate that this is a hybrid Bill and that we are not here to discuss funding, but it must be a source of anxiety, given the scale of the project and the fact that so little is known about how it will be financed.