UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 837-lii

HOUSE OF COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

taken before the

COMMITTEE

on the

CROSSRAIL BILL

DAY FIFTY-TWO

Wednesday 12 July 2006

Before:

Mr Brian Binley

Kelvin Hopkins

Mrs Siān C James

Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger

Dr John Pugh

Mrs Linda Riordan

Sir Peter Soulsby

 

In the absence of the Chairman, Mr Liddell-Grainger was called to the Chair

 

Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in.

15119. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: As usual, I inform the Committee that it is my intention to suspend at about 11.45 so that we have a chance to attend PMQs, which, as you are well aware, are quite interesting at the moment.

15120. I will ask Mr George to speak on behalf of Freightliner Ltd.

15121. MR GEORGE: Sir, there is one preliminary matter I would like to raise with the Committee. Later on today, Foster Yeoman Ltd and Yeoman Aggregates Ltd (Petition 224) and Hanson Quarry Products Europe Ltd and Pioneer Willment Concrete Ltd (Petition 52) are programmed to be heard. I have had some discussions with Ms Lieven this morning. In the light of what Mr Berryman said yesterday evening, in relation to the matters concerning Acton Yard, that there is progress anticipated on that matter by the end of September, and in the light of the fact that Crossrail are going to bring forward a supplementary environmental statement which deals with their concerns (which will be part of additional provision 3, which is not yet before the Committee), we have agreed that there would be sense in that matter not taking the Committee's time today but for it to come back sometime after October if there are still live concerns. I would simply seek the agreement of the Select Committee to that course.

15122. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: That is fine. Please carry on.

15123. MR GEORGE: I am grateful.

 

The Petition of Freightliner Group Ltd.

MR CHARLES GEORGE QC appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.

BIRCHAM DYSON BELL appeared as Agent.

15124. Sir, the Freightliner Group is the second largest rail freight operator with particular concern for the continued operation of its expanding container traffic to the east coast and the Thameside ports and the interface with Crossrail on the Great Eastern Line. I am not going to summarise the evidence you are going to hear solely from their head of rail strategy, Lindsay Durham, but it may help if I indicate that they are not raising their own property issues - so those matters of specific sites which came up yesterday are not going to be before the Committee again - although they share EWS's concern that those yards should remain with EWS and be as minimally affected as possible. They are concerned about the "strategic sites" point - and we will come back to that in due course - but could I indicate on that issue that we find entirely uncompelling the argument advanced, that: since they are going to be used for railway purposes that is in accordance with their being strategic sites. The strategic sites were set aside in the early 1990s to cater for freight growth. If Network Rail, now the owner of them, wishes to take any of the strategic sites for a non freight purpose, then they have to provide an alternative site. All we are saying is that, in that Crossrail are effectively taking two of these sites (the Paddington West Yard and the Plumstead Yard - both of which are being taken as a result of the Crossrail works), the pool needs to be topped up.

15125. The particular concern of Freightliner is with the threat posed to freight operations on the Eastern line. I would ask, please, if there could be put on the screen an extract from the transcript: Day 48, paragraph 13715. This is Mr Elvin to Mr Watson, the Chairman of the Timetabling Group: "Mr Watson, the position with regard to the need for infrastructure improvement of the Great Eastern side, is that a need which is brought about by Crossrail or is it a need which is already existing?" Answer: "I think I have already mentioned that Crossrail does take away some of the capacity. That is a fact." This is common ground here, that there is taking away of capacity on the Great Eastern line. There may be disputes about the Great Western line, but here there is no dispute at all. As you can see from the answer at the end of the next paragraph, Mr Watson agreed that "something needs to be done" in that area. That is the matter which Ms Durham and Freightliner are going to be underlining.

15126. The position is going to be made worse when account is taken of Transport for London's plans for an enhanced passenger metro-service on the North London Line, with downstream effects at Stratford and further east - again, all matters agreed by Mr Watson (Day 47, paragraph 13792). These are matters about which, thus far, the Promoter has been very coy, about which there has certainly been no cross-examination, and which we say need to be explored and, we would hope, resolved with expedition.

15127. The various matters I raised yesterday on behalf of EWS are equally applicable to Freightliner's case, in particular Ms Durham was personally a member of the Timetabling Group (which Mr Smith was not) and you may find her comments of particular assistance, given Mr Elvin's statement on Day 49, paragraph 14178, that ".. the modelling enjoys the support across a wide number of stakeholders." We say that is a gloss on the true position and Ms Durham will make the position absolutely plain.

15128. Furthermore, Mr Elvin suggested on Day 48, paragraph 13877, that the rail freight companies were raising new issues at a late stage without raising them at the proper and earlier time. That this is not so is clear, for example, from the fact that as long ago as 19 December 2005 Freightliner requested that further work be done on the timetable, which included the expected growth of freight by rail until 2015 and beyond, and that performance modelling was necessary.

15129. Finally, you are going to hear from Ms Durham about the scope and need for railway enhancements - enhancements which everybody seems to agree are necessary - and that something should be done, but we say that a steer is needed to the DfT, the Promoter of this Bill, to move from encouraging noises to funding commitments and a specific programme and timetable. Such works would satisfactorily replace a lack of freight capacity caused by Crossrail, and, unless this Committee is given certain assurances on that matter, the position will be quite other than that which the Secretary of State apprehended on second reading, in the passage to which I referred the Committee yesterday, 19 July, column 1132, that there would not be any squeezing out to any unjustified degree of other services that are equally necessary.

15130. Sir, with that background, I will call Ms Durham. Sir, there is a bundle of exhibits to which I suspect the Committee will wish to allocate a number.

15131. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: A170.

 

MISS LINDSAY DURHAM, Sworn

Examined by MR GEORGE

15132. MR GEORGE: You are Lindsay Durham. What position do you hold with the Freightliner Group?

(Ms Durham) I am the head of rail strategy for the Freightliner Group, a post I have held for 15 months. I have worked in the rail industry for 23 years and in rail freight for 17 of those 23 years. I am deputy chairman of the Rail Freight Operators' Association which represents EWS, Freightliner, DOS and GBS, a director of both the Railtrack Group and the European Rail Freight Association. I am also a member of the Freight Transport Association's Rail Freight Council. My responsibilities to Freightliner include the management of our relationship with Network Rail, the rest of the rail industry and the Government.

15133. Would you explain who Freightliner are?

(Ms Durham) The Freightliner Group incorporates Freightliner Ltd, who specialise in moving containers from ports to inland terminals, and also Freightliner Heavy Haul Ltd, who transport mainly bulk goods, such as coal, aggregates, cement, oil and waste. Freightliner Group is the UK's second largest rail freight operator and currently we carry some 28 per cent of the rail freight in the UK.

15134. You were here yesterday and heard the evidence of Mr Smith. Do you have any comment on that matter?

(Ms Durham) Yes. I support the evidence given by Graham Smith of EWS. I will not duplicate what Mr Smith said. However, I do ask the Committee to note in particular the issues regarding land, capacity, regulation and compensation which Graham Smith described. These issues also seriously affect Freightliner's business and our ability to compete with road freight. I would like to set out today the particular concerns of Freightliner which have not been covered by EWS, in particular issues relating to the carriage of deep sea containers from the western ports.

15135. I think today we are mainly going to be hearing abut Freightliner Ltd and containers. Is that right?

(Ms Durham) That is right. Freightliner is a specialist in the deep sea container market, as well as being considerable player in other freight markets. Indeed, in other freight markets, we have recently won new contracts to transport aggregates into Bow in the East of London, which Mr Smith discussed with you yesterday, and also to Thornley Mill in Brentford, west of London, which are also potentially affected by Crossrail. EWS have already dealt with matters affecting land issues, so I shall not repeat them, however Freightliner could have an interest in these land issues in the future, as, in principle, if a contract to run freight into these sites is won by another operator, the 125-year leasehold from Network Rail also transfers to the new operator. Indeed, much of the lease for the site discussed yesterday, Bow, Midland, West Yard (EWS site 9) should be assigned to Freightliner in the near future as a result of Freightliner taking over the movement of the aggregate industry traffic into that site from April 2006.

15136. In short, you do carry aggregates and you might in the future use these sites.

(Ms Durham) That is correct.

15137. I think we can then move on to the question of containers and the new matters.

(Ms Durham) Containers are those large metal boxes of standard sizes that can easily be transferred between different modes of transport. Exhibit FL1 shows the largest ports in the UK deep sea container business, which are currently Felixstowe, Southampton and Tilbury and Thamesport, and it is the ports of Felixstowe and Tilbury which are affected by the Crossrail proposal. The lines in dark blue on the map are the lines that are affected by Crossrail. You will note that many of these trains travel long distances, as many as 400 miles from Felixstowe to Glasgow.

15138. What are the green diamonds?

(Ms Durham) They indicate the new ports at Felixstowe South and at Bathside Bay which have been approved by the Secretary of State, and also the port at Shellhaven which has provisional approval by the Secretary of State. These new ports are required because existing UK ports are operating at near capacity.

15139. Basically, the containers which are going by rail from those three ports are all going to be converging on this key stretch of the Great Eastern Line and that is your concern.

(Ms Durham) Yes.

15140. The market background, please.

(Ms Durham) Container rail to port traffic is becoming increasingly important to the UK and over the last 20 years the UK has seen a trend to move away from manufacturing within the UK to manufacturing within developing countries. As a consequence, efficient transport of goods is as important to the success of the UK economy now as efficient manufacturing was 20 to 30 years ago. Continued growth in the movement of freight and particular freight moving increased distances, alongside increased people movement, has led to congestion of the UK transport infrastructure, both on rail and on road.

15141. I think you then come to deal with a study, with which the Committee may well be familiar, the Eddington Transport Study.

(Ms Durham) Yes. Freightliner has input into the Eddington Transport Study, which was initiated by the Chancellor and the Secretary of State last autumn to provide advice to the Government on the long-term links between transport and the UK's economic productivity, growth and stability. It is now expected to report in November this year. It is expected that this report will address the issue of inland transport of containers in the UK from and to ports and how this is linked to the growth of the UK economy. Related to that, recently the DfT have published Ports Policy - your views invited.

15142. That is FL3. This was published by the Government this summer, is that right?

(Ms Durham) That is correct, yes.

15143. It is a consultation document, hence "your views invited". At paragraph 3.9 we can see the point being made that there is anticipated a "sustained growth of imports in manufactured goods" and that that matter is linked to economic growth.

(Ms Durham) That is correct, yes.

15144. Looking to paragraph 4.1, there is concern that there should not be "serious impediments at a national level to the provision of port capacity required to secure the gains from international trade."

(Ms Durham) Yes.

15145. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr George, take it as read that the Committee understands.

15146. MR GEORGE: Fine. The same is true of paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2. That is therefore the context.

15147. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Chairman, may I help. I think the Committee is probably persuaded that rail freight is important. I think it is probably also persuaded that it ought to grow and, given a fair wind, will grow. I do somewhat feel we are going over ground that has already been well covered.

15148. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr George, can we know what you want? We went over a lot of freight yesterday. I think the Committee will agree with me that we would like to know exactly what you as the Petitioner want. If it is to do with replacing the yards in London, I would like to know.

15149. MR GEORGE: It is very clearly set out, sir, in our FL11.

15150. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Why do we not then go to FL11, Mr George, and take that as our starting point. You are obviously looking for something specific. If it is the Paddington West Yard and West Plumstead sites, shall we talk about that?

15151. MR GEORGE: Yes. Let us do that. Let us go, therefore, to FL11. Paddington West Yard is going to be transferred, is it not, to a freight use because the Paddington New Yard is being taken by Crossrail.

(Ms Durham) Yes, that is right. I understand it is going to be transferred to EWS.

15152. Plumstead is another strategic freight yard which is going to be taken for the tunnel portal.

(Ms Durham) Yes, I believe so.

15153. You are taking undertakings in respect of them. Can you very briefly explain why you seek those undertakings?

(Ms Durham) Yes. We are not asking for compensation. We are asking for compensatory land. The purpose of strategic sites is that a land bank for freight sites is available, and if, for instance, Railtrack, now Network Rail, remove sites from this land bank, they have to replace these with an alternative site. These sites are needed to grow. Rail freight cannot grow unless it has new sites. Just because the sites are currently empty does not mean they will not be required in the future. Indeed, only in the last two years, Freightliner has called down the sites at Hitchin and Luton that were previously empty for many years.

15154. Do you find it any answer that Plumstead, for instance, is going to be used in connection with Crossrail and therefore that is a rail use? How does that deal with the intended function of these strategic sites?

(Ms Durham) I do not think it deals with it at all. These sites should be reserved for rail freight. Just because they are being used for other rail matters, that is not the purpose for which they were reserved. They were reserved for rail freight and we need an alternative to replace them.

15155. Let us move on then to the capacity point, which is number 3. The Committee will; recall from yesterday the 11 points mentioned in EWS 14. Were you a member of the Timetable Working Group?

(Ms Durham) Yes, I was.

15156. Does that mean you personally or was Freightliner Group just represented?

(Ms Durham) I personally attended the majority of the meetings.

15157. Did you at an early stage raise the need for timetabling and detailed work in relation to the 2015 position with freight growth to 2015?

(Ms Durham) Yes, I did. I believe I raised it at one of the first meetings in December.

15158. The various matters which have been raised about, for instance, the fact that there has been no performance modelling in respect of 2015 with freight growth or an access/egress to freight terminals and the like, are those new matters or are those matters which were raised during these working group meetings by the representatives of the freight train operators?

(Ms Durham) They were not new matters at all. Indeed, all of our items in the list of ten were raised regularly at the meetings. I particularly advise you, for example, with regard to the performance modelling of the timetable, including the 2015 growth, that this was discussed at a meeting on 20 March. I quote from the minutes: "Resilience modelling will be undertaken over the next two to three weeks." We have never received that work.

15159. Could page 24 of the Crossrail Timetable Working Group report - a page we looked at yesterday - be put on the screen, please. This is the down service. We looked particularly at how the minus 8 in the right-hand column grew to a minus 16, and the minus 15 to a minus 23, therefore a worsening in each case of eight so far as freight paths in 2015. Is that right?

(Ms Durham) Yes.

15160. Is there any reason why performance modelling should not have been done of the maximum number of freight trains that can be accommodated? There may be a shortfall, but of the number which can be accommodated along with the proposed Crossrail service.

(Ms Durham) No, I know of no reason why performance modelling could not have been done on this timetable, including all the paths that could be accommodated in the timetable.

15161. Mr Watson said that those matters could be done if a timetabling group worked on them and were given some resources. How important is it that the Committee knows what the effect on freight will be and whether it will work with the proposed Crossrail timetabling?

(Ms Durham) I think it is essential that we understand how any timetable will react to perturbations that we all know will happen. It is not just the effect on freight services; it is also the effect on passenger services. It is the whole integrated timetable that needs to be looked at to make sure that it is robust.

15162. Could we then please go back to exhibit FL2. The Shenfield Line is the line on the right which is going out to Felixstowe.

(Ms Durham) Yes.

15163. The Barking line is the line that goes south, is it not, to Shellhaven ports?

(Ms Durham) Yes.

15164. They converge on this key stretch between Forest Gate and Stratford.

(Ms Durham) That is correct.

15165. That is where your particular concern is and where there is shown up by the provisional timetabling work this deficiency in freight paths.

(Ms Durham) Yes, and also between Shenfield and Stratford.

15166. Can we come back then to your FL11. Is there any other point you want to make about the timetabling before we leave your request three.

