§ The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)I have now received from Cross London Rail Links (CLRL) their business case proposals for the East-West London Crossrail project. The House will find it helpful to have an indication of what these proposals involve and how the Government plan to take them forward.
The purpose of Crossrail is to provide a significant increase in the capacity of the present rail networks into and across London so as to relieve congestion and overcrowding, to cater for the expected substantial growth in demand for travel into and across the capital over the coming decades, and to improve accessibility.
I am grateful for all the work which has been done by CLRL and their shareholders, the SRA and TfL, in developing the latest proposals for Crossrail, and in refining the analysis in the interim business case which they submitted to me in February.
Following analysis of a range of route options, CLRL have now proposed the adoption of what they have termed the benchmark scheme, involving a central East-West tunnel across London, with services extending to two branches to the East and two to the West.
In more detail, CLRL's proposed route option would involve a central tunnel following closely the currently protected alignment across London, from west of Paddington to east of Liverpool Street. From Liverpool Street, the line would be extended through Whitechapel, 2WS beyond which it would divide into two branches both serving the Thames Gateway—one going to Stratford and joining the existing Great Eastern lines to Shenfield; the other going down through the Isle of Dogs and the Royal Docks, crossing the Thames to join the North Kent lines at Abbey Wood, with some services continuing to Ebbsfleet.
To the west of Paddington, the line would join the Great Western main line before dividing into two further branches. One would join up with the North London Line providing services to Richmond and Kingston. The other would be via Ealing and Hayes to Heathrow along the existing branch served by Heathrow Express. This would be subject to the Crossrail promoters securing a satisfactory agreement with BAA, which owns the Heathrow access rights to this branch.
CLRL have advised that they believe implementation of the benchmark scheme would cost some £10 billion in 2002 prices, including an allowance for contingencies, although the actual cost will depend on final decisions on the route and construction phasing, following appraisal and public consultation. Their analysis indicates that the project should produce benefits significantly greater than this, taking account of the anticipated levels of growth in employment and population in London in the Mayor's draft London plan. CLRL's transport and economic case for the project rests on this positive assessment of likely benefits over costs. There are also potentially significant regeneration benefits, particularly to the east of London, and to the longer term development of the Thames Gateway.
The Government continue to support the principle of building a new East-West Crossrail link. We see merit in the arguments for such an increase in capacity to support London's continued growth and success.
CLRL itself suggests that an all public sector funded option is unlikely to be affordable. We agree that the very high cost of the Crossrail project has major resource implications at a time when there are many other pressures on the transport budget, and on the public purse in general.
So if the project were to go ahead there would need to be a very substantial contribution to its costs from those who would benefit most from it. First, we envisage that there would need to be a very substantial contribution from London's business community—indeed I welcome the indications already made by London First and others of their willingness to contribute. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I are examining options here and we intend to consult the various London interests in the autumn.
Secondly, we shall be looking to ensure that where there are specific development opportunities arising from the project, we take full advantage of these and secure an appropriate contribution to the cost of the project from the developers concerned and thirdly, there is an issue over the appropriate level of fares, given the benefits which will accrue not only to users of Crossrail itself, but also from the reduced congestion elsewhere on London's transport networks.
3WSGiven the importance and high cost of the project, the Government now need to evaluate the CLRL proposals for value and affordability. We need to be sure that we have a robust plan for delivering and funding the project, with effective mechanisms to ensure those who benefit from it contribute as fully as possible to meeting the costs and bearing the risks.
In order to give the project the best chance of success, I am assembling an expert team to assess the proposals so that I can be assured that they offer good value for London, and are deliverable to budget, to time and to scope. This assessment will be carried out as quickly as possible consistent with the scale and complexity of the proposals and the extent to which key components of them are still under development.
I have also been considering proposals for an alternative scheme for Crossrail put to me by the London Regional Metro (LRM) consortium. While their proposals have some attractions, it would not be appropriate to proceed with LRM without an open competition. So we will seek to ensure that if and when Crossrail proceeds, the terms of any competition for its development would allow scope for LRM and other interested parties to bring forward their innovative ideas.
I have also concluded that the most appropriate way to seek powers for the project would be by way of a Hybrid Bill which the Government would be willing in principle to promote at an appropriate point once the evaluation is completed and a comprehensive funding package agreed. I am asking CLRL to continue work on development of their detailed project proposals so that they would be ready to support a hybrid Bill.
I am also inviting CLRL to advise me on updating the safeguarding for the route, and to undertake a public consultation exercise in the autumn to explain in more detail their proposed scheme, and to canvass views on their route proposals.
I welcome the proposals for the East-West London Crossrail and want to move forward. When the Department has carried out a thorough review of the project, and we have the results of the consultation exercise by CLRL, as well as the outcome of the consultation with business on funding options, we will be in a position to take firm and soundly-based decisions on the way forward for the project.