Examination of Witnesses (Questions 380
- 399)
WEDNESDAY 1 MARCH 2000
MR KEITH
HILL, MR
RICHARD BIRD
AND MR
MIKE WALSH
Chairman
380. Is that something that could be dressed
up without identifiable names.
(Mr Hill) We will see what we can provide.
Chairman: Mr Forsythe?
Mr Forsythe
381. Why is the Government planning to reduce
the contribution made by the utility companies towards the cost
of diverting their services away from the route of a new light
rail system?
(Mr Hill) When you have to move the services, the
water supply, the gas supply, the electricity, diversionary works,
there is a sense of grievance on the part of the operators at
the fact that we are reducing the contribution of the utilities
towards the works from 18 per cent to 7.5 per cent?
382. That is right.
(Mr Hill) Why are we doing it? Inspiration has reached
me and I can inform you that the argument is that the utilities
derive an operational benefit from the existence of roads and
bridges because these provide a convenient route for their apparatus.
The 18 per cent contribution may be regarded as least in part
as rent for this facility. The same consideration does not arise
in the case of public transport.
Chairman
383. Say that again.
(Mr Hill) Shall I do that again? I will tell you what—
384. Perhaps you would like to put that in writing,
Minister, it sounds every so slightly specious.
(Mr Hill) That was a written answer so perhaps I can
put it in plain English. I think the point is this: in the case
of light rail projects the utilities do not have the same access
essentially to the cabling and facilities under a road as they
do when the road is built, so to that extent I think the argument
is that there is a use, in other words, a rent value for the utility.
385. You are more convinced about this than
I am so you had better put it in writing.
(Mr Hill) Let me invite the brains of the outfit to
explain it to you.
386. Mr Bird, we will leave that that to the
miasma of information that you are going to give us in writing.
(Mr Hill) I will be delighted to give it in writing.
Chairman: We might be delighted to quote it
with various comments. Mr Forsythe?
Mr Forsythe
387. Would that not mean the promoters of those
schemes would be put off having these systems if they have to
pay extra themselves?
(Mr Hill) I think one way or the other the extra costs
are not met by the promoters but by other means, including the
public purse. That is how it works out in the end.
Chairman: We are interested in the theory; we
may disagree with it. Mr Bennett?
Mr Bennett
388. How much do you think the utilities' profits
will go up as a result of it?
(Mr Hill) Is that a rhetorical question?
389. No, I will be happy to get the answer.
But I think you perhaps were not aware how unpopular you will
be in Greater Manchester as a result of one of your earlier answers.
When the Prime Minister came to open the Metro that went into
Salford he said the big bang scheme for Manchester has got through
the next stage and I think you will have disappointed a lot of
people in Manchester who expected it long before next autumn because
I think all the Manchester scheme went into last year's plans,
so could you give us a little bit more encouragement?
(Mr Hill) Now I have learnt what the Prime Minister
said I think I ought to give you a bit more encouragement. We
are looking at this scheme very earnestly and what is more, in
the light of what you have told me about the Prime Minister, very
urgently as well!
390. While we are on Manchester what about track
sharing. The proposal for the extra ten lines in Manchester does
not involve track sharing. I think there was some concern in Manchester
that track sharing was difficult. You have approved the Newcastle
Sunderland one with track sharing. What scope is there for more
track sharing between light and heavy rail?
(Mr Hill) That is a matter for a seriously expert
opinion and I will ask Mr Bird to answer on that.
Chairman
391. Come along serious expert!
(Mr Bird) Mr Bennett referred to the Sunderland scheme
and that scheme is a scheme that does indeed involve sharing of
track between heavy and light rail so the principle is now agreed
and the Health and Safety Executive were happy with that in principle.
Obviously they will need to be consulted as the scheme is actually
implemented. I think as far as Manchester is concerned there is
no problem in principle but obviously the details will have to
be carefully considered.
392. Are you satisfied that the Strategic Rail
Authority and the Local Passenger Transport people are going to
be able to co-operate effectively? There is a lot of concern from
them that you are weighting it in the Bill in favour of the Strategic
Rail Authority.
(Mr Hill) I am glad you asked that question because
it gives me the opportunity—
393. It was not a plant!
(Mr Hill) I am aware there is concern in PTAs about
these moves. We have talked extensively to the PTAs and I think
they have accepted that the Strategic Rail Authority as is proposed
and envisaged in the Bill does have a clear stake with regard
to both light rail schemes and indeed to rail services in PTA
areas which contribute 20 per cent of passenger volume on the
network as a whole. It would be extraordinary if the Strategic
Rail Authority did not have a stake with, effectively, one-fifth
of all rail activity in the country. As far as light rail schemes
are concerned, again light rail schemes often, certainly in the
case of Manchester, operate precisely on heavy rail lines and
again it seems sensible that the Strategic Rail Authority should
have a stake in any decision-making with regard to such schemes
but, having said that, the role of the Strategic Rail Authority,
remember, is to promote rail activity in the country and we see
the role of the Strategic Rail Authority as a positive and proactive
influence in the development of light rail schemes, both as a
supporter of the promoters of those schemes but also as a potential
source of funding for the schemes as well.
394. But a lot of people in the North West will
see a huge amount of discussion going on about London at the present
time and problems of north-south, those sorts of issues. Is something
going to be done about getting rid of some of those pinch points
in the North West and South Humberside where with very short pieces
of shared track it could dramatically improve commuter services?
(Mr Hill) The Strategic Rail Authority will bring
a strategic vision to the rail network which it has lacked in
the aftermath of the Railways Act 1993. There is a general acceptance
that there needs to be a more integrated approach, though not
a heavy-handed approach, to these matters. Let me say of course
that pinch points in the North West and elsewhere are certainly
being looked at in the context of the current multi-modal studies
which will precisely be examining the value of public transport,
ie, rail alternatives to road on an equal basis. We expect to
see the results of those in the course of the next year and in
general terms we hope that out of the refranchising process, which
we have obviously kicked off at this stage—and my recollection
is that none of the companies so far identified are in the North
West—will roll out proposals in due course. We certainly
want to see innovative projects from the TOCs taking more of a
stake in the infrastructure as well.
Chairman
395. Train Operating Companies.
(Mr Hill) Sorry.
396. Minister, I want to allow you to escape
before very long but I do have some other questions to ask you.
Does the Government see itself having a role in suggesting some
degree of standardisation of equipment in light rail, especially
vehicles, which would have some effect of economies of scale?
(Mr Hill) Very briefly—we have looked at that
and we find it very difficult to see in the midst of various manufacturers
that it would be very easy to bring in that sort of standardisation.
397. But it is not something you reject for
all time?
(Mr Hill) No, we keep it under review.
398. Would the Government agree that it is difficult
to compare the merits of light rail and guided bus, when we do
not really have an example of a network based on guided bus?
(Mr Hill) It is difficult to make those comparisons
because the national and international experience of guided bus,
as you know very well, is extremely limited and therefore to that
extent developing a systematic comparison is not easy.
399. Had you thought of going for some kind
of demonstration project?
(Mr Hill) Demonstration? In the sense of a model?
Chairman: Ie, encouraging somebody to do a suitable
scheme somewhere or yourselves doing some sort of research to
show to people—
| 
