---

Crossrail Bill [Instruction No. 2]

I very much concur with my hon. Friend. Whatever the question is, the answer is not Maidenhead, for all the reasons that I have outlined. Even Reading will require significant additional investment, and that is why the motion must be approved. The case for Reading must be examined properly and in detail by the Select Committee, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) will ensure that that happens. This motion is good news, as it represents a significant departure from the Government’s position outlined in the debate on 19 July. I was not happy with some of the assurances that I received then, which is why I abstained in the vote. I am pleased that there will be proper consideration, but a line must be drawn, and I hope that the Minister will do that when he replies to the debate. As I said in an intervention, in the past the use of the Transport and Works Act 1992 has resulted in the petitioners being regarded as the applicant. If there is to be an extension beyond Paddington or Ealing Broadway to Reading and Maidenhead, it is vital that the applicant is either Crossrail or Network Rail, as it would be monstrously unfair to lay the burden on the petitioners, the local authorities or local businesses. I remind the Secretary of State of his reply to me on 19 July, when he said that the project must be kept manageable. That is true, as we must avoid the disaster that took place under the previous Government. I regret that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), the Opposition spokesman, tried to make party-political points, but I shall make one in return: letting the Crossrail project run into the sand in 1989 was a disaster. Constituencies to the west of London need Crossrail even more than Reading does, and I do not want the case for an extension to Reading or anywhere else to limit the chances of my colleagues representing those areas. I want to offer three conclusions to the House. First, the case for Reading rather than Maidenhead must be heard, and I am pleased that that is going to happen. Secondly, any application under the Transport and Works Act 1992 must be made by the Government, Network Rail or Crossrail, and not by the petitioners themselves. My third point is the most important, and has to do with the proper assessment of the likely costs. I have no doubt that, following examination of the relevant factors— such as the western terminus and all the others that I outlined earlier—the Select Committee will conclude that the scheme will have to be phased. A workable and achievable Crossrail phase 1 could deliver for communities around London a properly costed scheme to provide rail access to Reading and other places to the west at a later stage. That would be preferable to a fudge or an imperfect scheme that would be neither fish nor fowl. By all means let us vote for the motion, and ensure that the case is examined properly, but let us also ensure that Crossrail can deliver the maximum benefit in the shortest possible time. The people who rely on the scheme and on Crossrail have waited long enough.