Proceeding contribution from Andrew Pelling (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 19 July 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on Crossrail Bill.
Crossrail Bill
Indeed. It is important not to forget the positive elements of the Bill, and I know that my hon. Friend is very positive about the impact that Crossrail would have on Ilford, North. A substantial part of the Bill deals with the schedule of works and the number of shafts that will be driven down through London streets. That leaves the Government with the conundrum of when to proceed with the project, subject of course to financing. It is difficult to see it being a strong point for London if visitors to the London 2012 Olympics would be subject to such constraints. It is important to bear in mind that the proposals for Crossrail come forward at a time when Thameslink 2000 is still on the books as a project for London. The Thameslink project is further advanced in the planning approval process and the planning inspector has concluded that that scheme will be beneficial. His concerns relating to specific issues at Blackfriars, London Bridge and Borough market have been dealt with. Crossrail cannot be completed by 2012, but the Thameslink project could well be completed by then and provide beneficial links with the Olympic Javelin service to and from St. Pancras. Improved passenger distribution from the King’s Cross-St. Pancras hub would link in well with the cross-channel rail link domestic services coming in in 2009, as well as providing greater capacity for the north-south axis, which is important for London’s transport. Greater capacity will also be provided on the heavily congested lines around London Bridge, a major pinch-point on the existing rail network. That is important to my constituents in Croydon. It is good that the Bill reflects a strong intention to consult transport providers and Transport for London. In the name of joined-up government, there should also be consultation with the Olympic development authority and with transport users through the London Transport Users Committee. I listened carefully to the comments of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about proper compensation. I hope that within the lines of deviation that are provided for in the Bill, flexibility will be possible, bearing in mind the effects of the Croydon Tramlink Act 1994 and the fact that people outside the lines of deviation have yet to receive any compensation whatever, even though the tram system has been in place for some time. Other hon. Members have referred to Crossrail falling within the ambit of the Greater London authority and the Mayor, and clauses 46 and 53 allow the Government to devolve that responsibility to the Mayor. Given the Mayor’s ambition to have a London rail authority, will the Minister explain in his winding-up speech whether the Government want the Mayor’s ambit to extend beyond Greater London, if the line runs from Shenfield to Maidstone or, indeed, Reading?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 436 c1200-1
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Compulsory purchase Construction Elizabeth line Crossrail Finance Land Greater London Freight Franchises Heathrow Airport Powers Property transfer Planning Olympic Games Railway stations Railways Parliamentary procedure Railway network Passengers Underground railways Office of Rail Regulation Commuters Paddington Station Reading Station Petitions
- Legislation
- Crossrail Bill 2004/05 to 2005-06 to 2006-07 to 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 13:41:47 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_264562
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_264562
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_264562