---

Crossrail Bill

The House would not want me to delve into the realms of ancient history when we have important matters before us to consider tonight. There are real doubts about the funding of the project. There are even more profound doubts—I almost hesitate to say it—about when the Treasury really backs it. I have no doubt about the commitment of the Secretary of State and his ministerial team, but is the Treasury really behind the project? As Thomas the Tank Engine might have said, this is a case of ““Hurry up, Gordon!”” There is also considerable concern about how the construction of the project could disrupt other services. The rail industry estimates that the construction will affect 2,200 freight, commuter, long-distance passenger and airport services per day, along two principal routes. In particular, freight terminals along both routes could suffer significant disruption. On the Great Western route, 12 terminals, mostly on slow lines, would be permanently affected. My hon. Friends the Members for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), and the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) made the point that there is a real issue of disruption caused by displacement. We heard that that could even have an effect as far afield as Norwich and Oxford. The idea that this project should be considered solely as a metro service, and solely as the concern of London, when it has these wider implications, is way off beam. In addition, a number of constituencies will be particularly affected. In the west, Crossrail will terminate in Maidenhead, which has an extremely busy commuter station served by fast and semi-fast trains at peak times. As my right hon. Fried the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made clear, the introduction of Crossrail not only threatens to replace those with a slow stopping service, but might reduce the number of trains, and worst of all damage that aesthetic masterpiece, the Brunel bridge. Can we really ask the people of Maidenhead to endure this for five or six years for a worse service than they have at the moment?