---

Crossrail Bill [Instruction] (No. 5)

As the Minister pointed out earlier, the House is considering a motion to issue to the Select Committee an instruction to hear petitions against the construction of the station at Woolwich. This is the third such motion in the past 18 months, as the mammoth Crossrail Bill proceeds through lengthy, arduous and no doubt at times extraordinarily demanding Select Committee proceedings. The Second Reading of the Bill took place on 14 July 2005. At that stage the House agreed the principle of the Bill, which is to construct a railway connecting the termini at Maidenhead and Heathrow in the west to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east. Among the intermediate stops agreed to at that stage were Paddington, Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon and Liverpool Street. Today we add Woolwich to that list. The Minister expressed one or two reservations, but the proposal represents a welcome U-turn by the Government and recognition of the benefits of a station at Woolwich. The previous Under-Secretary of State for Transport with responsibility for rail, now the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), stated the Government’s view at one stage that there would be Crossrail without Woolwich or no Crossrail at all. In May 2006 the same Minister placed in the Library a letter to the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) containing the Government’s view that the high cost of the station made it unaffordable. In the debate last year the Secretary of State rightly said that the Government"““must retain the right to judge what is affordable?." Despite the drop in costs to £186 million, the Secretary of State went on to say:"““After much consideration, my judgment is that we cannot simply add such a large cost to the project, which already represents a huge funding challenge.?—[Official Report, 31 October 2006; Vol. 451, c. 229.]" The benefits of the station at Woolwich have often been rehearsed, as in that debate and by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich today. It was always part of the initial consultation that the station should be there, and it was somewhat surprising when that was deleted. Woolwich lies at the western end of the Thames Gateway, where there is scope for the development on derelict land. The transportation benefits are proven. It is already a major transport hub in the south-east, and a Crossrail station would service that further. On a cost-benefit basis, it is well in line with the cost of the overall scheme. If I wanted to prolong the debate, I could continue to laud its benefits in a similar vein. There was always a case for Woolwich, in that it would improve the scheme and provide better value. In the debate in October, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and I welcomed the prospect. We also welcomed the Secretary of State’s decision to allow the Committee to reconsider the benefits of Woolwich. At the time, the Chairman of the Committee said that it remained of the view that the station should be built and said that it would be pleased to undertake more work and further investigations. As the official Opposition, we wish to place on record our thanks to this long-running hybrid Bill Committee and its Chairman for their excellent and extremely valuable work. Today’s motion is largely technical. Across the House, we have moved from a contentious and controversial discussion to one that is non-controversial and consensual. There has always been cross-party support building up for the Committee’s view, and it is pleasing that the Government have recognised the benefits of the station. I want to say a few words in defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), who pointed out in the debate in October that, in terms of affordability, £186 million was neither a huge proportion of the total estimated cost nor a sum likely to push the whole project over the edge. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State was somewhat curt and dismissive in his response to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the Minister would wish to place on record an apology to him, perhaps combined with good wishes for his upcoming nuptials this Saturday. The Minister clarified the significant developments that have allowed Woolwich to happen—the welcome movement from Berkeley Homes, the all-party group on Crossrail, and I am sure many others, which has allowed for the provision of the box underneath the development, and the Government’s finding £28 million to facilitate affordability. In the debate in October, the Government said that affordability was the main issue. Today, the Minister said that the strict affordability of the project has changed, but he failed to say, as would have been useful, that the affordability criterion should have recognised the regenerative benefits and value for money of the Woolwich station. He concentrated on the deal with Berkeley Homes, which is none the less welcome. Several questions remain in the air, however, in relation to the station at Woolwich. For example, when will the Government bring forward the estimate of expense that relates to the instruction, which is key to its being enacted? The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich talked about the benefits for London. Those have been well rehearsed in previous debates and I do not intend to go through them again, but it is worth clarifying one or two important points as regards enabling this exceptional project to go forward. The Select Committee will finish its deliberations on the Bill at some stage later this year. Do the Government intend to push it straight into a Public Bill Committee in October? When do they anticipate that the first spade will cut the soil, assuming a relatively smooth passage through that Committee? We already know about the likely fare box tax revenue and business contributions. I look forward to the Government giving us some hint of their further funding proposals. Will the comprehensive spending review, high-level output specification, or 30-year rail White Paper have details of their funding proposals and what they intend their contribution to be? Those are matters of fundamental importance, because if the Secretary of State is right in proposing the principle that only the Government can determine affordability, then ultimately only they can finalise the funding. The Lyons fig leaf has been torn away and the Government are lying naked. Let me finish by restating the official Opposition’s continuing position, which is that we have backed the Crossrail Bill in Parliament and will continue to do so, when it finally returns from the Select Committee’s deliberations, throughout its remaining parliamentary processes and on to the statute book—with, I hope, the Woolwich station. We recognise the economic benefits that will flow from the increase in transport capacity that Crossrail will bring to the people and businesses of London, and the motion will have our support.