(Ms Durham) Yes, I would particularly like to raise the issue of how the Crossrail timetable is going to be integrated with the TfL enhanced metro timetable that has to be in place before the Olympic Games before 2012. Both this new TfL metro service and Crossrail service uses capacity at Stratford. Also particularly the TfL service affects capacity.

15167. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Mr George, I would like to get an understanding of the context and significance of the concerns that your Petitioner has. I wonder if we could go back to document which sows the deficiencies.

15168. MR GEORGE: That was page 24 of the Timetable Working Group report.

15169. SIR PETER SOULSBY: I would like to understand the context of these deficiencies against the scale of your business. Are we talking here of a significant proportion of your business being detrimentally affected? Can you give me some idea of what sort of percentages these figures represent in terms of the number of trains that will run on a particular day?

(Ms Durham) The number of trains we currently run on this particular route is 22 - on both of the routes combined in each direction.

15170. That is 22 in each direction. How many do you run across the whole network?

(Ms Durham) That is nearly half our trains. We run 85 single journeys - approximately 22 each way.

15171. You are talking about detrimental effect, in broad terms, to what sort of proportion of your trains?

(Ms Durham) Can I make it clear that it will affect growth. However, the point I am trying to make is that, although this work has been done, it does not yet include how our services are going to interact with the TfL services on the North London Lines. It is key that the two timetables join together and they join together at Stratford, and it is not clear how we are going to get from Stratford. Until that work has been done, I do not really think we can make absolute judgments on the work that has been done so far by the Timetable Working Group.

15172. MR GEORGE: It is an important question you are being asked. Am I right in saying, therefore, that this deficiency, by any standards, affects a significant part of your business and its potential for growth.

(Ms Durham) Yes.

15173. MR GEORGE: Does that answer your question?

15174. SIR PETER SOULSBY: It does for now. We can come back to it.

15175. MR GEORGE: We are up to the area of about 28 trains and we have a shortfall of 16 trains shown in the down direction. Can we go to FL9 to pursue this TfL point. This is a press notice put out by TfL a week or so ago about what is happening on the North London Line. They announced that they are going out to seek a concessionaire to run the passenger railways on the North London Railway. Is that correct?

(Ms Durham) Yes.

15176. They say that there is going to be a substantial upgrade. If we can go to page 2 of the document, in the third bullet point we can see that there are going to be extra train services running on those lines; that, in the next bullet point, there are going to be service frequency improvements on all routes; and, in the final bullet point, that they are planning a new TfL high-frequency, metro-style train service. That is your concern, is it not?

(Ms Durham) That is our concern. We do not yet know how that service is going to integrate with our service and the Crossrail service.

15177. Could we put up the TfL position statement, which the Committee, assuming they have been extremely diligent, will recall was referred to on Day 48, paragraph 13933, when Mr Steel was being cross-examined. This is the TfL position statement which shows what they are planning. Initially I think you believed it was going to be an increase from four trains per hour to eight trains per hour but now it appears it is going to be an increase from four to twelve on some parts of the North London Line. Is that right?

15178. (Ms Durham) That is right. Between Dalston and the Camden Road there are currently four services an hour and this proposal shows there are going to be 12, which was the first time we were aware of this.

15179. It says the East London Line to Caledonian Road and Barnsbury. Had you be informed about that proposal until this document appeared last week?

(Ms Durham) No, we had not.

15180. Did the Timetable Working Group take any account of the enhancements of capacity of the TfL services on the North London Line?

(Ms Durham) No, it did not. We did discuss at the meetings that this was work that needed to be done on many occasions. In fact we discussed that, but the work was never done, and there was never a detailed TfL timetable that was available to compare and coordinate with the Crossrail timetable. We are very concerned that this TfL timetable will have a huge effect on freight paths through the North London Line, in particular, because of the increased service of 12 services an hour between Dalston and Camden Road, there is nowhere for the trains to sit between Stratford and Dalston, so the timetable must be coordinated through Stratford.

15181. Could we please put up FL2. Let us look at the North London Line. It has been described as the North Circular Road for freight. It runs from Stratford across and you can either go across on the Gospel Oak Line or you can carry on. That is the line which, at present, your freight uses, is it not? It comes along the Great Eastern and then up the North London Line.

(Ms Durham) That is correct. It is the blue line on the map, traffic from Felixstowe and Tilbury company. In the future, Felixstowe South, Bathside Bay and Shellhaven will have to use that route because it is the only gauge cleared route.

15182. If you are coming from Felixstowe, you come along to Shenfield, along to Stratford and up the North London Line, and if you are coming up from the Barking Line you come up to Forest Gate, you wend your way across the Great Eastern Lines, and then at Stratford you turn off and go up the North London Line. Is that right?

(Ms Durham) That is correct, yes.

15183. That is the most congested part of the Great Eastern Line and the provisional timetabling work shows that that is where the main pinch point is.

(Ms Durham) I think that point was acknowledged by Robert Watson in his evidence last Tuesday. He said one of the issues that creates for us timetablers is actually joining together what we call 'paths' or 'slots', particularly in this case for freight trains.

15184. Ms Durham, what happens, what is the effect on your freight of this enhanced TfL service which no doubt is a thoroughly desirable project, this enhanced TfL passenger service which is to start in a few years' time and be up and running by 2012? What is its effect on your freight?

(Ms Durham) We do not yet know what the effect will be because the timetabling work has not been done, but we do have grave concerns that the effect will be severe and it is a combination of the two timetables.

15185. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr George, I think the message has been well made. From the Committee's point of view, I think I can say that we would like to know more about this timetable. If there is a problem, as the Committee, we would like to know what it is. I think, Mr George, you must stop with this point. I think it is probably well taken on by the Promoters that there is deep concern from EWS and Freightliner that there is a problem with this timetabling and I would be interested to see what the Promoters say because it is well taken on board.

15186. MR GEORGE: I am grateful, sir. Then if we go back to FL11, item 4, the present position is that Crossrail and the Secretary of State have mentioned a particular frequency and pattern of Crossrail services and that is what the Timetable Group looked at. Is that right?

(Ms Durham) That is correct, and we have concerns that, although this is a sort of sample timetable that has been looked at, the Bill gives powers that this timetable could be changed and the number of services could be increased. Even if the number of services was set, the pattern is very important and, having overseen this detailed timetabling work, even if you move a Crossrail service or another service by, say, two minutes, it could mean that there is no space in the timetable where there previously was space; the timetable is that tight.

15187. What we have put forward is an undertaking as set out there which would protect the position of rail freight, so it would be no worse on the opening of Crossrail than if there had been no Crossrail services. Another way of doing it would be to limit Crossrail to a particular level, as might be the case if there was a planning permission, but do you see any problem in your undertaking?

(Ms Durham) No, I do not. I think this undertaking will still allow Crossrail to make some changes, but it would be an undertaking which would protect rail freight.

15188. I think we can then move on - I think that is obvious, the results - to number five.

15189. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr George, I think we will take number five from my comments of yesterday to you which were that we have no power, but that you would like somebody in the House of Commons to look at this.

15190. MR GEORGE: Either in the House or it can be an agreed arbitrator or it could be the rail regulator, provided he was not constrained to give preference, or simply an independent arbitrator, best if it was within the House, but we leave that to the House as to what the mechanisms would be.

15191. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr George, you can take it that that is now on the record.

15192. MR GEORGE: I am grateful. Can I just say that in the second line, for the word "listed", one needs to put "asterisked" because the Committee will recall that in that particular exhibit the matters were asterisked. If we then move on to item six, this is the further enhancements and it relates to EWS19, and I want you please to deal with three matters, first of all, the Acton up freight line. Yesterday the Committee heard at approximately 7.15 from Mr Berryman about the Acton up freight line and he said that that was going to be seriously investigated by Crossrail because, unless it was put in, it is very difficult for a freight train to go east of Acton without going into the Acton Goods Yard. Is that correct, Ms Durham?

(Ms Durham) That is correct, and we would be very concerned if we were forced to go into the Acton Yard because it is an EWS yard and it is already a very, very busy yard. As a competitor to EWS, we would not want to be compelled to put our services into their already busy yard.

15193. Ms Durham, for anybody who was not here yesterday evening, the position is that there is a dive-under, is there not, which allows the Crossrail train to go under the freight line into the Acton Goods Yard, but that the gradients of the dive-under are such that a freight train cannot get up. That is common ground and, therefore, either freight has got to stop at Acton Goods Yard or, if it is to go east, it has to negotiate with EWS to go into their yard, suffer delays in their yard and then go out of that yard and proceed further east in the Paddington direction. Is that right?

(Ms Durham) Yes, that is correct. We obviously do not want to go into our competitor's yard. I was also slightly confused yesterday. Mr Berryman indicated that there was an alternative route to access the North London Line across London, but we are not aware of what this route is and the only alternative we know is through the Acton yard.

15194. So it is a situation of no freight beyond Acton, except by paying to go into the EWS yard. Is that the position?

(Ms Durham) As far as we know, yes.

15195. There again you have emphasised the importance of that point, and I think Mr Berryman was not really disagreeing that it was important. He was going to investigate it and he told us it did not need an additional provision because it could be done within the capacity of the railway and you want a commitment to construct the Acton up freight line. Is that correct?

(Ms Durham) That is right. We welcome that Crossrail are going to seriously consider it and we are pleased that it can be done without additional provisions, but what we really need is a commitment.

15196. Can we now come back please to FL2 and to a matter which was briefly touched on by Mr Smith, but which is, I think, an even greater concern to you and that is the Willesden-Gospel Oak-Barking line, the green line shown there, that that should be improved.

(Ms Durham) Yes, it is, and perhaps I could just briefly explain to the Committee about the change in the container market, and this is a worldwide market, the container market. Because more finished goods are moving by container, the standard size of container across the world is being heightened to nine foot six, instead of the current eight foot six. We estimate that by 2015 approximately 49 per cent of the boxes moved in this country will be the high, cubed boxes and it is for this reason that it is essential, in order to satisfy our customers, that we can offer them a route which enables us to move nine foot six high containers. The route from Barking to Willesden via Gospel Oak is not currently clear for nine foot six containers.

15197. Now, what needs to be done to that Willesden-Gospel Oak-Barking line to make it capable of accommodating your containers coming from Tilbury and Shellhaven?

(Ms Durham) Well, as I mentioned earlier, the gauge needs to be raised and this involves work to tunnels and bridges, et cetera. In addition to that, some track and structures may need to be strengthened to enable additional freight trains to move on that route and also the route needs to be resignalled potentially to allow more freight trains because it has got a very old signalling system at the moment.

15198. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Ms Durham, can I just ask you, have you ever had any conversations at all with the Promoters?

(Ms Durham) Yes, we have had conversations. In fact I first met them last July.

15199. And you have come to no agreement whatsoever on any of this?

(Ms Durham) No. I think the Promoters felt that it was not their role to enhance this or alternative routes.

15200. I am beginning to get that feeling myself and I am a little interested to hear what the Promoters say about this. I think it is slightly outside our remit, but I am interested to hear what they say.

15201. MR GEORGE: Sir, can I interrupt. The approach seems to have been taken that this is highly desirable and that the likelihood is that it will be done in any event, but the unsatisfactory feature is that no one is committing the money or putting forward a timetable as to when it will be done and it is being shuffled off, and that is our complaint.

15202. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Then I take your point on board, that you would like this done and I think the Promoters will have heard you again, Mr George.

15203. MR GEORGE: Could I just ask that we put up on the screen the same page from the examination of Mr Watson which went up in my opening because at the top of that page, and it was paragraph 13714, we have got Mr Elvin, "So the purpose of GOB is to take out of the existing network those freight services...", and Mr Watson said that, and that was all in the context of it being improved. Then if you look down to the further discussion, it is that there is a need for it and what is required, so all we are asking, Ms Durham, I think, is for the Committee to indicate the concern that there is and the importance that something is done about this enhancement of the Willesden-Gospel Oak-Barking line so that freight is safeguarded. Is that not right?

(Ms Durham) That is correct and the cost of this scheme or parts of this scheme could be very little indeed. We have been asking Network Rail if they could give us approximate costs of this scheme and we first asked them last July and we have not been able to get the costs, but we have an indication that, for instance, the gauge clearance work could be as little as £5 million and the track and structures work another £5 million.

15204. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Ms Durham, I think you have made your point.

15205. MR GEORGE: So you regard it as not a very expensive improvement, but an essential one?

(Ms Durham) Yes.

15206. What is its relation to Crossrail?

(Ms Durham) Its relation to Crossrail is that it will enable the traffic from Tilbury and Shellhaven to completely avoid the Crossrail route.

15207. Therefore, that reduction in freight capacity brought about by Crossrail which we saw on that table will be reduced?

(Ms Durham) It will be reduced, yes.

15208. Now, the other matter which you want to speak about is the Felixstowe to Nuneaton line and can you just say a few words about that because that is a particular concern to you, an even greater concern than to EWS.

(Ms Durham) Yes, it is. If we could go back to FL1, the traffic from Felixstowe and Bathside Bay will not be helped by the upgrade of Gospel Oak-Barking because you cannot get from the Great Eastern route actually on to the Gospel Oak-Barking route, not until you get past Stratford in any event, so although capacity on the Great Eastern is eased slightly by the Tilbury and Shellhaven track diverted away from this route, in order to allow the growth at Felixstowe and Bathside Bay, it has, in the decisions made on those ports, been indicated by the Secretary of State that, I think it was, 26 per cent for Felixstowe and 22.5 per cent of traffic for Bathside Bay should go by rail. In order to reach those figures by rail, we also would need the route from Felixstowe to Nuneaton via Ely, Peterborough, Melton Mowbray and Leicester to be upgraded and this allows freight services from Felixstowe and Bathside Bay to completely avoid London.

15209. So there is another enhancement and it is mainly gauge enhancement again, is it not?

(Ms Durham) Yes, it is mainly gauge enhancement, but I think the capacity would also have to be looked at because again it is quite an antique signalling system on that route.

15210. Again is it the same link to Crossrail that, if you could go across by that route, you would not need to use that bit of the Great Eastern and, therefore, Crossrail would not be reducing your capacity?

(Ms Durham) That is correct. The majority of the services from Felixstowe and Bathside Bay which go to the Midlands, the North West and Glasgow could be completely away from the Crossrail route.

15211. Given that TfL are now going to run these extra services, and indeed it appears that is now a commitment that they are going to run those and run them by the Olympics, does that make it the more important that these two schemes you have identified, the Gospel Oak one and the Felixstowe/Nuneaton, are prioritised?

(Ms Durham) Yes, it would seem absolutely sensible, if the Government and TfL want to enhance services through London, which is absolutely understandable, that you try, if possible, to divert freight so that it does not have to come through London.

15212. I think the Committee have probably heard enough about that matter and are seized of the point. That, I think, then deals with your undertaking six. If we move to undertaking seven, yesterday Mr Smith and Professor O'Keeffe explained deficiencies of the existing railway clauses and you do not intend, I think, to traverse that ground again.

(Ms Durham) No, I do not.

15213. Is there any point on that though which you wish to refer the Committee to?

(Ms Durham) Yes, I would just like to think about the compensation and ----

15214. We will come to compensation in a moment, but is there anything on regulation and undertaking seven that you want to say or can we just leave it as per the evidence yesterday?

(Ms Durham) I think it is as per the evidence yesterday.

