---

Crossrail Bill

As the hon. Member for Reading, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) said, there is a case to be made for that, and the Select Committee should certainly consider it, which is precisely the argument of a variety of Members in relation to its remit and terms of reference. When I heard the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, I thought to myself, ““With a determined and articulate representative like that, it is no wonder that she saw off the Liberals in Maidenhead and will always do so when the test comes.”” Speaking of Liberals, there are a variety of local environmental concerns, and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) pointed them out. There are also fears that far from being a regional railway, Crossrail is now a metro scheme—no longer part of an integral railway network. Some say that the project is increasingly being driven by the Mayor of London—hardly the best person to deliver a train service to the people of Berkshire, Essex, Kent or elsewhere. There is much local opposition to the proposed 24-hour maintenance depot at Rush Green. The petition had 2,302 signatories, and what a feisty campaigner they have in my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). I tell him, the people of Romford and the House that when we are returned to office, which will be before the project starts if this Government have anything to do with it, we will reprieve the people of Romford and consider seriously the alternative highlighted tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles)—the North Pole depot west of Paddington. When the Eurotunnel rail link is complete, that depot will become vacant, and it seems to be a suitable alternative to blighting the lives of the people of Romford, as has been properly drawn to the House’s attention. In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) expressed concerns about Heathrow. The BAA has expressed its concern:"““The Bill as drafted, combined with Crossrail’s projected services, would decrease the proportion of rail passengers travelling to Heathrow.””" According to a preliminary study by an independent transport consultant commissioned by the BAA, the replacement of the dedicated non-stop Heathrow Express services with stopping Crossrail services could result in the loss of 3 to 4 per cent. of Heathrow airport’s public transport share. Such a result would mean that the objective increase in public transport access to the airport as required by the Government’s White Paper, 2The Future of Air Transport””, would not be realised. The current proposals will take over paths and platform space already safeguarded by BAA for the Airtrack project which would link Heathrow with Waterloo for the first time. Moreover, terminal 5 does not have the capacity to accommodate the Heathrow Express and Crossrail. Crossrail’s proposal therefore implies that either Airtrack or Heathrow Express to terminal 5 is no longer possible. Surely it is not too much to ask that we maintain good public transport access to Heathrow airport. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton said, the Bill as currently drafted threatens fundamental principles of independent regulation—another point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead and others. The powers under the Bill, if exercised, could negatively affect Network Rail’s ability to deliver services and challenge the wider principles of independent regulation. That would threaten business confidence, with wider implications for future private sector investment. The Crossrail Bill also creates a potential conflict. It instructs the Office of Rail Regulation to give priority to Crossrail. Clause 15 of the Olympics Bill, however, would place the ORR under an obligation to assist in the development of the Olympics, with a clear implication that it should give priority to the Olympics. Which is to come first? We heard nothing about that from the Secretary of State. Will the Minister clarify the matter, as I would have expected the Government to be absolutely clear about how Crossrail and the Olympics interact and overlap? The Bill also threatens the expropriation of private property rights. It gives the Secretary of State power to take over, without compensation, Heathrow Express, in which BAA has invested around £750 million over the past decade. The Select Committee must be allowed to satisfy itself in regard to: concerns about Crossrail’s construction; powers taken under the Bill; and railway planning in the context of the Olympics. That is why we tabled our instruction to the Committee. The Government must address other important questions. What potential is there for capacity growth? Have the Government affirmed tonight that Reading remains the objective beyond Maidenhead, or have they merely confused the House because of their own confusion? Does the increasing involvement of the Mayor of London mean that Crossrail will remain a metro service, or will it eventually serve regional needs? It is claimed that Crossrail will provide indirect benefits by releasing capacity at Liverpool Street station so that more trains can run from the Lee valley to Stansted. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire pointed out, train operators have said that that will not work because the route is already at the limit of its capacity elsewhere. Is there potential for capacity to expand to services to Stansted and other growth areas? In his opening statement, the Secretary of State said very little that could remove the uncertainty surrounding the funding of the project. In public, business leaders say they are behind the project, and indeed they and we remain behind it in principle. In private, however, they tell me of their grave concerns about their contribution. It is not simply a question of size; they are also concerned about whether they will have a meaningful say in the project’s management. If business is expected to make a major contribution, it will expect to have some say in the governance of Crossrail. I do not think that that is unreasonable, but the Government and Crossrail have only just addressed the issue. We must get this project right. If Crossrail does not happen, that will undermine business confidence and the Government’s ability to deliver part-funded infrastructure projects in the future. We know that the Government have committed themselves in a very significant way. An investigation of Crossrail in 2004 revealed that 265 staff members were involved in planning the project. According to another investigation, rents on prestige offices in St James’s park for Cross London Rail Links, the parent company, were costing £745,000 a year. In answer to a question that I tabled recently, the Minister said that in the last financial year those office costs had trebled to £1,907,000. He also revealed that his Department had spent £1,937,000 on consultancy in the last financial year, in answer to a question that I tabled on 12 July.