---

Crossrail Bill (Carry Over)

My hon. Friend has made a good local point. The good people of London will be expected to pay an awful lot for a major piece of infrastructure. We know that the Mayor—I am not making a particular comment about the Mayor of London—has suggested including a combination of business rates and Government money, with the rest being funded by way of bonds financed in the City, I suppose. The Committee would like to know about that matter. The Committee is likely to finish its deliberations and produce a report in about February. Sir Michael Lyons is due to give his report to the Government in December, but there is no commitment to publish that report immediately. That report could come out in February, March or, perhaps, after the next local elections. I am warming to the new Minister with responsibility for Crossrail, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), who has been refreshingly honest and straightforward about what is necessary. I pointed out to him that we know that the Olympics will take place and have a rough idea of the funding mechanism, and then asked him why we cannot know about Crossrail. He made the right and proper distinction that the Olympics are going ahead, whereas we have not made a commitment on Crossrail. He went on to say—I commend him for saying this, because it is absolutely right—that there must be a robust case for Crossrail. I am not convinced that without quite heavy taxation—perhaps almost penal levels of taxation—in London, we will be able to pay for Crossrail. If other hon. Members were to assure me that more money can be raised voluntarily from the private sector through bonds or other instruments, it would go some way to relieving my concerns. I want to return to the question of what is robust. When the Government put together a scheme, one naturally assumes that it will be rigorously enforced and the best deal possible, so why add the word ““robust””? There has been an attempt to dampen expectations about Woolwich. The Minister has said:"““Crossrail without Woolwich or no Crossrail—this is the choice that might be open to the government””." Now we have got the sum of money down to a little under £200 million, or about 1 per cent. As the late Ronald Reagan said, ““A million here, a million there, and you’re soon talking about serious money.”” Is the margin on Crossrail really so great that 1 per cent. could tip it from having not a robust case but a financial case of some kind or another? I am reluctant to tread on the toes of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), but to somebody who knows the area reasonably well, it is screamingly obvious that it makes sense to have a hub there, given what the Government want to achieve strategically with regard to the Thames corridor, and given that the light railway is going across to Woolwich. A proper integrated transport strategy must be based on setting up strategic hubs. In relation to south London, where more obvious place to do so than in Woolwich? If the Minister is really scraping around for the odd £200 million or so, I would happily put up Shenfield station to be sacrificed for Woolwich, because the good folk of Shenfield will derive practically nothing from Crossrail; indeed, it will make their journey into work more difficult. At this late moment, and in the spirit of compromise and bipartisanship, I offer the Minister that opportunity.