15215. Let's move on then to compensation for temporary disruption. Undertaking eight is an area we went through yesterday, Network Code Condition G5 and you remember at the end of the day that the position is that Ms Lieven says that Crossrail do not themselves intend to invoke Condition G5. You remember that matter?

(Ms Durham) Yes, I do and I do not quite understand why an undertaking on this point cannot be provided, and I seek clarification about what was said yesterday because I think what we need is an undertaking that Network Rail will not invoke this clause.

15216. The key thing with Condition G5 is that the people who would invoke it would be Network Rail to deny you compensation because of a legislative change. Crossrail and the Department regard that as being unfair and what you want is an undertaking that, in the context of Crossrail, Condition G5 will not be invoked by any regulatory authority. Is that right?

(Ms Durham) That is correct.

15217. Then we need not say any more about that. Then insofar as condition nine is concerned, as yesterday, we need to write some words in, do we not, in the penultimate line and after the phrase "is entitled", as yesterday, we need to insert the words, "or the method by which it is calculated". Is that right?

(Ms Durham) Yes, it is.

15218. Yesterday Ms Lieven dealt in her closing with eight and ten and I think on nine you still have concerns and that matter was rather bypassed yesterday. Do you understand any reason why an undertaking in the terms of nine should not be given?

(Ms Durham) No, I do not.

15219. All you are asking is that the existing system, whereby you are entitled to compensation, should not be changed. Is that right?

(Ms Durham) Yes.

15220. Since the Promoters say that they are content that railway industry procedures prevail, it does not seem very difficult to give that undertaking, does it?

(Ms Durham) Yes, we do not understand why the current regime cannot be used for this project.

15221. Then if we can turn over the page to condition ten, this is about the losses in the period less than six months and the issue is whether it should be as on the East London Line and as on the CTRL or whether it should be as per the Great Western Main Line. That appears to be the situation, does it not?

(Ms Durham) Yes, it does, and it is not just about changes over six months, but it is also possessions that might be required that are not actually a network change, but come under the auspices of the project. I think Crossrail really has to be regarded as a special case, that it is a third-party project of an exceptional size and that very large and long possessions that might be required are not what is normally envisaged or what we had envisaged under the Network Code. The Network Code does not really deal with those issues very well. A precedent has been set with the CTRL Bill and, as I understand it, in this Bill there are many aspects to this which are similar to the CTRL Bill and modelled on the CTRL Bill and we cannot understand why similar provisions as were used in the CTRL Bill could not be used here.

15222. When you say the CTRL Bill, you mean the access agreements negotiated under the Bill. Is that right?

(Ms Durham) Yes.

15223. If we turn to FL12, you have set out the mechanism in the access agreements under the CTRL Bill and they do provide compensation in certain circumstances and, therefore, there is a tailor-made code and it is simply a code similar to that which you seek if you suffer losses as a result of Crossrail during disruption. Is that right?

(Ms Durham) Yes, that is right. This is a summary of what is included in the CTRL provisions in our existing unlimited track access agreements.

15224. I am just looking through your exhibits to see whether the Committee has those and I do not think there are any other matters there which I need take you to. Ms Durham, we have gone about your evidence in an expedited form, so is there any other area which you feel important and wish to draw to the Committee's attention at this stage?

(Ms Durham) I think there are just a couple of small issues I would like to mention. One is that there have been statements made by Network Rail that the enhancement scheme should be solely dealt with in the Route Utilisation Study for across London. We do not really agree with that because Crossrail is not being considered in detail by this study because it is outside the ten-year horizon and also it is not a committed scheme yet.

15225. That is a rather important point, that you have got these studies being done, but, because Crossrail is so far in the future, it is not included in them. Is that the position?

(Ms Durham) Yes, it has certainly not been included in detail in the work that has been done in those studies and I believe that that document is out at the end of August, the final version.

15226. Arising from that, do you see, as a modeller, a timetabler, any problem in simply sitting down and looking at what would be the position with all those services and what would be the effects?

(Ms Durham) I think the key is that everything needs to be taken into account, Crossrail, TfL, freight and any changes to passenger services. It needs to all be co-ordinated.

15227. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Given, Ms Durham, that a week in politics is a long time, ten years is a lifetime! I have a feeling that we will be looking at this again. I think that point is taken on board.

(Ms Durham) There is just one other point I would like to reiterate with the Committee and that is the point of investor confidence. We understand the principal reasons why there are such draconian measures in the Bill because Crossrail is looking to get security for its potential investors, but I would also like to point out that Freightliner and other rail freight operators are also privately owned companies and we have our own investors. A small company like Freightliner has invested £250 million in new locomotives and wagons since 2000 and these investments allow us to improve our product to our customers which ultimately means more traffic moving by rail instead of by road. What we are just seeking is that there is a more balanced and regularised view of the Bill that takes into account that it is not just Crossrail that has private investors, but that the rail freight operators also have private investors and if they do not have confidence, they will not invest.

15228. It is now on the record, Ms Durham.

15229. MR GEORGE: Are there any other matters?

(Ms Durham) No, thank you.

15230. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr George, thank you very much. Ms Lieven?

 

Cross-examined by MS LIEVEN

15231. MS LIEVEN: Ms Durham, can we start on the strategic freight sites quite briefly and I am afraid there is going to be a bit of hopping around between documents, but I will try and make sure that we all know where we are. Could we go to the Promoters' generic exhibits, GEN17/030. Ms Durham, I am sure you are familiar with this document. This is a part of the original Rail Privatisation Transfer Scheme that deals with, amongst other things, strategic freight sites. Is that right?

(Ms Durham) That is correct.

15232. If we go to exhibit page 37 and clause 4, this is dealing with circumstances in which strategic freight sites remain on the list of such sites ready to be called up by operators. Yes?

(Ms Durham) That is correct.

15233. What it says in the second part of clause 4 is that, "Strategic freight sites shall remain on the list unless it is agreed that: (1) there is no longer a reasonable likelihood of the site being used for rail freight purposes in the foreseeable future...; (2) Railtrack are able to offer suitable alternative property; or (3) sites shall be removed when they have been returned to freight use or compulsorily acquired". Yes?

(Ms Durham) That is what it says.

15234. As far as I can see in this document, if a site is compulsorily acquired for whatever purpose, there is no requirement in this document that an alternative site be provided, is there?

(Ms Durham) There is no requirement, but the whole purpose of having strategic freight sites is that there is a land-bank of land available and I think it is disappointing that Crossrail do not feel able to offer us alternative sites to keep within the spirit of having strategic sites.

15235. I will leave that there and deal with it in submission. Then capacity issues and, first of all, can we look at exactly what Mr Watson did say in evidence on Day 48. Perhaps we could have the transcript for Day 48, paragraph 13715 and 13716. I am sure unintentionally, Mr George read the beginning, but not the end of 13715. Mr Watson is asked about the position on the Great Eastern side, "...is it a need which is already existing?", and Mr Watson says, "I think I have already mentioned that Crossrail does take away some of the capacity. That is a fact. I think what is also absolutely clear is that the level of growth of freight by rail from either ports that already exist or the ports which there is an expectation will get planning permission in the near future is such that, with or without Crossrail infrastructure, enhancement is needed to ensure that the freight growth is not constrained". Do you see that? Then in the following paragraph, and I do not want to read through it all, but it again makes the same point, that, even without Crossrail, freight growth is constrained on the Great Eastern without infrastructure enhancement.

(Ms Durham) That is true, but I think it is also acknowledged and agreed that Crossrail makes it worse and also, without wishing to go over the same point again, the work is not complete and critically does not include the TfL timetable.

15236. Well, I will come to TfL in a moment, but I should say, sir, that this is the matter about which the Committee will have the pleasure of hearing Mr Garrett for Tarmac being cross-examined by Mr Elvin in detail next week, which is much to be looked forward to, sir, and I am not going to make the slightest attempt to steal Mr Elvin's thunder, but can ----

15237. MR GEORGE: Perhaps I can interpose. This arose yesterday. Mr Garrett is not a railway operator, nor are Tarmac railway operators. It is wholly improper of the Promoters to say, "We will not cross-examine a Petitioner who is a railway operator because next week we intend to ask someone with an entirely different concern about the matter".

15238. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr George, thank you for that. Ms Lieven, I think you will take that on board.

15239. MS LIEVEN: I will take that on board, sir. It is right, Ms Durham, is it not, that Mr Garrett is a timetabling expert? I assume you know Mr Garrett. It is a fairly small world.

(Ms Durham) I do know Mr Garrett quite well. I do not actually believe he is a timetabling expert, no, I think he is an expert in transport forecasting.

15240. Well, I will leave that to Mr Elvin. Can I just, partly to placate Mr George, put one detailed document to you. It is the Transport Working Group document, which is P106, exhibit page 24. It is a document we looked at earlier, Ms Durham, but this is just so the Committee see the point. The first section of this table is dealing with the situation without Crossrail. Is that right?

(Ms Durham) Yes, the first approximately six lines.

15241. And the next block is with Crossrail, yes?

(Ms Durham) Yes.

15242. Just to put the point very, very simply, if we come over to the right-hand corner without Crossrail, we see that there are insufficient paths on this part of the Great Eastern without Crossrail for rail freight to grow.

(Ms Durham) Yes, that is correct. It is already a congested piece of line, but Crossrail makes it worse.

15243. Crossrail may make it worse, but ultimately if freight is to grow on the Great Eastern without Crossrail being involved at all, there have to be enhancements, do there not?

(Ms Durham) I think that is true, there will be.

15244. Then turning to the TfL point and whether that makes the situation worse, TfL have an aspiration to increase passenger services on the North London Line, and that is clear from the documentation. Before they can make such an increase, they will have to get an access option, will they not, from the Office of the Rail Regulator?

(Ms Durham) An access option or an access agreement, yes.

15245. And the ORR, in determining what access option or agreement, if any, they get, will take into account the impact on freight, will it not?

(Ms Durham) It will, alongside the impact of the Olympics.

15246. Mr George made the point when asking you the point that Freightliner were concerned that the matter be dealt with by an independent person. The ORR is clearly an independent person in those terms, is he not?

(Ms Durham) Yes, the ORR is important, but also I think what is of concern to us here is that the ORR will also have to give precedence to Crossrail, so yes, if it was just TfL and freight, he would act under his normal duties, but here he is also, on top of those, being asked to give precedence to Crossrail and I think that would change his judgment.

15247. But you understand, do you not, Ms Durham, that the intention is that, as far as Crossrail's own access is concerned, that will go to the ORR to consider and, we hope, to determine an access option, yes?

(Ms Durham) Yes, I understand that to be the case, but if in the access option process Crossrail do not get what they require, they can later use the powers in the Bill to get what they require.

15248. Finally on the TfL position, if we look at the TfL position statement which Mr Fry has helpfully put up, we can see underneath the intended usage of the route that the document expressly says, "The RUS recognises the need to undertake further development work to deliver further enhancements and it would be the intention of TfL to do this through the normal industry processes". Then just above it says, "The train service levels proposed are consistent with the cross-London RUS soon to be published by Network Rail, and TfL recognises that, in order to deliver the aspirations which are set out below, route enhancement will be required", so in order for the TfL service on the North London Line to be provided, TfL accept that there will have to be route enhancement.

Ms Durham) Yes, I think there will have to be a route enhancement, but what is not down here in this position is how that timetable is going to be co-ordinated with the Crossrail timetable. Also, I would like to point out that I think the service shown on the East London Line going to Caledonian Road and Barnsbury has not actually been discussed with Cross London RUS. Cross London RUS does not include detailed work on Crossrail.

15249. I will come to one point on timetabling in a moment, but just to finish off on this point, if we could put up your exhibit 002, the route enhancement which is necessary in order for TfL to achieve the level of service that they want. I do not know how familiar the Committee is with the detailed railway network of North London, but it involves four-tracking a section of the North London Line which is approximately where I am putting the pointer here; changing it from three tracks to four tracks between Barnsbury and just before Camden Road.

(Ms Durham) It may be but I think until the timetabling work is done to work out what effects it will have on capacity I do not think anybody can conclude whether that is sufficient enhancement or not. It still does not deal with the integration strategy of the two services.

15250. Thank you. I will stop there on the little trip round north London, if I may. While we are on the rough area of north London, Gospel Oak to Barking. I can take you to the document if we need to but that is one of the projects that has been brought forward very recently in the Transport Innovation Fund, is it not?

(Ms Durham) Yes, that is correct, and we certainly welcome the statement made by Douglas Alexander that that scheme is going to be taken forward to look in more detail at the business case. We welcome the statement but it is not yet a commitment.

15251. And Felixstowe to Nuneaton, which is the other major route enhancement you wish the Committee to consider, is also a Transport Innovation Fund statement, is it not?

(Ms Durham) Yes, that is also going to be taken forward to look at the business case.

15252. The final thing I would like to ask you about is timetabling. Your concern, as I understand it, is that we have not written a timetable for 2015, so you cannot know precisely how it will affect your train service. Is that right?

(Ms Durham) I think my concern is that, as previously discussed, there is further work to be done on that timetabling.

15253. I do not know whether you were here yesterday but I assume you understand that through the Access Option it is intended that Network Rail will do further timetabling work.

(Ms Durham) Yes, I was here yesterday and I think, as Mr Smith explained, there has not yet been an Access Option that has been approved by the regulator, so the process is unknown. If the process is that Network Rail are going to do further timetabling work then we, of course, welcome that but we would like to be involved in detail in that timetabling work.

15254. As far as what happened in the Working Group is concerned, my instructions are that the Working Group considered this matter and everybody agreed, including yourself, that the Working Group could not carry out full timetables because the freight industry could not give us the times of the trains for 2015, so everybody agreed that we use some kind of indicator of capacity by paths per hour.

(Ms Durham) Yes. It was never suggested that freight operators were going to provide a detailed timetable for 2015. It was always agreed that paths per hour were going to be looked at but, in fact, the detailed work on paths per hour was never completed on the Great Western routes; there were only some paths looked at.

15255. MS LIEVEN: Thank you very much.

15256. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr George, this timetable situation - I am getting deeply confused. You had a Working Group, you have had an enormous amount of meetings about this timetable and I would like to know exactly what is going on here, because if there is a timetable problem it is going to have to be sorted out. We seem to have problems with crossovers with Crossrail and all the rest of it. The easiest thing is to go away and sort this out or we are going to have to determine it with a lack of information. So somebody, along the line, is going to have to come up with a definitive answer as to the timetable and I am afraid it is going to have to be the Promoters.

15257. MS LIEVEN: Sir, can I just say, that, with respect, we do not think it is that choice; we think there is a third way, which is that the body that should sort this out is the ORR because, with the greatest respect to Parliament, I would suggest that the ORR expertise in this matter was perhaps greater and, also, that they might have more time and resources to get into the detail of timetabling. I can call Mr Morris, who is on the Working Group, to explain why we have got to where we have got, but in my submission, in terms of sorting it out, then the appropriate thing to do is send it off with the Access Option to the ORR. If they cannot sort it out for some reason then, I suppose, ultimately, it might have to come back, but that is a very unlikely situation.

15258. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Can we leave it that that is what will happen? I want to know exactly where we are going. The plus and minus trends, and all the rest of it, is all very good and well but we want to know, in fact, what the situation is That is how we will leave it and we look forward to having the earliest possible response on this situation.

