---

Crossrail Bill [Instruction No. 2]

It is kind of my right hon. Friend to tell me that, but it does not come as a surprise to me. I am not going to go into the merits of the Merseytram proposal now, for obvious reasons, not least that the company is now litigating against me and the Government. However, I note what he says. To make a general point, I think that all of us, especially those who represent constituencies outside London, would do well to remember that the UK economy depends to a large extent on the well being of the London economy. That is a fact of life, and all our policies have to reflect that. That is not to say, however, that we should not make investments in different parts of the country, and we are doing so, but they have to be the right ones. I am now going, whether the House likes it or not, to Brentwood and Ongar. The instruction does not allow for consideration by the Committee of the truncation of the route. When the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar raised this issue with me in July, he had tabled his own amendment—although it was not selected by the Speaker—which would have allowed the eastern terminal to be sited at Liverpool Street. I made the point that to have a railway line that ran only from Paddington to Liverpool Street simply would not stack up, and that it had to be longer than that. That proposal was just not acceptable. I can help the hon. Gentleman to some extent, but probably not to the extent that he would like. My best advice is that the motion will allow the Select Committee to hear petitions, but not to decide that the route should be truncated further to the east of Shenfield. It could, however, hear petitions in relation to where exactly the terminus should be. For example, as I understand it, if there were a proposition that the station should not be where it is now but a short distance away from there, it would be within the competence of the Committee to decide on that. It will be up to the Select Committee, acting on its own views and on the advice of the Officers of the House, to decide exactly what it does. However, it could not, for example, say, ““Actually, the line should not end at Shenfield. It should terminate further to the east.”” I understand that issues have been raised relating to the siting of the Shenfield terminus, and petitions on that could be heard. Having said that, if the Select Committee chooses to hear petitions on that general principle—on advice, it believes that it can do so—I cannot prevent that. But I cannot assure the hon. Gentleman that the instruction that I am inviting the House to endorse today would have the effect of allowing people to argue that the terminus should be located not at Shenfield but further in. The hon. Gentleman raised this matter with me in July, and I have had the chance to look and see what I said to him at the time, although my recollection is that it was in the context of his amendment, to which I referred.