---

Crossrail Bill

As one of those who did two years of penal servitude on the Select Committee on the Bill, I could speak at considerable length now that I am free. Some of us had become so institutionalised by the end of that process that we actually volunteered to go back inside and serve on the Public Bill Committee. None the less, I shall try to keep my remarks brief and simply make some fairly sharp points. The Minister has talked about the enormous benefits to the economy that Crossrail is likely to bring. He mentioned a figure of about £20 billion; the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) spoke of about £30 billion. Who knows what it will be? We do know that it will be very substantial indeed. Crossrail is a major infrastructure project, of vital importance not only to the capital but to the national economy. It is very much to be welcomed. Obviously, a lot of regeneration could result from it, and many jobs will be created during its construction. It will provide a vital east-west link across the capital, without which the existing transport infrastructure would run the real risk of clogging up to the point of coming to a standstill. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) referred to one of the remaining issues as the Bill leaves this House and goes on to the other place. That was freight, and she was quite right to draw attention to it. Freight was one of the issues to which the Select Committee drew specific attention in its report. We said that we expected there to be continuing discussions about the impact of Crossrail on freight, both east and west of the capital, and we hoped that it would be given further consideration. I know that the Department has given it further consideration and is working on possible solutions, as is the industry more widely, so that when the Bill is debated in the other place, sufficient reassurance can be given that the vital interests of freight will be protected as Crossrail comes into operation. Other hon. Members have mentioned some of the continuing concerns expressed by those who have petitioned against the Bill. The Smithfield market traders were specifically mentioned; I know that other members of the Select Committee will have received letters from them and from others about their lingering concerns about the impact of the scheme on their interests. It is worth reassuring those people again that they will have the opportunity to petition against the Bill in the other place, should they wish to do so. They will have the opportunity to be heard in the other place, if they feel that their interests have not been adequately protected by this House. Similar procedures will be followed as the hybrid Bill goes through its various stages. It is worth saying, by way of a brief digression, that the Select Committee did not consider the overall merits of the scheme. The Bill comes to the hybrid Bill Committee as something that, having been given its Second Reading, has already been approved in principle by the House. We were aware of that in Committee, but not all the petitioners were aware of it. There is no doubt that some who wanted to petition against aspects of the principle of the Bill or alternative routes or the potential to go further out to East Anglia, to Reading or beyond found it somewhat frustrating that that was not within our remit. It is worth putting on record the fact that one aspect of the hybrid Bill procedure—there are many great strengths to it—is not in place now and might be worth considering before the House deals with the next hybrid Bill. The procedure might be strengthened if hybrid Bill Committees had the same facility as Public Bill Committees now have—to hear initial evidence in order to set the context for later consideration. That, or perhaps further consideration of evidence in advance by the departmental Select Committee, might have enabled any frustrations to be dealt with at an earlier stage. That might also have enabled the hybrid Bill Committee to have looked at the outset at some of the more general issues that we had to return to on a number of occasions during our hearings—for example, ground-borne noise or the compensation code, which we had to learn about rapidly. Those matters could have been dealt with initially by hearings with expert advice, which might have allowed us to deal even more expeditiously with the petitions in front of us.