15259. MS LIEVEN: Sir, I do not want to raise unmatchable expectations. The expectation on our side is that the Access Option will be determined by the time this Bill gets to the House of Lords. It takes, you can imagine, some time. I do not know if you remember but Network Rail produced a flowchart of access options. We will very shortly be sending the Heads of the Access Option to the ORR, they then have to consider it and consult on it, it goes round a process, and all of that takes time. There is no getting away from that. Whether or not it will be done in order for it to come back here depends very much on how long we all have to continue to meet.

15260. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Then, Ms Lieven, we will leave it like this: that this Committee would like an updated report as to how we get this timetable. It is an area in which we have no expertise and we do need to inquire further about this very, very carefully.

15261. MR BINLEY: We are talking about two very important maters in the national interest here. We are, secondly, talking about a Promoter's scheme which impacts upon the freight people. You want to do something that is new and different; they are already there in existence and have an existing business. I think the nation expects to see a slightly more approach (?) than I have felt from reading the minutes of yesterday, and I feel today, quite frankly. I think that for a group of Promoters who will bend over backwards on almost every other issue I am not quite getting that there is the sort of understanding to solve the problem that we would expect to see. Now, that may sound harsh but it is what I think, and I am delighted to be in a position to be able to think that. You might be kind enough to go away, rethink how this can be done with the freighters and if you people are happy then I think we ought to make progress and we ought to make it, really, rather quickly, quite frankly.

15262. MS LIEVEN: Sir, can I just make one comment on that, and then it would be very helpful for us to understand the Committee's position on this. Our view is that yes, this is a vitally important matter - I cannot begin to stress how much time on our side has been put into it. We have come to the conclusion, over the months, that the best way to sort this out is through the ORR because it is the ORR that has the statutory function, the expertise and the support.

(Ms Durham) I think there are two points. We would be happy to do it through the ORR as long as there was a commitment in the timetabling work that was done that we were involved at all stages. Mr Smith you heard yesterday for West Coast Main Line timetabling work, and that in the end produced a very successful result, and that is because all the parties worked closely together. I think that is what is needed here. However, our other concern, as I mentioned earlier, is that if Crossrail do not get what they want out of the Access Option they are then going to have another opportunity with the Bill to overpower it.

15263. MS LIEVEN: Can I respond briefly on that? As far as a commitment to do the timetabling work is concerned, unless I get grabbed from behind, we have a clear commitment to work with the ORR to produce the necessary timetabling information so the ORR can carry out its normal functions. So far as "if we don't get what we want we will come back and have a sulk" is concerned, sir, I would suggest we cannot make any judgment on that until we have been through the ORR process.

15264. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Ms Lieven, the Committee will privately discuss this and I think we will come back to you if we feel we need to take this any further. Thank you for that. Mr George, as far as timetabling is concerned, we will follow that through. Have you any comments?

15265. MR GEORGE: Sir, the particular comment I have is this: the Department, the Promoter of this Bill, thought it appropriate last autumn to set up a Timetable Working Group so that this matter could be thrashed out and so that the Select Committee could have information -it may not be down to every single moment of the hour but a picture in which the various options have been looked at, refined and studied. It is common ground that that Working Group has not finished its set task. There were a number of delays. It was never said at that stage: "It is a waste of time having this committee because the Access Option and the regulatory will sort it out"; it was thought a useful task. There was to have been a meeting in June; it was cancelled and no further meetings have been arrangement.

15266. Our case is that there is a very good forum there, that Working Group; it includes the Department for Transport, Transport for London, Crossrail, Network Rail and the Office of the Rail Regulator - a whole series of bodies. Why not have that body hold several further meetings (and the Committee is going to be here for a few months more) and let them come back and give you the updated position?

15267. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr George, I think we have made our position very clear. We will wait to hear from the Promoters. If we feel there are further issues on the timetable I can assure you, Mr George, you will be the first to hear the case. Would you like to continue?

15268. MR GEORGE: Then, sir, I do not think I have any questions arising.

15269. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Ms Durham, thank you very much.

 

The witness withdrew

15270. MR GEORGE: Sir, I do have a brief word in closing but I do not know whether Ms Lieven comes before me. I have no further witnesses.

15271. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Ms Lieven, do you have anything further to say?

15272. MS LIEVEN: Sir, I was going to close briefly. I am equivocating, to be frank with you, about whether or not to call a witness. I think, as far as any site-specific issues are concerned, the Committee heard Mr Berryman yesterday. I could call Mr Berryman to explain the position on Gospel Oak to Barking and Felixstowe to Nuneaton, and all that stuff, but I think I have probably explained it already.

15273. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I take the points on board, which were very ably put by Mr George.

15274. MS LIEVEN: I do also have Mr Morris here who could give more information about timetabling and the Timetable Working Group, but my submission would be that given the exchange we have just had it would be better to leave that

15275. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I want the Promoters to come back, Ms Lieven, as discussed.

15276. MS LIEVEN: Certainly, sir. So, sir, completely off the cuff, if I can just find the Freightliner exhibits, almost all the points that they raise in FL11 are matters that we dealt with yesterday, so I am not going to repeat them. If I can just say, so that it is pulled together on the transcript, on strategic freight sites, Paddington West Yard, or New Yard, is going to be used for freight, so there is no loss of strategic freight site there, we would say. It is being used for its very purpose.

15277. Plumstead. I do rely on the fact that in the very agreement that gives rise to these strategic freight sites it is perfectly clear that if they are CPO'd no replacement site has to be given. Ms Durham ends up saying that it is disappointing we have not provided other sites but BRB and Network Rail have other sites if EWS want them.

15278. As far as timetabling is concerned, I think enough has been said and we will come back on that. Capacity enhancement. The point that Freightliner have focused on, rather than what we looked at yesterday in detail, was these two major capacity enhancements: Gospel Oak to Barking and Felixstowe to Nuneaton. In my submission, it is quite clear from the evidence - and we will come back to this next week - that the pinch point at Stratford to Forest Gate, which everybody accepts is a pinch point, is a pinch point because of what is going on on the ports development and general freight growth. If freight is to grow on that section then something has to be done on that well before Crossrail and is nothing to do with Crossrail. That is being taken forward through the Transport Innovation Fund. So, in my submission, it really has little to do with this project. Mr Elvin will come back to that next week.

15279. So far as TfL making the position worse is concerned, first of all the ORR will have to consider that through the Access Option. If the North London Line proposals do make it worse for freight then that is a matter the ORR will consider and doubtless require certain enhancements. Also, it is plain from TfL's own statement that they accept there will have to be an enhancement and my instructions are it is the enhancement I referred to in terms of four-tracking, and that is perfectly doable. So, in my submission, those capacity issues have nothing to do with this Bill.

15280. On regulation, paragraph 9, there is a slightly trickier point but it is probably appropriate for me to deal with in closing, because Mr George is right I did not deal with it in detail in closing yesterday because of the hour. It is necessary to focus on what paragraph 9 is seeking, because it is seeking three things: "An undertaking by the Promoter to the Committee or to Freightliner that the Promoter will not seek to change the Network Change process by using his powers in the Bill (or otherwise) to reduce in any way Freightliner's entitlement to compensation for Network Changes." That part is perfectly acceptable and we will write to Freightliner in those terms.

15281. There is a complication in the next clause: "or to remove the ability of the train operators to object to the detail of a Network Change ..." On the face of it, that looks fairly innocuous because you think "object" - there is no problem with that. But if I can ask the Committee to look at H2, which is the IP on railway compensation, what comes out of that (and I will read from the paragraphs, it is paragraph 3.3) is that the power to object is, in reality, a power to veto.

15282. If we can just go through, starting at 3.3. This is dealing with blocking rights under Part G of the Network Code. "In certain circumstances in accordance with the terms of Part G of the Network Code operators may be able to block a network change which is required in order to undertake the Crossrail works." Then we say that they will have the opportunity to raise things during the passage of the Bill. Then 3.3.3: "arrangements will need to be in place for the payment of compensation where necessary to the affected operators in this case. The Department proposes to work with the ORR to develop arrangements for the payment of compensation to affected operators" (and I touched on that yesterday). "It should be noted that whilst operators will not be able to block a Crossrail-related network change the Department proposes that the standard industry arrangements for information exchange and consultation provided for in Part G of the Network Code should apply in respect of a Crossrail-related network change."

15283. What all that means is that Freightliner et al will be consulted and will have the opportunity to make representations, but what they will not be able to do is stop Crossrail doing certain work, having certain changes. For the reasons we went through yesterday, it would be quite unacceptable to investors to bring forward Crossrail and then have freight operators being able to block necessary changes. So that second clause of paragraph 9 of the Freightliner proposed undertakings we cannot agree to.

15284. I can get Mr Lancaster, who is dealing with this in the Department, to write to the Committee in more detail on that point because, obviously, it involves quite complicated understanding of the railway industry processes. Effectively, what it comes down to is that we cannot allow freight operators or anyone else to hold us to ransom.

15285. MRS JAMES: What about the freight operators' commitments? What about their guaranteed paths? They have got a business to run as well. There are two sides to everything.

15286. MS LIEVEN: Absolutely, madam. That is the balance that the ORR sets through the Access Option. We are trying to get some kind of equity here between the needs of Crossrail with this massive long-term and major investment and the needs of the freight operators, who - an absolutely valid point, and a point Mr George made yesterday - have also made investments and they have to be able to make investments on the basis of a fair future system. Our view is that a balance is to be struck here and the balance is struck through the ORR, but not by allowing one side to hold the other side to ransom.

15287. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Ms Lieven, I think we have taken that as read, but I can assure you we will be looking at this very carefully indeed. EWS and Freightliner do have the right to operate on these lines, and so does Crossrail, and as a Committee we will look at this in great detail. I take your point on board but we will reserve our position on this because I think there is a fundamental difference between blocking and being destructive. I do not think that is what Mr George or any of the ----

15288. MS LIEVEN: No, sir, I am sure they are not suggesting, but that is the power. What is clear from these paragraphs in H2 is that that is the power underlying Part G, and it may be necessary, rather than for me to deal with it in a rather on-the-hoof and, I have to say, not desperately expert, way, for Mr Lancaster to write to the Committee in detail about how these blocking powers arise. I do not know whether that would be helpful.

15289. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Yes, it would. I think this needs to be explored much further. I do not like the idea of commercial companies being browbeaten by anybody. I am not suggesting that is what you are saying but what I want is clarification of the position. We have had a lot of evidence in the last two days which shows that these companies have a concern over timetabling access, sites and all the rest of it. If there is a compensation issue we want to know what it is and we want to see it in the way that you, as the Promoters, are putting it forward. Is that understood?

15290. MS LIEVEN: That is understood, sir. Within the next three or four days we will write you a detailed letter on this point explaining precisely how it works and we will obviously copy it to EWS and Freightliner.

15291. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: And it will be put on the record.

15292. MS LIEVEN: Yes.

15293. MR BINLEY: Just for clarification, we also need to know why "object" and "block", which seem to me to be two very distinct English words, should be considered to have the same meaning, because they do not to my mind. If they do to your much more refined legal mind then I would like to understand that.

15294. MS LIEVEN: No refinement at all. It may be, sir, that we are being excessively cautious on this and all Freightliner want is the power to make representations, which of course is no problem. However, if they are relying on these powers in Part G then that is what we object to. We will talk to Mr George about this in detail and we will write to the Committee in detail.

15295. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I look forward to that, Ms Lieven, and I look forward to hearing exactly what the companies ---

15296. MS LIEVEN: The final part of paragraph 9: "or to object if the amount of compensation to which the operator is entitled is not agreed, and to have those objections adjudicated independently". On the face of it, that is acceptable - it sounds fair - but we need, again, to understand what the consequences of "objecting" are because if under Part G the objection then becomes a block, then that would, again, be unacceptable. So it is the same point arising on this last one.

15297. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I am sure Mr George has heard that.

15298. MS LIEVEN: Thank you, sir. Then, finally, on paragraph 10, the bespoke compensation scheme, this comes to the same point I addressed the Committee on yesterday. We believe that compensation should be in accordance with normal industry processes. If it is not covered by normal industry processes it should be in accordance with the underlying principles behind the ordinary industry processes, which is no better, no worse

15299. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I think you can be safely assured the Committee will take that into consideration

15300. MS LIEVEN: Thank you very much, sir.

15301. MR GEORGE: Sir, I can be extremely brief. If I can ask the Committee to turn to FL11, so far as strategic sites are concerned, we are under-impressed by the argument that there is really no change at Paddington because the Paddington West Yard is to be taken and used for freight. It is only being used for freight because the Paddington New Yard is being taken from a freight use; it is in a freight use at present by EWS and it is to be taken for Crossrail. So there is a net loss of freight sites. What we say is that the total package of strategic sites is being reduced and it needs to be topped up. It is, I am afraid, subterfuge to say that there is no change.

15302. So far as capacity is concerned, sir, could we reserve our position to come back when the further information on timetabling is presented to the Committee, because otherwise we will not have an entitlement to see it? We simply reserve our position in that respect.

15303. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr George, I can assure you that if we want you to come back we will let you know. I am not going to allow that at the moment. We are being pushed to the wire, at the moment, to hear all the witnesses. I can give you this guarantee: that as a Committee we will be very interested to see what does come back on this timetable. It is of fundamental importance, I know, to your clients and we will take that into consideration.

15304. MR GEORGE: Could I just say one more thing on that matter? When the Working Group was set up there was never any suggestion that it was an unnecessary body; it was a matter of it being dealt by the IRR (?) through the Access Option group. It served a useful purpose, it could still serve a useful purpose and you need the information. I say no more about those matters.

15305. So far as undertaking 5 is concerned, the capacity enhancement of the Bill, you know how important those matters are. So far as undertaking 6 is concerned, I think this morning has been helpful to clarify really that these are outstanding matters which need to be progressed, and you have seen yet again today it said: "It is all right; those will all happen." Will they happen? That is the question. That is what needs to be investigated and any pressure which can be exerted the better.

15306. So far as regulation is concerned, the position remains that in their back drawer the Promoters seek to retain the railway clauses. "If you, regulator, do not give us this Access Option we will, in effect, hit you over the head with the railway clauses". That is the position. This Access Option is being brought forward in that situation. It is a potentially unfair situation. One hopes the independent regulator will stand up for all the interests but one does appreciate the difficulty it is being put in, but what is unsatisfactory is that those railway clauses should be there at all. This Committee should report in the strongest terms that those railway clauses are not necessary; they should be amended in the way set out in EWS24

15307. So far as the compensation clauses are concerned, you understand the point on 8, and there is a need for some movement on 8. So far as 9 is concerned, with due respect to Ms Lieven she is simply taking a bad point. They should be able to give us the entirety of 9. We are not seeking to block, we are seeking a power to speak up and explain deleterious consequences. We can be overruled. We are not saying we will block anything. It is very important that we have all parts of 9. In my submission, the Committee has no evidence to the contrary. Again, if a paper is put in - quite why these papers are coming in after we have appeared and we have been raising these matters for weeks - could we be informed, and we may be making representations to come back on the issue ---

15308. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr George, I think that is clearly understood. You will be informed. One of the reasons papers are coming in is because the Committee is asking for them. That is the role of the Committee. If we feel there are areas we are unsure about or we do not understand we ask for papers. Mr George, when it does come you will be on the list and it will be on the record.

15309. MR GEORGE: Sir, I am extremely grateful for that. On 10, we have still not heard any explanation as to why the situation should be different from that on the East London Line or on the CTRL. It remains a mystery to us why freight should lose out. No explanation has been given.

