---

Crossrail Bill

I thank my hon. Friend for that observation. I know that he is a serving councillor in the London borough of Wandsworth, so I expect he sees both sides of that argument, from the suburbs and from central London. I think he is absolutely right. It is clear that the financing of this project remains entirely up in the air. I think we are the first to accept that businesses are willing, and have shown themselves willing, to make a contribution, but equally they want to see the colour of the Government’s money. They want an idea of the likely funding structure. My greatest worry is that although we could spend months, perhaps years, talking about Crossrail, unless there is a fairly clear idea of the source of the financing, all that discussion will come to naught. It would be somewhat intellectually dishonest for any Government to advance such a scheme without having a strong idea about where the finance will come from. Without such clarity, the great worry is that many years could be spent in discussions, with the result that many lives and many properties and businesses could be blighted in the manner described by a number of Members across the House. There is little doubt that the creation of Transport for London under the direct responsibility of the Mayor of London has at least provided a structure for transport decision making here in the capital, but the terms of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 were couched in such a way as to ensure that financial control remained firmly in the hands of central Government. I do not believe that can truly be a sensible way to proceed, although I accept that Crossrail has an importance that goes beyond the capital city. In view of Mayor Livingstone’s record of financial profligacy, such control of finances might generate a collective sigh of relief from many London council tax payers who have already seen a whopping 105 per cent. increase in the mayoral precept on the London council tax over the last five years. Indeed, the prospect of Mayor Livingstone being issued a blank cheque for Crossrail is enough to make anyone shudder. Nevertheless, the stark financial reality is that all too often this Labour Government have regarded London as a convenient cash cow. The creaking London infrastructure, especially but not exclusively that of transport, treats residents and wealth-creating businesses alike with some disdain. Most independent commentators would estimate that every year, some £12 billion of public funds is transferred from the capital to the rest of the UK and some £1.5 billion of that is from business rates alone. There is little doubt that this is beginning to have an electoral effect, and the Government should beware. Issues of quality of life and the cost of living were increasingly important for my party in the capital during the general election campaign, and the swing from the Labour party to the Conservatives in London was greater than in any other region of the United Kingdom. I am proud that I have four hon. Friends—my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), for Putney (Justine Greening) and for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond)—in seats that would have remained in Labour hands had there been only an average national swing. On the grounds of electoral self-interest alone, I hope that the Government are now listening to the voice of London. I appreciate that the trend that I have articulated has been echoed by an increasingly worried cohort of London Labour Back Benchers. We now seek an investment commitment to Crossrail at the earliest opportunity, although I accept that there is no clear pathway to its funding. I am the first to admit that it is a complicated situation. No one is suddenly going to produce £10 billion, £15 billion or £20 billion—I think we all realise that by the time Crossrail is built the cost is likely to be at the higher end of that range—but over the past year the Mayor has been given what he and his new friends in government have euphemistically called ““prudential borrowing powers”” to complete the east London link, which is of course a crucial part of our Olympic 2012 successful bid, and therefore the programme for the future. In essence, that is a financial sleight of hand because the Mayor is allowed to borrow some £2.9 billion from future council tax receipts to complete the east London link. Despite the national importance of that transport project, the money will still come from London’s local taxpayers. Apparently, that will be the case for the whole Crossrail scheme. In their desperation, London’s largest businesses have tried to engage with the Government and offer some money on the table. As the Minister will be aware, the current proposal is for an additional 3 per cent. surcharge on the business rate over 50 years or, indeed, for some added-value capture scheme that reflects the projected long-term increase in property values as a result of the infrastructure being created. That is understandable—everyone can support it in principle—but the difficult is, of course, how that bit of any increase in the value of a property is calculated. Understandably, business has been reluctant to declare its hand fully, without a firm commitment in advance from the Government to put up the bulk of the project’s costs. I hope that the Minister will give at least some indication today about where he envisages some of the project’s funding will come from. Inevitably, when the works start, there will be an immense amount of disruption to many London residents and businesses. As I mentioned in an earlier contribution, given the disruption in central London alone, I personally believe that it is very unlikely that we can go through the whole process of getting the Bill on to the statute book in enough time for work to begin before the Olympics. Nothing would be more disruptive than two or three years’ upheaval in central London in the midst of the Olympics. In all honesty, I suspect that the Government already recognise that and therefore the timetable is being postponed to the middle of the next decade. I hope that my hon. Friends from other parts of the capital and beyond will forgive me if I focus my comments on my constituency, which has some important aspects to mention. I am assured that, although some of my constituents oppose Crossrail as a matter of principle, others, even those who face disruption in their lives, recognise many of its overall benefits. However, they are worried that, without a proper funding commitment and therefore a realistic timetable for how quickly work will commence and finish, their properties will be blighted. That has not been made any easier by the fact that the erstwhile chief executive of Crossrail, Norman Haste, quit it mid-May, before the necessary parliamentary approval process commenced. To a large extent, the Government had made his job increasingly impossible by dragging their feet on the funding required to make the whole Crossrail project viable. It is now of key importance that a full public consultation exercise takes place on Crossrail’s precise route in central London. The initial proposal suggested three possible routes. I am alarmed by the current proposal for a route just south of Oxford street because it is certain to cause massive disruption to the residential population of Mayfair, as well as damage to a large number of listed buildings and other residential properties. Some Members—I say this perhaps for the benefit of Labour Members—may assume that Mayfair is somehow full of hugely wealthy investment bankers who live in large, multi-million pound houses. Nothing is further from the truth: the biggest number of complaints have come from two very large Peabody Trust buildings: one off Binney street and the other in Brown Hart Gardens in Mayfair. Indeed, the great bulk of the population of north Mayfair is made up of people who live in social housing, many of whom have done so for decades and their families may have done so for several generations. My great concern is that, in reality, they have no choice about where they live. The same applies with many of the licensing changes that are taking place. People who live in Soho, Covent Garden or Mayfair who are well off enough can decide to move if they find that the disruption is too bad, but we always forget that a significant number of people, particularly in central London, live in social housing. They have absolutely no choice about where they live. They are the most vulnerable people in our society, and they need everyone—not just hon. Members, but those in the city council, the Greater London assembly and, indeed, a range of non-governmental bodies—to stand up for their interests. I am sure that my constituency neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), as a former Westminster city councillor, would entirely endorse what I have had to say. If we are to minimise the complications caused by both compulsory purchase and possible structural damage, it is of key importance to give serious consideration to other routes, especially the northern interchange route. I accept that the proper place for such consideration is not the Floor of the House because that will take place in Committee. However, it is worth at least talking about the matter in limited detail at this stage so that I can put it on record. The housing association tenants in Mayfair often have no choice about where they live, as I have said, but they face the risk of severe disruption to their community. In Gilbert street in Mayfair, for example, the 1930s educational facility will be torn down to make way for a terminus to support the Crossrail link. The apartment blocks in the area will be subjected to a minimum of six years’ building work—several hon. Members have cited that time scale. Trucks will go in for at least 12 hours a day to dispose of rubble and a great deal of underground drilling with take place day and night. A shaft measuring 30 ft wide and 25 ft deep will be sunk to expel all the stale air. The residents feel that they have been neither properly informed, nor consulted. The building work will seriously disrupt the quality of life for countless local people, yet many residents are already in poor health, with some elderly and others similarly vulnerable.