Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Andrew Rosindell (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 12 January 2006. It occurred during Legislative debate on Crossrail Bill.


Crossrail Bill [Instruction No. 2]

The Secretary of State will know that I have spoken on this matter several times, and that the project will have a devastating effect on part of my constituency. There is much concern that answers have not been given about the effect on people’s lives and properties, and that the long term is not clear. The Government have a duty to clarify matters and to give firm commitments, so that people know exactly where things are going. Today’s debate has given prominence to discussions about Reading and Maidenhead. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) raised concerns about Shenfield, but I hope that the Secretary of State will also look at issues that I have raised in the past in connection with Romford. Given the lack of time, however, I shall be brief, and confine myself to a couple of specific points. First, the Secretary of State will know that many of the powers proposed in the motion are deeply worrying to me and my constituents. Paragraph (m) provides for"““the inclusion of additional land within the limits of land to be acquired or used””." That poses more questions than answers. That is a great pity, as we are far enough along with the Bill to have more answers than questions. I hope that the Minister winding up the debate will say more about the provision, which clearly implies that new land will be needed for the revised plans. When will my constituents in Romford know the Government’s final plans for the Crossrail depot in the centre of the town? Many people there fear that they will undergo more suffering as a result of the Government’s decision to build what they are sure will be a monstrosity in a densely residential and highly populated area. I am especially worried by the further plans for the Romford depot and surrounding areas that are contained in the supplementary environmental statement. Secondly, the Secretary of State made a written statement on 13 December. I hope that the Minister will say whether the £100 million that the right hon. Gentleman has made available for Crossrail’s further development is less than what Cross London Rail Links asked for. Alternatively, does Crossrail have a blank cheque for as much development as it wants? Those and other concerns must be addressed. The Secretary of State must realise that the lives of many people, in my constituency and across the east end of London, are being torn apart by the proposals. No one doubts that Crossrail will bring some benefits, but he must accept that the mechanisms have to be right. Moreover, he has to understand the impact that the proposals are having on people in my area, even as we sit in the House and debate them.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
441 c472-3 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Compulsory purchase Costs Construction Elizabeth line Crossrail Land Legislative process Environment Greater London Freight Powers Property transfer Planning Railway stations Railways Railway network Reading (Berkshire) Underground railways Tunnels Civil engineering Maidenhead Ebbsfleet International 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