15310. Sir, can I just end with a homely comparison? Assume a superstore operator was seeking planning permission and he was near a very busy and rather overloaded roundabout. He is going to discharge a lot of traffic at the roundabout and let us say the Highways Agency, or a county highway authority, are responsible for that roundabout. It is inconceivable that they would say: "Of course you can have planning permission. It is desperately overcrowded at present; we just accept you will make it a bit worse, absolutely fine." The minimum requirement of that superstore operator would be that he would make the position no worse than it would be if the superstore were not permitted. That is fundamental to our whole approach. We are simply saying do not make the position for freight worse than it would otherwise be. It does seem to us that the Department are applying a double standard here from the standard that they would adopt if through the Highways Agency they were reviewing a proposal such as that. Sir, those are our submissions and we are very grateful for the attentive hearing we have received.

15311. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr George, thank you very much indeed.

15312. MS LIEVEN: Can I just deal with one point because it may be that I did indeed take a wholly bad point, and I was being overly concerned about the interests of my client. If, in relation to paragraph 9, all Mr George is seeking is the right to make representations as strongly as he wishes about the needs of his client in relation to any proposed network change then that is a matter that is dealt with in H2 at paragraph 3.3.4 where it says: "It should be noted that whilst operators will not be able to block a Crossrail-related network change the Department proposes that the standard industry arrangement for information exchange, consultation provided for in Part G of the Network Code should apply in respect of Crossrail related network change." That appears to meet the concerns that Mr George has. We have generally taken the approach in this Bill - and I would submit it is a sensible one - that rather than giving lots of people undertakings all in slightly different terms, we have relied on the information papers which are effectively an undertaking to the Committee that we will do things in this way. If Mr George's point is as limited as he suggested in closing then it does seem to me that 3.3.4 covers the concern. If he wants a minor tweaking of it to make it say they can make their representations as vociferously as they like then we would be more than happy to do that.

15313. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: We will wait to see your paper and we will then deliberate on it as a Committee, and if we have any further information we want to take from you we will do so. Mr George, the paper will come to you and to your clients, so you have an opportunity to have a look at it. Unless there are any further matters we will re-convene at 2.30.

 

After a short adjournment

 

15314. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Ms Lieven, do you have anything to say?

15315. MS LIEVEN: Mr Laurence will explain the position with his clients, sir.

15316. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr Laurence. It is nice to see you back.

15317. MR LAURENCE: Thank you very much, sir. Good afternoon to the Committee. I appear, as you will know, on behalf of Petitioner 78, Aggregate Industries (UK) Ltd, Petitioner 79, Plasmor Ltd, and Petitioner 90 London Concrete Ltd, all in connection with those Petitioners' interests at the Bow Midland Yard West. The yard forms part of a worksite for Crossrail, as I think the Committee is already aware, in the vicinity of the Pudding Mill Lane portal for the tunnel.. The Promoter seeks compulsory powers over the whole of the yard. My clients were intending today to ask you to require the Promoter to give to them certain undertakings, the effect of which would have permitted them to continue in business on certain parts of the yard with Crossrail using another part for spoil disposal. Three matters have recently arisen, however, causing us to wish to take a different course, subject to your view, before the Committee today.

15318. The first of those is this: we are aware from certain matters to which reference was made yesterday that over the next month or two the Promoter's precise requirement in relation to this yard are likely to become defined more precisely than they are at the moment. Secondly, we also understand that there will be a further supplementary environmental statement and consequential amendment to the Bill, the effect of which will be to permit London Concrete's concrete batching plant to be displaced from its present location to a different location on the same site. The third matter to mention, sir, is this: there has been an evident willingness on the part of the Promoter to come to an agreement for co-existence with the tenants on the site. Over previous months there have been discussions. These discussion are ongoing. There is a hope - and I put it no higher than that - that they may be successfully concluded over the next few months, thus obviating the need for an appearance before the Committee.

15319. I have had the opportunity to discuss all these matters with Ms Lieven over the adjournment as well as with those who instruct her. There is accordingly agreement between us, subject of course to you, sir, and to the Committee's will, that my clients' petitions be adjourned to a suitable date in the autumn, in the hope that our discussions in the meantime will have borne fruit, with the result, if they do, that we will not need to trouble the Committee. If they do not, the consequence will be a much more focused case than would otherwise be possible. In those circumstances, subject to anything my learned friend may wish to add, my application is for the matter to be adjourned on that basis.

15320. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Thank you, Mr Laurence.

15321. Ms Lieven?

15322. MS LIEVEN: Sir, I entirely support the application. I think I would perhaps be slightly more optimistic than Mr Laurence in terms of it being a good hope that we will be able to reach agreement on this and in those circumstances it would seem sensible to leave it to the autumn.

15323. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: We will wait to hear from you after you have had your deliberations. Provided you are happy, we are quite relaxed.

 

The Petition of The Quarry Products Association Ltd

 

MR RICHARD HONEY appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.

 

BIRCHAM DYSON BELL appeared as Agent.

15324. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Ms Lieven, is there anything more you want to say on this Petition?

15325. MS LIEVEN: Having looked at the Petition of Quarry Products Association and their exhibits, it raises almost precisely the points about the great benefits and desirability of moving aggregates by freight and the concerns that we went through at great length yesterday. I do not intend to call any evidence on it but perhaps it is worth putting down a marker now that Crossrail, the Promoter, is entirely supportive of the importance of freight in general and the importance of moving aggregate by freight in particular. I said that yesterday and I say it again today so that Mr Honey can hear. Beyond that, sir, at this stage I do not intend to call any evidence.

15326. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr Honey, I will pull you up if any evidence is repeated from yesterday. I know you have the transcript and you will see the evidence presented by Mr George and his clients.

15327. MR HONEY: Yes, sir.

15328. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Would you like to proceed, Mr Honey.

15329. MR HONEY: Thank you. I appear on behalf of the Quarry Products Association, whose concerns, like other Petitioners, are the extensive rail powers contained within the Bill and the effect that they will have on the transport of aggregates by rail and indeed on those who depend on aggregates. The Quarry Products Association is the trade association for companies engaged in providing aggregates. We accordingly represent almost all aggregates business which will be affected by the Bill. We are keenly aware that you have heard evidence from other Petitioners with related but particular interests and we will seek to avoid repeating that evidence. You may well be pleased to hear that we will not deal with the importance of aggregates and their transport by rail, given that that is not disputed. We will seek to deal in evidence with points where the Quarry Products Association can add to the evidence that has already been given to the Committee and there are a few points where we think that is the case. You will be pleased to hear that our evidence has been considerably cut back from that which was originally proposed to be presented, given yesterday's proceedings.

15330. There are four areas where we can add something and I will be calling one witness, Mr Jeremy McLaughlin to deal with those. They are, firstly, the long-term future of the aggregates industry at 2015 and beyond. That, sir, I do not think has been canvassed before the Committee, not least because it is difficult for the freight companies to predict that, whereas for the aggregates companies it is more possible. Secondly, the effects on aggregates business overall rather than the particular interests of the Petitioners before this Committee. Thirdly, the QPA has carried out some research on the environmental impacts of the proposals in the Bill, and we will deal with those very briefly because that is an area where we can add, given the research there has been. Fourthly, of course, are QPA's particular concerns and what we are seeking in relation to the Bill. We will confine ourselves to those four areas and I hope not to repeat anything that has been raised before.

15331. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Thank you. Your evidence is A171. On your second point about the future of the aggregates business, I am not sure we as a Committee can steer you too greatly on that, but we will listen to what you say. If it seems to me to be slightly tangential, I shall stop you.

15332. MR HONEY: Thank you, sir. It is relevant in as much as a view on that has to be taken in order to form a view on the robustness of the Crossrail timetabling exercise.

15333. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Thank you for clearing that up.

15334. MR HONEY: There are essentially two concerns that we have with the Crossrail railway provisions. The first is that it is possible to override existing track access rights and secondly there are powers to prevent the new track access rights. The result of that for our members is that there is a very significant reduction in the business confidence that aggregate businesses can have in the future of rail as a means of supply, and that obviously has business planning consequences for the QPA's members. As well, it has practical consequences of cutting down their ability to serve their customers. In presenting the evidence with you today, we are moving down a level, as it were, in the supply chain from the interests of Freightliner and EWS to looking at how aggregates are delivered to end users.

15335. There is one important point, sir, that I would like to make in opening, which is that beyond the practical effects which may well arise from the use of the Bill powers, the mere existence of the Bill powers and the threat that they would be used effectively to force some freight off the rail will have an effect on the business planning of aggregates companies because of that hanging over them. They will look for alternative means of supply into London rather than rely on the railway line. We also support the position that has been taken by others for the need for infrastructure enhancement and we believe there must be a clear undertaking in that respect. As far as the position with the Bill is concerned and what we are seeking by way of remedy, the QPA's position is that the broad Bill powers are not necessary and that there is enough in the circumstances at this stage to give sufficient comfort to the Promoter without the need for those Bill powers being retained at this stage. Secondly, we say, sir, in any event that the proper approach here is for the balance to be struck between competing interests by the Regulator and not to be included in the Bill. Those are ultimately, sir, where we are hoping to leave this. With that by way of introduction, I will call if I may our witness, Mr Jeremy McLaughlin.

 

MR JEREMY McLAUGHLIN, Sworn

Examined by MR HONEY

 

15336. MR HONEY: I would ask you first, please, briefly to explain your role at the Quarry Products Association.

(Mr McLaughlin) I am the Director of Economics at the Quarry Products Association. I have held that post for two years. Before that I worked in the aggregates business for 20 years, including marketing issues and information issues. Prior to that I worked in civil engineering in the steel industry.

15337. Can you briefly sketch out what the QPA's membership comprises and therefore what interests your members have in this Bill.

(Mr McLaughlin) Yes. We cover 90 per cent of the industry, which covers all aspects of supply from recycled materials to primary materials. Our industry covers all the companies who have petitioned the Committee and we cover a range of suppliers into London.

15338. How many members are there approximately of the QPA overall?

(Mr McLaughlin) Around 150.

15339. I am going to ask an additional point on policy which has not been canvassed before so far as you are aware. Would you explain to the Committee briefly, please, what the Government's position is on rail freight and road transport substitution?

(Mr McLaughlin) It is basically following the 2004 White Paper which stated that they will continue to encourage freight traffic to be shifted from road to rail where that makes sense. That is the policy which the aggregates industry has taken into account in its operations since that time.

15340. What do you anticipate in the future, even without any growth in the aggregates business itself, in respect of rail freight?

(Mr McLaughlin) We anticipate a significant level of growth. I think my concern here in terms of the discussions the Committee has already had is that I suspect the assumptions which have been made in terms of the potential growth in aggregates demand and the potential for rail freight of aggregates in London are probably significantly understated. If we start from the position that there is a process of Government planning which involves forecasting the aggregate volumes, these forecasts currently assume that aggregates demand in London will increase from 13 million tonnes in 2003, the base year, up to 17 million tonnes in 2010. That forecasting process has not yet taken account of the Olympics or the wider development plans for Thames Gateway. I think we are looking at a steeper growth pattern over a period of, say, ten or 15 years. The difficulty we have with the process to date is that as a customer of freight companies we have not been directly involved in the timetabling work. We are not timetabling experts but I am concerned that the assumptions made for aggregate growth are significantly too low for a number of reasons. The Crossrail assumption seems to be that the intention is to leave other operators' access to the line really at a similar rate to now when Crossrail is built. I think it has also been pointed out yesterday by the Crossrail counsel that there is in fact some scope for growth in the timetabling exercise. It has been described to be as organic growth which I guess means one or two per cent per annum. It seems to me looking at the potential for growth in the Thames Estuary, Thames Gateway and London that that could be a significant under-estimate of the potential for the growth of construction aggregates in the region. The knock-on effect is that the demand for rail aggregates could be considerably under-estimated I think. Our secondary concern is that this, in effect, forecasting exercise only goes up to 2015 when Crossrail starts. What we are interested in is what happens after Crossrail starts, because it is after Crossrail when concern arises about the potential expansion of Crossrail services and the effect on other freight users. I think the process should take full account of the longer term rather than drawing the line in 2015. The other issue I am concerned about is that the process does not appear to have included any sensitivity analysis about the forecast options. It may well be assuming that there is so-called organic growth in the increase in the demand for aggregates, but to the best of my knowledge there has not been an assessment of what happens, say, if aggregates demand for rail increases by five per cent instead of one or two per cent per year. That is the kind of exercise that one would expect in most forecasting processes. I am surprised it is not part of the exercise we are dealing with here today. The net result is I think the underlying demand for aggregates to travel by rail could be significantly higher than is forecast and hence we are extremely concerned about our long-term access to the rail network.

15341. MR HONEY: I will ask you about the other side of the equation now, if I may, which is whether there are any limitations on the future supply of aggregates in reality.

(Mr McLaughlin) There is a planning system which determines the release of reserves. There is no particular constraint at the moment. There is, to the best of my knowledge, in the Mendip area, about 30 years' worth of reserves. That is the principal source of aggregate into West London. So there is significant capacity in terms of the existing sources of the rail borne aggregates.

15342. Can you say overall what levels of aggregates growth you anticipate there being beyond 2015?

(Mr McLaughlin) I think, if we are looking at the development of Thames Gateway and London as maybe currently anticipated, we should be looking at a long-term trend growth which would lead to, certainly in terms of the rail demand, a doubling over the levels we see at the moment, possibly more.

15343. Can I ask you to deal with the apparent approach of Crossrail, which is timetabling, and to say how you consider the Crossrail proposals will affect the supply of aggregates into London by rail?

(Mr McLaughlin) I think what we are trying to do is bring this back to a kind of practical proposition. What we are concerned about is if I am a rail aggregates freight operator with a depot in West London and we fast forward five years, and Crossrail is under construction, I think looking at the Crossrail powers as set out in the Bill or subject to the discussions with the Committee, as an operator I am going to require infrastructure improvements to maintain my access to rail freight. I need that access because the way the aggregates business works it is supplying construction sites on very much a just-in-time basis. Construction sites do not have stocks; they need materials as and when they are required. Therefore, unless I have got a reliable supply of aggregates - in this case by rail - then, really, in business terms I have got real commercial problems. Now, if we look five years ahead we could be in a situation, in terms of the infrastructure proposals, where Crossrail have given a commitment to supply infrastructure that is necessary to meet demand, without being specific about the individual projects. What concerns me about that is that that leaves the door open, I think, for prevarication and delay in the provision of the infrastructure. The way development and construction projects proceed, I think what one needs to do is nail down those commitments as clearly as possible. I think that is the fundamental concern we have about our operating environments as the project goes forward. In addition to which, of course, we have got the ongoing concern about the difficulty in maintaining a long-term business when there is the provision for Crossrail to supersede existing arrangements. That is a very difficult process to manage in terms of the investment the industry might like to put into London depots.

15344. Dealing with the effects of Crossrail on aggregates businesses, can you outline the practical effect that will arise given the nature of the agreements your members have with freight providers?

(Mr McLaughlin) As was described yesterday, there is a process whereby an aggregates business will have a supplier and access agreements with a freight operator, and under the powers of the Bill these can be cut back as Crossrail requires, or perhaps, in terms of a new arrangement, the capacity cut back. That creates huge uncertainty. It is very difficult to plan a long-term supply business in London if you have not got a guarantee within the normal commercial environment of a supplier. The concern is that if that is not the case, and bearing in mind the potential supply of aggregates and other sources, such as marine material and such like, which is limited, you will then effectively force the companies to look further at road movements rather than rail movements. That is the bottom line.

15345. If the Bill powers remain as they are at the moment, what certainty can your members have that those powers will not be used at a later stage, no matter what is said now?

(Mr McLaughlin) I do not think we can have any certainty. I think it creates a huge area of uncertainty which will be very difficult to deal with commercially.

15346. So is it only the actual exercise, as it were, of the Bill powers about which the QPA is concerned?

(Mr McLaughlin) No, I think, even if they are not exercised, if there is a threat of them being exercised it has a material effect on investment intentions.

15347. How likely do you think it is that there will be a deterrent effect arising simply from the mere presence of these Bill powers?

(Mr McLaughlin) I think, given the very significant investment that could be required to enhance and develop the depot capacity and the supply infrastructure around it, it would clearly have a negative effect on the investment intentions.

15348. What does that mean in the real world? What will actually happen?

(Mr McLaughlin) It means more trucks and less trains.

15349. I would like to move on now to deal briefly with the environmental effects that might arise as a result. Please can you tell us what effect a reduction in rail capacity would have for aggregates businesses in terms of the environment?

(Mr McLaughlin) I will not dwell on this because I know that the Committee had a presentation yesterday from Mr Knapman which went into detail. The observation I would make is that we commissioned the Centre for Sustainability, which is part of the Transport Research Laboratory, towards the end of last year just to do a very simple analysis of what would happen if there was significant transfer of aggregates being delivered into London from rail to road. We did ask them to look at the worst case, and the worst case has some very significant effects. In particular, bearing in mind the current concern about carbon emissions, that transfer from rail to road would generate an additional 230,000 tonnes of carbon annually, as well as the significant traffic effects that one would have in the vicinity of the quarries along the motorways in West London, particularly. I do not think I will say any more than that, as I am sure the point was put across yesterday. There is a very significant potential environmental impact.

15350. Was there an exercise within that research to attempt to quantify in financial terms what those environmental costs might be?

(Mr McLaughlin) Yes, there was an exercise looking at established means of environmental costing, and that suggested the costs would be in a range of between 7 and 10 million tonnes per annum.

15351. I am going to move on now just to deal with the last main topic, which is to ask you to sketch out what the QPA wants, and begin by asking you what is the Quarry Products Association position on whether these Bill powers that are sought are really necessary?

(Mr McLaughlin) We struggle to see how they are necessary, in terms of the powers, if only because, as Crossrail intend to produce an Access Option, if there is a satisfactory conclusion to that process I am not entirely sure why the Bill powers are needed. I think we are also concerned that in going through that process, because there is the threat of enacting the Bill powers that perhaps makes it difficult to have full confidence, shall we say, that the Access Option would give us, as a freight user, the same consideration as it would to Crossrail. So we are concerned about what we see as potentially inequitable treatment of our interests compared with those of Crossrail.

15352. Given that everything seems to be moving in the direction of an Access Option, what does that mean for whether it is reasonable or not to retain the Bill powers?

(Mr McLaughlin) We can see no reason why the Bill powers should be retained.

15353. Looking at things in operational terms, given what you have heard of the Promoter's case on capacity and timetabling, do you think there is any operational need to retain these Bill powers?

(Mr McLaughlin) Not as far as I am aware.

15354. What then is your position on how the various interests, particularly those of aggregates and those of Crossrail, ought to be balanced in this case?

(Mr McLaughlin) Our view is that the interests should be treated in an equable manner, and as an existing user of the rail network, and a very significant user of the rail network, that our access to the network should not be subsidiary to access from Crossrail. I am just asking, really, for a fair crack of the whip in terms of access to the rail network in the same manner that is currently the case.

15355. What does that mean as far as Crossrail is concerned in order for them to be subjected to that normal process?

(Mr McLaughlin) I think we feel that the Bill powers should be removed and we feel that there should be an absolute commitment to proceed with the infrastructural improvements that are specified, certainly, in the timetabling work rather than have a sort of rather loose proposal that work will be done as and when is necessary. I think infrastructure improvements absolutely need to be nailed down.

15356. Who, in your view, should be responsible for seeking to strike the balance between the competing interests in this case?

(Mr McLaughlin) It just needs to go through an independent process. I would not really add to the comments made by Freightliner and EWS in that respect.

15357. What are your ultimate fears if there is not that independent process?

(Mr McLaughlin) That we will be commercially and practically disadvantaged and we will be prevented from making reasonable use of the rail network.

15358. Can you see any justification for that in this case?

(Mr McLaughlin) No, absolutely not.

15359. MR HONEY: Thank you very much.

 

Examined by THE COMMITTEE

 

15360. MR BINLEY: I have two questions, Mr McLaughlin. They are relatively simple. We are facing some very sizeable projects over the coming years: the Olympic Games, Sustainable Communities, Crossrail itself - to say nothing of the airports. I wondered whether you feel that aggregates supply is going to be capable of keeping up with that size of project.

(Mr McLaughlin) I do. Aggregates are being used increasingly efficiently, due to a number of reasons: design of construction projects are being less material-intensive, if I can put it that way (for example, we build thinner roads now and use less aggregates) and I think there is an increasing use of alternative materials such as recycled materials.

15361. I wondered if you would mention that. Do carry on.

(Mr McLaughlin) Consequently, we believe that there should be a supply that is satisfactory to meet demands. There is a minimal planning process which is under review at the moment, as it happens, and that is about trying to ensure that the minimal planning process provides a reasonable and balanced supply of materials to meet future needs. One would hope that that would meet that objective. In terms of recycling (just picking that point up) the industry has doubled its recycling rate in the last 15 years or so. We are now probably not far off the practical maximum of recycling; we are using nearly 70 million tonnes of recycled materials a year and I expect the maximum might be about 80. We have got the highest recycling rate of any country in Europe.

15362. Second question: because there is a growing reaction to ruining river valleys (?) and so forth, people want to protect their environment, more particularly when they see recycling as a possible answer. It is reckoned, depending on which expert you choose, that we could recycle between 30 per cent and 70 per cent of our requirements, and certainly more than we are doing at the moment. We are being hindered by a lack of investment rather than a restraint brought about by recycling itself. I just wonder how much the industry really considers local recycling of aggregates and how much that would impact upon your need to shift aggregates the number of the miles you are talking about.

(Mr McLaughlin) First of all, as a matter of policy, we, in our statements to the erstwhile ODPM on planning policy, have always made the point that recycling is the primary source of supply, and that the supply of new aggregates, virgin aggregates, comes in after that. That is government policy. So the way the planning system works, it looks to maximise the supply of recycling materials and kind of fill in the gap with new materials. Clearly, with recycled materials one can only use them as they arise, and as they are largely construction and demolition based it very much depends on the amount of construction and demolition that is happening. I think, as I said, we are not miles away from getting pretty close to a maximum on that; if one looks at the activities of the Government's recycling agency, WRAP, which has an aggregates arm, it is interesting they are now looking more at projects which actually improve the quality of the recycled material rather than the quantity. In terms of relationship to the London market and Crossrail implications, recycling is actually a very mature activity in London, because obviously it is an urban area and things have been knocked down for years, and so there is quite an infrastructure, including an infrastructure operated by our members. Also, in terms of the Crossrail supply, the sources of aggregates into London are principally rock which is principally coming from Somerset and, to a lesser extent, from the East Midlands and Leicestershire. The sources of those materials are regarded as strategically important, hence I believe those will be protected, as it were, in terms of the planning system, but certainly it has to coincide with a maximum use of recycled material.

15363. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Thank you, Mr McLaughlin. You have made the point. Ms Lieven?

 

Cross-examined by MS LIEVEN

15364. MS LIEVEN: Mr McLaughlin, have you seen the transport working group report, the one carried out for Crossrail?

(Mr McLaughlin) By the "working group", do you mean the ----

15365. The Timetable Working Group.

(Mr McLaughlin) I have seen extracts from it, yes.

15366. Can I have it put up please at page 14 because, so far as growth is concerned, if we just look at the top paragraph on page 14, and I think the Committee has already seen this passage, it says, "The initial stage of the freight RUS work has been to take forecasts from rail freight users and potential users together with the rail freight operators and to put these together to create a single forecast for different route sections". The fact is that we have taken into account growth and freight growth in particular in reaching the conclusions in this report, have we not?

(Mr McLaughlin) What levels of freight growth have you taken into account?

15367. Well, the railway operators, including EWS and Freightliner, were on this Working Group, yes?

(Mr McLaughlin) They were, yes.

15368. They fed into the growth forecasts which were then used in the work, yes?

(Mr McLaughlin) Yes.

15369. So presumably they will know the likely levels of freight growth.

(Mr McLaughlin) Well, I think they forecast what has been described to me as "organic growth". Now, I am not quite sure what organic growth is other than an assumption that it is 1 or 2 per cent growth per annum, but certainly there was no request for us to put information into that exercise directly. My concern is that in a forecasting exercise one does not just want a central forecast, but one wants a degree of sensitivity to assess what happens if the forecast in this case is higher than anticipated.

15370. Just so the Committee can understand, are you producing any evidence that the growth forecasts in this report were wrong or are you just generally saying that you have a concern that there is going to be a lot of aggregates growth and it has got to be taken into account?

(Mr McLaughlin) I have not done a precise forecast, but, as I say, we did not feed information directly into this exercise and my concern is that it does not take sufficient account of the potential growth.

15371. You say it does not take sufficient account, but I am sorry, Mr McLaughliin, can you just help me as to where your evidence for that is because I have a report which says that it has taken into account growth, it is a group that includes EWS, Freightliner and other train operators, and it concludes that there is sufficient capacity for growth on the Great Western and we know that a lot of the freight on the Great Western is aggregates, and you come along and say, "There's not enough capacity for growth", so I need something to look at in a bit more detail if you have it.

(Mr McLaughlin) What I have said is that there may well be a central forecast of organic or modest growth and that is a central forecast which is based essentially on the assumed growth of the aggregates market. The point I am making is that if one looks at the development potential in the Thames Gateway and London which has not been the subject of a detailed forecasting exercise, I have some concern that the demand will be higher than that forecast and what I would like is for that to be tested in a forecasting exercise so that we can get some idea about where the constraints actually happen, if the constraints are going to happen. If I could take the point that forecasting is uncertain, if the economy falls off then clearly all the forecasts are not going to come to fruition anyway, but I would like to see some evidence of this sensitivity analysis so that we can have some reassurance as to at what point we will have constraints on our ability to use the network.

15372. I understand your concerns, Mr McLaughlin, but it is not possible for the Committee to test those concerns, is it?

(Mr McLaughlin) No.

15373. You are not producing anything which says, "The Timetable Working Group has presumed 3 per cent growth, but we think it will be 6 per cent growth", or any such evidence which the Committee could base a conclusion on, are you?

(Mr McLaughlin) No, but I think it might be reasonable in my presentation to the Committee to make the point that we are concerned, as the development process and the information about the Thames Gateway are developing, that there may be an underestimate of demand. I am not saying that that will definitely happen, but I think it is reasonable that the exercise actually looks to see where the constraints might take place.

15374. Have you done any analysis in relation to the Timetable Working Group conclusions as to what proportion of the growth that was taken into account was aggregates growth, so how your concerns that there will be greater aggregates growth relate to the Timetable Working Group conclusions?

(Mr McLaughlin) I have been informed that there was an aggregates growth assumption of organic growth.

15375. As far as the capacity for growth of aggregates is concerned, the Timetable Working Group Report is looking at paths, is it not?

(Mr McLaughlin) It is indeed, yes.

15376. In terms of whether there is capacity for more aggregates to go on the railway, it is necessary not just to look at whether there is capacity for more paths, but also whether the paths that are there at the moment are being fully utilised.

(Mr McLaughlin) Indeed.

15377. Because it is a fact, is it not, that at certain times quite a high proportion of potential paths for freight are not actually used? It is obviously going to depend from time to time and from route to route.

(Mr McLaughlin) I am not the expert on timetabling and the way in which paths are calculated, but my understanding is that there is spare capacity because the supply of trains is not consistent. It is not like a passenger service where your trains are timetabled every quarter of an hour. The supply of trains on a weekly basis reflects the demands. The trains only travel when they are full up, they do not wait for passengers, hence you need a bigger level of spare capacity or headroom than you would do with the passenger network.

15378. If, for instance, one discovers on a particular route, at a particular time of year or whatever that there is only 60 per cent usage of the paths that are available, then that 40 per cent is available for growth, is it not?

(Mr McLaughlin) I am not sure that it is. The relationship between paths and absolute volumes is something I am not entirely competent to comment on.

15379. I am sure you are not confused about this, but I am keen that the Committee are clear about this. As far as the suggestion that there is an impact from the Olympics is concerned because obviously the Olympics will take a proportion of aggregates, and one hopes a high proportion will be recycled, but some will not, the Olympics obviously happen in 2012 at a fixed point ----

(Mr McLaughlin) Indeed.

15380. ---- and Crossrail is not anticipated to open until 2015 ----

(Mr McLaughlin) No, I appreciate that.

15381. ---- so the impact of the Crossrail operation will not in any sense have to take into account the Olympics' aggregates movements.

(Mr McLaughlin) No, but the point I was making in terms of the Olympics is that the Government's forecasts of aggregates demand in London do not yet fully take the Olympics into account and when they are reviewed, they may well be higher as a result. Looking at the Olympics as one part of a wider development project throughout east London and the Thames Gateway, it is the wider issue we are concerned about.

15382. Thank you very much, Mr McLaughlin.

 

Re-examined by MR HONEY

15383. MR HONEY: First, Mr McLaughlin, you have exhibits which have been provided to you and can I have up please an extract of Information Paper E6 which is in the exhibits, I believe. It is page 15 of the exhibit, and page 2 of the paper E6. It is headed, "E6 - Freight Operations". Mr McLaughlin, if you could just look at that last sentence at the very top, at the end of paragraph 3.3 and also what is said in paragraph 3.5 about the level at which freight services will continue to operate, what is your understanding of the extent to which Crossrail say they have taken into account future growth in their timetabling commitments, Crossrail's own commitments?

(Mr McLaughlin) I believe, as I say, that the timetabling exercise has taken into account the total organic growth of services which is a modest growth over the period.

15384. I am going to come on to the Timetable Working Group in a moment. My question is: what are Crossrail themselves saying in terms of the level at which freight services are going to be operated?

(Mr McLaughlin) Well, they are saying clearly that they are planning so that freight services operate no less than at the present level once Crossrail is operational.

15385. I would like to go back to the Timetable Working Group Report which was up on the screen a little earlier and go back to the page we were on a moment ago. You were asked about your source for the level of growth that had been factored into the Timetable Working Group Report. Can you have a look at the third paragraph. What level of growth does it appear that the Timetable Working Group took into account?

(Mr McLaughlin) Well, I guess it depends on your definition of "organic", but that suggests to me that it is just a continual growth perhaps reflecting growth in aggregates demand, whereas we suspect that the growth of rail traffic may be higher because the rail network may take a greater share of the deliveries into London.

15386. Are you aware of the level of growth taken into account being set out in any more specific terms than just that reference to organic growth?

(Mr McLaughlin) No, I am not.

15387. Can we go to page 2 of the Timetable Working Group Report which is probably page 3 of the exhibit as there is a cover sheet, and the penultimate paragraph, towards the end of that paragraph. I know you are not a timetabling expert, but looking at this document at the end of that paragraph, what does it appear the Timetable Working Group based their assessment of freight train levels on?

(Mr McLaughlin) I am not sure. It is based clearly on an existing 2005 timetable.

15388. If we go over the page to page 3, the paragraph just before the heading "Consideration of Future Growth", again what there does it appear that the timetabling exercise for the Great Western Main Line was based on?

(Mr McLaughlin) Again it is based on the operation of the current timetable, whereas of course our concerns are the implications from 2015 onwards.

15389. MR HONEY: Thank you, Mr McLaughlin. That is all I have.

15390. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr Honey, thank you very much indeed, and thank you, Mr McLaughlin, you can stand down.

 

The witness withdrew

15391. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Ms Lieven, we are now waiting, are we, for the Thames Gateway presentation?

15392. MS LIEVEN: Yes, sir, but shall I close on this one?

15393. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I believe that Mr Pout is not going to be here until 3.45 anyway, or at least he had better be here by 3.45, otherwise he is going to be standing outside a locked door! Yes, please close, Ms Lieven.

15394. MS LIEVEN: If I could, sir, very briefly because I think they are all points we have been through before, but just so that there is something on the record pulling them together on this Petition.

15395. The single most important thing to emphasise is that the balance between freight users and Crossrail is, under our proposal, to be dealt with by Network Rail and the Office of the Rail Regulator through the Access Option, so there is a wholly independent process to carry out that balancing exercise. Every Petitioner has put it in a different way. Mr Honey puts it as "a fair crack of the whip", and they have an entirely fair crack of the whip before the ORR, and that is, as I have already said a number of times, but I will just put it on the record again, through the normal industry processes balancing everybody, not with Crossrail having any overriding powers or anything like that. Then, as Mr Elvin explained last week at paragraph 13676, assuming the Access Option is granted, then the railway clauses will be considered and, if appropriate, modified in the light of that Access Option. If the Access Option is not modified, then we will have to come back in the House of Lords and consider this situation again.

15396. Now, so far as growth is concerned, Mr McLaughlin, with all respect to him, and this is probably another example of why this is not perhaps quite the right place to argue these points out, has raised an extremely generalised concern that we are not taking into account enough growth. I do not want to sound tedious, but it is very difficult to respond in a sensible way to that kind of argument unless there is some kind of analysis of how the growth taken into account by the Timetable Working Group relates to the level of growth that Mr McLaughlin is asserting should be correct. Now, he has not put forward any levels of growth to which we can then say, "No, that's too much", or "That can be dealt with on spare paths", or "Well, actually that's the level of organic growth that the Timetable Working Group was taking into account", nor has he given any specifics on what proportion of total freight growth this alleged higher level of aggregates growth will be. Just to give one example of why it is really not a point that can be dealt with in this generalised way, there will be all sorts of other constraints of aggregates growth, such as the capacity of freight yards, planning permissions on the very quarries that are churning out the aggregates, all sorts of constraints, it is not some unconstrained free-for-all which then all ends up on the Great Western, so, in my submission, these kinds of generalised concerns are really not a matter which the Committee can take any further forward.

15397. It is important to emphasise in respect of the Timetable Working Group Report that they did take into account freight growth. I am not quite sure what Mr Honey thought he was achieving by pointing to page 3 of the Timetable Working Group Report and the section on accommodating Crossrail services alongside existing services because what we have here is a two-stage process. First of all, you look at base and then you look at growth, so of course when you look at base, you do not take into account growth, that would be nonsensical, but when you come to the second stage, it is absolutely apparent that organic growth was taken into account on the Great Western and that includes aggregates growth. The distinction between the Great Western and the Great Eastern, to put it in very crude terms, is that on the Great Eastern there are quite possibly, and I do not say in any way fettering the Government's discretion, going to be two planning permissions for massive new container ports to deal largely with freight coming from the Far East, and presumably going to the Far East, which will have a major impact on freight services. That is completely different from the amount of stone one can get out of Watley quarry and other quarries in the West Country. It is quite apparent from this report that in terms of domestic growth, such as aggregates growth, that was taken into account in the Timetable Working Group.

15398. There is only one other thing to touch on again, because I am not sure whether all the Committee were here yesterday when I dealt with this. The suggestion that, for all the infrastructure proposals that are in the Bill on the Great Western, we should be required to give an undertaking to do them all, Mr Berryman explained yesterday, and I do not want to repeat it ----

15399. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Ms Lieven, I think we will take that as already on the record. I know exactly what you are going to say. I was here yesterday and I can assure you that it is well documented.

15400. MS LIEVEN: Thank you very much, sir, and I am sorry to have said the same thing over.

15401. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: It is on the record again. Mr Honey?

15402. MR HONEY: Sir, there are essentially three points to make which I will take in turn as briefly as I can. The first is that the starting point has to be a recognition that the Bill powers, as far as railways are concerned, are strong. The Promoters have described them in their Information Paper H4 as "broad" and Mr Elvin, in opening to the Committee on Day 48, described the powers as giving to the Promoters "overriding rights to secure the level of service sought". Now, it is clear that the Promoters accept that the appropriate route to secure their access rights is through the Access Option, and in fact the Bill powers have been described as "no more than a backstop" by the Promoters. Ms Lieven has said again today that the Promoters intend these matters to be dealt with through the Access Option and has described that as the appropriate way forward. That was both yesterday and today.

15403. The result is that there will ultimately be no need for the Bill powers. The Promoters accept that, when a certain point in time is reached, those Bill powers will be cut back and moderated. The QPA's case is that we have already reached that point where there is no justification for the strong powers that are included in the Bill. The Promoters have said they are looking for a sufficient degree of comfort that they will have enough access to capacity, but, in my submission, if you accept the Promoters' case, there is sufficient comfort already at this stage.

15404. The first point is that if the Promoters are right in the timetabling work that has been done and there is enough physical capacity to accommodate the required levels of freight, whilst the Quarry Products Association does not accept that that is right, but if, as the Promoters contend, there is enough capacity, then the Promoters have nothing to fear in that respect.

15405. Secondly, there is no reason to doubt that ultimately an Access Option will be agreed and certainly no evidence to that effect has been given by the Promoters, and we heard from Network Rail yesterday that the Access Option is to be produced in the near future and the Promoters clearly anticipate that the Access Option will be the outcome.

15406. Thirdly, when we turn to the ORR, there is no suggestion at all that there is anything which is going to go awry when the Access Option reaches the Office of the Rail Regulator, so comfort can be taken from that point as well.

15407. Therefore, we say first that, if Crossrail are right, they have nothing to fear in terms of capacity and certainly nothing which would justify the retention of these draconian powers left in the Bill when they are described by the Promoters as "no more than a backstop".

15408. The second point, sir, is that in any event the normal regulation process should apply here. The position of the ORR was described by Mr Elvin on Day 48 as being the independent statutory body with the role of overseeing the fair and efficient allocation of capacity and acting as an impartial referee in addressing competing claims. Sir, we agree with that. In the normal course of events, any other operator would have their claims to access balanced by the ORR against other important access needs, but here the Promoters are saying that, unless they get what they want through the Access Option, they will use the Bill powers to secure it. What that means in practice is that there will be no balancing exercise and Crossrail will get everything that they want one way or another and that will be at the expense of other rail users. Therefore, in my submission, it is worthless to say that they are submitting to the normal industry processes, whereas in fact they are reserving their position, as they have made clear to this Committee, that if the Access Option does not deliver, they will seek to use the Bill powers.

15409. It is, in my submission, clear that, no matter what the Timetable Working Group has taken into account, the Promoters' position is that they will only seek to preserve the current levels of capacity available for aggregates and other rail freight, and that is clear through the Information Papers which have been put forward to this Committee, and we have seen E6, paragraphs 3.3 and 3.5, and it is also repeated in the Information Paper H1, paragraph 1.2.

15410. The issue that Mr McLaughlin raised of future growth was to put before the Committee evidence that, absent any constraints and in particular those presented here by Crossrail, the growth would be substantially greater than that which has been taken into account by the Timetable Working Group. There is a distinction to be drawn between the growth of aggregates, about which Mr McLaughlin was giving evidence, and freight growth which has been taken into account by the Timetable Working Group to an extent and that is because freight operators only look at a certain time horizon, whereas those who are in the work of aggregates are looking beyond, say, a ten-year time horizon that the freight operators are. The Timetable Working Group has not taken into account, on Mr McLaughlin's evidence, a sufficient level of growth in aggregates. The reality is that the likely level of growth in aggregates demand, a proportion of which would be transported by rail at 2015 and beyond, is very significant and has not been factored into the equation. The levels of growth, the unspecified levels which, we are told, is no more than organic growth which can be taken on the Great Western Main Line, according to the Timetable Working Group, they are not specified anywhere and we simply cannot tell whether they are good enough, and indeed Mr McLaughlin has told you that he suspects that they are not for all the reasons that he gave.

15411. The result of this is that no reliance can be placed by the aggregates industry on even existing levels of the use of the railway continuing, and certainly they can have no confidence that in the future existing access rights will not be cut back below where they are at the moment. The effect this will have on the aggregates businesses is that their businesses will be similarly cut back and there will be a knock-on effect of development in London, particularly at a time when the regeneration of areas, such as east London and the Thames Gateway, will be under way at 2015 and beyond.

15412. Sir, you have heard an important point from Mr McLaughlin which was that even the mere presence of these Bill powers will have an effect on the business-planning of aggregates businesses. The threat of their use will force aggregates businesses to look for alternative means of supply. We have heard evidence from EWS, for example, that they will not seek to invest to the same degree in their infrastructure if they cannot have faith and the same thing, but more so, applies to the aggregates businesses. When faced with this uncertainty, they will look for alternative routes. There is no guarantee as well, no matter what is said at the moment, about the extent of Crossrail's current intentions as to capacity and the extent to which they will run the services will ultimately persist if these powers come forward, so for all of those reasons we say it is necessary for the balance ultimately to be struck by the regulator in this case and that, therefore, the railway powers in the Bill should be moderated now in order to allow that balance to be struck by the rail regulator.

15413. Thirdly, and just briefly, sir, we say that the Promoters' position on capacity and timetabling and all the evidence has been premised -----

15414. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I am afraid we have to suspend.

 

The Committee suspended from 3.37 pm to 3.58 pm for a division in the House

15415. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr Honey?

15416. MR HONEY: Thank you, Sir. I was coming towards the end of the second point to say that the proper approach in this case is not simply to give Crossrail all capacity that it asks for but to have the balance struck by the rail regulators. Aggregate businesses will suffer, they will be forced off the railway if Crossrail presses ahead in the manner that they are seeking to do and a balance ought to be struck which protects aggregate businesses just as much as Crossrail. For that reason, the railway powers in the Bill should be moderated in any event. The third point was that the infrastructure improvements which are proposed by Crossrail as the basis for the timetabling exercise and their position on capacity must be carried out. They rely on those infrastructure enhancements as part of their case to show that there will be no problem but without at least a commitment to carry out those works, the aggregate industry cannot rely on having any level of capacity available to it at all. In conclusion, the Quarry Products Association's case is that it is not right to give the promoters draconian railway powers when it cannot be shown that they are necessary. On the promoters own case sufficient comfort exists already and in those circumstances Crossrail should not be empowered to force other users off the railway but should be required to follow the normal industry regulatory processes and in addition to commit to providing the infrastructure improvements they are relying on within their case. In terms of what we are seeking from the Committee, we would support the amendments to the railway powers in the Bill that have been put forward by EWS and also support them in the undertaking which they are seeking that the infrastructure improvements be carried out. That is the QPA's position.

15417. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr Honey, I am sorry that we had to cut you off in the middle. As you can see there was a slight mess in the House, the House has now collapsed, there is no more business. Thank you for your patience and I am sorry we cut you off. Thank you. Mr Pout?

The Petition of the London Thames Gateway Forum

MR RICHARD POUT appeared as Agent.

15418. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr Pout, if you could do it before 4.30 p.m, we would obliged. If you do not then you will have to come back at 6.00 p.m. It is totally up to you.

15419. MR POUT: I am well familiar with your problems because this time last week I was giving evidence literally next door to Mrs Dunwoody's Committee and exactly the same thing happened.

15420. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: We are kinder than Mrs Dunwoody, I can assure you of that. Ms Lieven, have you anything to start with?

15421. MS LIEVEN: Mr Taylor is handling this petition.

15422. MR TAYLOR: I am going to let Mr Pout introduce his petition.

15423. MR POUT: We have circulated our petition to the secretariat. It is about three and a half sides of notes which cover the core issues which remain outstanding and these are now up on your screen. First of all, to introduce the situation fairly generally, London Thames Gateway Forum is supporting Crossrail in principle. I had the pleasure a few weeks ago of sitting through the presentation of the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow and listening to his very eloquent comments about problems relating to Whitechapel. As a community organisation we are not entirely in agreement with that position. We are aware of a great many concerns of the community and hence our petition appears. I would like to start off first of all with the problems of the consultation and if you look at the first action of that paragraph we each sponsored a meeting in Toynbee hall on 11 October 2004. Keith Berryman attended as did a couple of his colleagues and I am in no doubt that they were very taken aback, as I was, of the extremely hostile reaction. What I was worried about at the time was that there was this complete lack of understanding among a great number of local people about what the project was. It was a lack of understanding for all of the communities and it was very clear that there had not been an appropriate communication for the communities in that area although there had been an exhibition and a presentation. I think a lot of people had misunderstood. Having listened particularly that one evening three for four Wednesdays ago I appreciate that a lot has been done to take that forward. At this stage, we still see that there are a great many people for whom it is not a case of English is their second language, they do not speak English and they may not be able to fully understand the issues and how to deal with complaints and issues around their daily lives. That is an issue which we raise in a number of the points. Certainly, as a community organisation, we do recognise the benefits of the Whitechapel Station.

15424. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr Pout, I am going to stop you for a moment. We covered this exhaustively, in fact, I think I was in the Chair. We were very concerned, as a Committee, that this had been the case. We made very clear, as a Committee, that we did not accept that the full consultation in all the different languages and all the people who have spoken across the Crossrail area have been taken into consideration. Certainly, we are still concerned that is not the case. Therefore, I feel that has been taken into consideration. I accept exactly what you are saying and from the Committee's point of view our concerns were made.

15425. MR POUT: In that case, I can leave that issue on the table with your good selves. Our notes therefore stand as written and we can move on. One particular issue that we were concerned about is the location of works at Hanbury Street. Again, I sat through one of sessions ‑I think Mr Liddell‑Grainger was in the Chair ‑ when there were three people representing issues in a block of flats. This was a very good example of nuisance, which was dealt with that afternoon. The issue that concerns us, as a community organisation working together, is that will there be a clear standard about ensuring maintenance of the roadways and cleaning of the roadways because I sat with my calculator during that session and I came to the conclusion that we could be looking at 11,250-odd depending on how the timing goes, 9,259 lorry movements in that patch. That is a very rough ballpark figure and I accept that it might change but that is still a heck of a lot of heavy lorry movements which will cause a considerable amount of dust and dirt and it is ensuring that the local community have the mechanisms to deal with problems. Again, you appear to have dealt with that so I rest that issue.

15426. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I am very grateful that you brought it again to our attention, thank you.

15427. MR POUT: Obviously, there is the issue about moratorium around schools and I think that has been dealt with. One specific issue, which we are concerned about and I go to our last sentence in that section which is on the next sheet page two of our note, is who will be responsible for monitoring and checking the suitability and competence of lorry drivers? One hopes we are not going back into the realms of that dramatic 1960s film Hell Drivers but it is a case of making sure that there is adequate and competent supervision of drivers. The last thing I want to see, and I am sure the same goes for Mr Berryman and his colleagues, is a four‑year old child walking to school and knocked down by a Crossrail HGV lorry. Again, I am sure you have covered that.

15428. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I think that also has been covered. I seem to remember there were assurances given that all lorry drivers would be more than competent, please carry on.

15429. MR POUT: The next one is the location of the shaft and I believe there are still discussions going on. Again, we have been sent a diagram of the number of locations. I think the most popular location is still the car park next to Britannia House. I leave those thoughts with you because I believe that they have been covered by many others. I do not think there is a great deal that we can add but there are issues that crop up when one is preparing one's petition to a deadline.

15430. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I think we understand that totally.

15431. MR POUT: I feel I should formally advise you that my colleague advising me is our full‑time Chief Executive. We were particularly concerned about issues relating to noise and again to ensure that there is an adequate process when dealing with complaints about noise at the time of that community.

15432. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I think that was dealt with.

15433. MR POUT: I think you will almost certainly have dealt with that.

15434. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: The ladies and gentlemen of the flats exhaustively looked at the noise issue for obvious reasons.

15435. MR POUT: There may be many cases because we have a couple of members who live in adjacent streets. There is one in particular, one I know in the next street. The issue is ensuring that the lorry route is the right one, the one that produces the least noise and the least intrusion.

15436. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I think the point is taken well on board.

15437. MR POUT: Thank you. I will move on. Romford Depot was an issue which I think a number of us who have knowledge of railway issues phoned up the Crossrail team about and said, "There is now an empty Eurostar Depot" and they said, "Yes, we have noticed". I understand that has now been resolved and that there is to be a new depot at Old Oak Common for Crossrail. They will be making use of Ilford Depot which is an excellent idea. I am one of the many who thought about it and suggested it. Obviously, on that matter we are waiting to see the full Environmental Impact Assessment and if there is anything which emerges as a concern out of that, we will send a note back to the Committee or possibly raise the issue when it goes to their Lordships House.

15438. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Please feel free to do so.

15439. MR POUT: Otherwise, we are very pleased with Romford Depot and we will leave that. Provision of cycles and cyclists, again, I think you will probably have had representations from cycling organisations on this but it is an issue which involves me because a couple of months back we were dealing with the Docklands Light Railway transfer for the North London Line, this is one of the links into the Stratford area and it is part of the Olympic package. One of the concerns that we had on that occasion is that it would not be possible to take a bicycle on the DLR at all. At least on the conventional national rail service somebody can get on with a bicycle as far as Liverpool Street to take their journey forward. Under the Crossrail scheme, I think that you will have to detrain at the last service station which will now be Stratford, you cannot take it any further into Central London.

15440. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I think we will let Mr Taylor answer that when he sums up, I am sure he has got a perfectly good answer to it because it is question we have not asked but I think you have posed the question.

15441. MR POUT: Fair enough. I understand there is an issue around what is the safety case for the operation of a railway sub‑service with a bicycle on board. The same goes for mobility access. We were concerned at the number of stations that are to be modernised and renovated but will not necessarily have mobility access, one is Maryland Station. That will be at each alternative station along the route on the East Line which is where our community follows through on work with the local authorities. I also know, from my personal experience of living for four years in Hanwell, that that station is not going to be included and I looked at it and thought why can these stations not be upgraded or be part of a programme so that by the time we reach the completion of Crossrail, which we are now talking in terms of something like 2017 and the DDA requirements are I think on schedule for completion by 2020, then really we should be looking at full mobility access. As a professional with a transport background, I am aware of the fact that there are constraints on this.

15442. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: My colleagues have told me that in fact one of the times I was not here the disability people came in and ---

15443. MR BINLEY: A disability consultant spoke about these four particular stations and I am sure Mr Taylor will be referring to that. I wanted to assure you that it was well covered and I am sure you would have been satisfied.

15444. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I can assure you we will come back to it but I rely on my colleagues.

15445. MR POUT: Thank you for that. Next, I will go into a little bit more detail on Maryland Station. Going back to the original private Bill, which came before Parliament in the 1990s and was sadly rejected, Maryland Station was to be included in the original project. Maryland is at the far end of Stratford Broadway.

15446. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Could we see a map of Maryland Station, just to refresh our minds again. Please, carry on.

15447. MR POUT: It is just to the east of Stratford Broadway. To use a colloquial expression, it is a bit of a grotty end of town, but, nevertheless, it is a district called the Grove, where there is some regeneration in progress, and it is a very useful point where people can access the east side of Stratford Town Centre, particularly on journeys from out of London. If somebody is coming in from Ilford or Romford, it may be more practical for them to use Stratford Station.

15448. I am particularly concerned about inner city regeneration. I am one of the people who have lobbied for a long time about the orbital railway network and how important it is for the business railway, which is a long-distance commuter railway, to serve the inner cities as well, and this is a classic example. As I say in my paper, we feel there would be significant benefits from the provision of a new and accessible entrance from the Grove as a long-term aspiration but, even for the time being, to ensure that that station is improved and modernised, to ensure that it is part of the full stopping pattern for services on the Sheffield line with most of the services stopping there.

15449. We would like to know what the additional costs are and why in the 1990s scheme it was justified to include Maryland but now it is not, because there are social and economic benefits. Okay, this is going to come in after the Olympics, and that will be rather sad, but, nevertheless, Stratford is an area that is going to grow and the addition of that additional facility, close to Stratford, will take a lot of traffic for many journeys off a main-line station and mean particularly that people may be able to have an easier journey to work.

15450. Item 8 is the Eleanor Street travellers' site. Again we have summed that up in a sentence. I believe that is substantially resolved and therefore hope that can now be laid on the table.

15451. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I am sure Mr Taylor has heard what you have said and will respond.

15452. MR POUT: (Slide shown) A diagram has now come up on the screen for Maryland Station.

15453. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I just wanted to make sure I knew where it was. Thank you.

15454. MR POUT: It is the area around the Grove, on the east end. There is a lot of housing around there. There is some new development, particularly on the corner, on the north-east side, on Leytonstone Road and so on. It is a very useful location. It is slightly away from the town centre but it is an important area.

15455. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Thank you. I would like you to move on.

15456. MR POUT: Fine. It would similarly be helpful to have the diagram of Woolwich Station on the screen. (Same shown) Again, you have had a lot of arguments in favour of Woolwich Station.

15457. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: We have, I think, exhausted Woolwich Station. The Committee was vocal over Woolwich Station, as Mr Taylor and Ms Liven will remember. You can safely say what you have put in your arguments will be taken well on board by this Committee.

15458. MR POUT: Right. Bus interchange, crucially important and the benefits of the additional linkages. My colleague has also put in the notes about the growth and overcrowding in traffic on the existing North Kent line. If it is going to grow, then obviously we need to look at alternative capacity there.

15459. We are certainly aware of the fact that it is away from the existing station. The green square next to the existing Woolwich Arsenal Station is where most of the buses terminate, around that square, and it is ensuring that there are linkages between those buses and the new station, should it go ahead. I hope it will.

15460. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I think you can safely say Mr Taylor will have taken that well on board.

15461. MR POUT: We have made point 10 as an observation. We have not been part of the many people who have objected to that but have put it as an observation to ensure that the station design of Abbey Wood is such that it can be later extended.

15462. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I am sorry, we can take it as an observation but it is not within the auspices of the Bill. We work between the stations we have got.

15463. MR POUT: Even a full understanding of the layout of the station -----

15464. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I thought you meant an extension of the line. The station, of course we do. I am sorry; I thought you meant that you wanted it to go to Dover or somewhere.

15465. MR POUT: No. I have been told by a couple of local authority officers that they believe that there is design capability. Our concern is that that design capability is there for Abbey Wood, so that, at a future station, if additional works were required beyond Abbey Wood, then a T&W Act application can go in to extend the route beyond - as far as it need go: Dartford, Ebbsfleet or wherever.

15466. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: The observation is taken on board.

15467. MR POUT: Lastly we are concerned about the protection of local street trees and whether construction activities may affect trees in the vicinity and what mitigation is being taken to ensure that if trees are removed they are replaced, and to ensure that the take of mature trees is minimalised.

15468. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: In relation to Shenfield, we had great representation about trees. It did strike the Committee that it was pretty well answered by the Promoter, but, again, Mr Taylor will have taken that on board.

15469. MR POUT: Thank you, Mr Liddell Grainger.

15470. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Pout. Thank you for your briefing paper. It is A172.

15471. MR TAYLOR: Sir, I am not going to call any evidence but I will respond as briefly as I can, going through the headings that the Thames Gateway Forum have put in before the Committee in the document you have just referred to.

15472. In relation to consultation on the Whitechapels and Spitalfields area, we would agree with the Gateway Forum that the Crossrail team were somewhat taken aback by the hostile reception they got back in October 2004. It is difficult not to be somewhat taken aback when people are throwing biscuits at you!

15473. In relation to the concerns about the extent to which there has been consultation in that area, the Committee has already had a large amount of evidence on that. In particular, I would refer you to Day 1, paragraph 71 and following, where documents were referred to which examined the extent to which there had been penetration and knowledge about the project in that specific area, and to Mr Elvin's closing on Day 43, paragraph 11682 and following, on that specific issue.

15474. Turning to Hanbury Street, the Committee is of course aware that there is ongoing work in relation to the assessment of the environmental impacts of Hanbury Street. It is a matter on which further information is going to be provided. In relation to lorry movements, that will be included in that assessment. So far as the implications of traffic are concerned, it is proposed in the Crossrail Construction Code to produce traffic management plans, but there is a specific section, 4.5 in the Code, relating to street cleaning, and all reasonably practicable measures will be taken in that regard. So far as other impacts of construction, such as noise, the Committee is already well aware of the mitigation scheme proposed in information paper D9.

15475. I shall not say anything about Romford Depot. That is a matter that you will be hearing more or less about in relation to AP3.

15476. In relation to cycles and cyclists, the position has already been addressed in information paper E2, which the Committee has. I would refer the Committee to Section 4 of the information paper E2. "Crossrail will be consistent with the London Underground policy on cycle carriage" - because of course there is an interface between the two systems. Of course it is not possible to take cycles on the London Underground at the moment for obvious safety reasons, and similarly, in relation to Crossrail, where it is in the tunnelled section through the central section the same thing is proposed. Those who want to use Crossrail on the outer limbs will have to change their trains at stations before they get into the tunnelled section.

15477. So far as mobility access is concerned, that was addressed, as Mr Binley may have mentioned or whispered to you before, on Day 46, paragraph 13069, in some detail and I will not repeat the points that were pursued there.

15478. The Eleanor Street travellers' site is going to be a matter that is pursued through AP3.

15479. On Woolwich and the extension to Ebbsfleet, you have heard a great deal of evidence from us on that and I am not going to repeat it. You know very well what our position is in relation to those matters.

15480. So far as the protection of trees is concerned, I would say that trees will be adequately protected by the safeguards that are set out in the Construction Code. Section 10.4 is an entire section on the protection of trees and that makes it abundantly clear that protective measures will be taken in accordance with the relevant British standard to protect trees during the construction process.

15481. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I think it was also said in relation to Shenfield that there would be a policy of trying to replace trees where practically possible. Is that still the case?

15482. MR TAYLOR: That is still the case.

15483. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: You would be trying to replace like for like if possible on all sites.

15484. MR TAYLOR: Indeed.

15485. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Thank you very much, Mr Taylor. Mr Pout?

15486. MR POUT: Thank you very much indeed. That is very useful. There is one issue that I would therefore like to raise, if I may - and looking at the time, I realise it is pressing. It would be very helpful to have a few moments of examination of Mr Berryman to clarify a couple of issues around Maryland Station.

15487. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I am not sure we can do that because he has not been called as a witness by the Promoter. I suggest, Mr Pout, that you tell me, as the Chairman of the Committee what your feeling is. If we have to ask Mr Taylor just to have thoughts on it, then we shall do so. Would you like to fire away.

15488. MR POUT: Okay. Thank you very much. That is very useful guidance. The original Crossrail project of a decade or more ago included Maryland Station. At that stage, Crossrail was going to be designed to operate mega-length 12-car trains. The current scheme is for slightly shorter trains of ten carriages. Initially the proposal was not to incorporate Maryland at all, but, if there was a residual service during the peaks, these trains could stop at Maryland, but off-peak and at weekends probably others would not. I only identified that as a problem, because at that stage I said, "What trains are you going to use because the existing trains will be over 30 years old and you have a new fleet of Crossrail trains and if they have been sued even out of Liverpool Street you cannot stop them because they are too long."

15489. They came up with the idea of what is politely known as selective door opening, which means that you use an electronic or satellite system which says that you do not open the end-most doors of the outer coaches of each train, so that the existing platform length will accommodate those doors that are open. What I am wondering is why they made this decision to exclude Maryland this time - Maryland was considered so unimportant - but it had been included in the previous scheme, and some assurance that there will be a decent level of service to Maryland.

15490. At the present time the latest operator now actually ensures that all of their off-peak services stop there, whereas until a couple of years ago our old friends First Group did not stop their trains there. I think that is the issue around Maryland: to ensure that it is adequately serving that community and that its business will grow.

15491. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: This is a bit unconventional because you have gone slightly round the wrong way, it is 4.30 and the House has adjourned, but I am feeling very generous. Mr Taylor, would you like to address us?

15492. MR TAYLOR: I would. In fact, I intended to address this matter and skipped over that part of my notes, unintentionally. So if you will forgive me, and I am very grateful to Mr Pout for drawing it to the Committee's attention that I failed to deal with that matter. I think probably the best way is if I deal with it, and we will see whether that is satisfactory from Mr Pout's point of view.

15493. I am instructed that the earliest scheme in the early 1990s was a scheme not for 12-car trains, as Mr Pout suggested, but for 8-car trains. Eight-car trains can stop at Maryland without the need for any platforming. The current scheme before the Committee is a scheme for 10-car trains and the reason that Maryland was originally left out was because that would have required platform extension works which would have been very extensive because they would have affected a road bridge. So there was a disproportionate cost.

15494. The matter is being pursued by the London Borough of Newham, as the Committee may recall, and undertakings were given to them on Day 28, paragraph 7494. The position is that the undertaking provided is that trains will stop at Maryland because selective door opening will be used, but that is subject to the approval of the Railways Inspectorate.

15495. So far as the level of service is concerned, that is a matter on which we are continuing to discuss undertakings with the London Borough of Newham.

15496. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I look forward to hearing how those deliberations get on, especially as I certainly know all the interested parties. Once you have that information, Mr Taylor, would you let us know? Mr Pout?

15497. MR POUT: I think I would disagree with Mr Taylor ----

15498. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I am not having ping-pong played in this Committee.

15499. MR POUT: Twelve-car coaches - neither here nor there, but we will worry about that outside the room. I think that covers most of the issues we are concerned about, and obviously we are now being given regular updates from the team and if there are any other matters which come to our concern before this Committee concludes - may I ask how much longer you are likely to be ----

15500. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr Pout, no, you may not but thank you ----

15501. MR POUT: You are in the next session after the ----

15502. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Yes. I am so sorry, I thought you meant this evening (?). We are reconvening after the summer recess but I cannot tell you how long it will be after that because I do not know.

15503. MR POUT: That is fine, thank you.

15504. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Thank you very much, Mr Pout. The sitting is now suspended until ten o'clock tomorrow.