53

 

HOUSE OF COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

taken before the

COMMITTEE

on the

CROSSRAIL BILL

DAY FIFTY-THREE

Thursday 13 July 2006

Before:

Kelvin Hopkins

Mrs Siān C James

Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger

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.

15505. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: As usual, I inform the Committee that it is my intention to suspend the Committee at a convenient point after 11.30 so that the public can have the opportunity of tasting the House of Commons coffee in the upper hall way. I should also add that Commander Yates, who is in another Select Committee I am meant to be on today, may be joining us, having arrested Levy yesterday. We might have to adjourn to get our noble and learned friends across to the other side to help out! We have several petitioners today and I would ask them to be as concise as they can. Normal rules apply: I will stop you if there is any repetition.

 

The Petition of Hutchison Ports (UK) Limited (HPUK), the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Co, Harwich International Port Ltd and Maritime Transport Services Ltd.

 

MR TIM STRAKER QC appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.

 

HOWARD BASSFORD appeared as Agent.

15506. MS LIEVEN: May I make a very brief opening on these petitions. They all concern the ports on the east coast, known I think - although I am no port expert - as the Haven ports. On this plan, 012, which you saw before with Mr Watson, the freight routes which Mr Straker's clients are concerned with are coming from off the screen to the east, to the Haven ports, and coming down the Great Eastern Main Line to Shenfield and then beyond. I am going to call Mr Berryman to deal with this Petition and it will be his evidence that the impact of Crossrail on this particular freight route is really minimal to non-existent.

15507. If we could put up the next plan, 013 - and it is a little bit difficult to explain and Mr Berryman will do it infinitely better than I - the crude point is that freight on the Great Eastern, in the vast majority of cases, moves down the main lines. Crossrail, the Committee will remember, on the Great Eastern, is running down the electric or relief lines or slow lines. The important point to make right at the outset is that in terms of the freight traffic that Mr Straker's clients are concerned about, that is coming down the main lines and then, in order to get to the West Coast Main Line, turns off at Stratford on to the North London Line. The Committee will remember that there is an issue about a pinch point at Stratford/Forest Gate for freight, but that is not a pinch point which primarily concerns this freight route, because it is on the main line and does not have to cross the relief lines which Crossrail is on in order to get to the North London Line. Mr Berryman will tell you also about certain benefits to freight on this particular route from Crossrail, but I will leave that up to him.

15508. In terms of the specific point that these Petitioners are raising, we say that really the impact of Crossrail is very, very minimal, if at all, and then there are all the generic points, which the Committee has heard about at great length already, by which we rely on the fact that we are going to seek an access option and those matters. Also, sir, we rely on the general point that, to the degree that there are pinch points on the network for freight, they are not because of Crossrail. There are lots of problems on the British network for freight, but they are not caused by Crossrail and therefore they are not a matter for this Committee and they are not a matter for this Bill.

15509. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Is there any part of that line where Crossrail crosses the freight line?

15510. MS LIEVEN: No, sir.

15511. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Is there any reason that there will be - where the Crossrail trains will cross over the freight line?

15512. MS LIEVEN: No. I am glad you asked that question. I asked this morning for a plan that showed the answer to that question. I have not seen it yet, but the crucial point is that Shenfield is out here and the relief lines/the electric lines are to the north, and there is a bridge at Ilford. At Ilford, the Crossrail trains cross over the main lines and come to the south. There is no point where there is a crossing of the main lines and the relief lines on which Crossrail impacts because of that bridge.

15513. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: There is no reason a freight train should be slowed or in any way stopped because of a Crossrail train.

15514. MS LIEVEN: No. The only issue, sir - and I might as well front up to this now - is that you do get the occasional freight service on the electric lines and where there are those well known "perturbations" - in other words, there is a problem with the line: what we all know as delays but what in the industry are perturbations - the freight will, in those circumstances, sometimes come on to the electric lines. That is why we accept there is a minimal impact. But Mr Berryman will give evidence that that is balanced up with the fact that at Chadwell Heath we are providing a new loop for freight which is a clear benefit for freight. Yes, there is some minimal impact because of the small amount of freight that gets itself on to the electric lines, but that is balanced out by the benefit from Chadwell Heath. Overall, we say there is residually no impact or no detriment for this line of freight.

15515. Can I say, sir, to be absolutely clear, that there is a different issue about Thamesport's freight coming from Shellhaven and places like that. If one looks at this plan, they are coming up from the south-east, and their problem is that they have to get across these congested lines in order to get up onto the North London Line. There is a different issue for them, but Mr Straker is not representing those people.

15516. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Ms Lieven, I understand. Thank you very much.

15517. MR STRAKER: Sir, I will be calling two witnesses before the Committee in a moment. Before I do so, can I say that our understanding of the position as outlined a moment or two ago by Ms Lieven is to the contrary, in fact, of what she says - namely, that there will undoubtedly be places where Crossrail will impede freight trains - and so you will be hearing about that in a moment or two.

15518. It ought to be mentioned that it appears already to have been accepted before your Committee that Crossrail will make matters worse as far as freight trains are concerned. What I have to say at this stage is in very short compass, because what we have to say before the Committee depends upon a proposition which we would suggest is accepted in every sensible walk of life; namely, that when you are planning for something to happen, you take account of the circumstances as they will be when that thing happens. In other words, when you are planning for Crossrail, you consider what the circumstances will be when Crossrail is up and running. In that circumstance, you do not as a matter of fact, therefore, need to place particular weight on what the situation is going to be in 2004 or 2006, because that is not what Crossrail is going to affect.

15519. The approach which I have mentioned, which is merely common sense, is followed by the Government in its everyday consideration of development proposals. However, in the case of Crossrail, something rather different appears to have been done: when asking what will be the effect of Crossrail trains running on the limited tracks that we happen to have, what has been considered is the present level of railway use in particular, not the level of railway use when Crossrail comes into being.

15520. Sir, the ports which I represent find that particularly surprising in this respect. As you will hear in a moment or two, very substantial inquiries have been conducted in relation to both Felixstowe and into a prospective new container terminal, the Harwich International Container Terminal, which involves substantial work relating to railways which does not appear to have been taken into account in the exercise which Crossrail have undertaken, despite it being put before the Secretary of State and approved by him. We say, sir, there is in fact a double vice in the assessment of Crossrail trains in which they have been deficient - and you have had evidence about that already and it appears in large measure to be accepted - namely, that they have not taken certain matters into account. Furthermore, the assessment has been largely conducted for the wrong time, and, further, it ought to be noted that the exercise which has been undertaken does not appear to have taken into account, as far as a timetabling exercise is concerned, the users of the railways.

15521. One sees that the railway operating companies and the freight operating companies have been involved but that is not the same as asking those who use it - namely, in this instance, the ports - what the consequences are. The consequence which is apparent from the matters as presently supposed, is that Crossrail will bear to the ill upon the movement of freight. The movement of freight is in the national interest. The displacement of freight carries both environmental and economic consequences which ought to be recognised. We are saying that Crossrail is imposing, and undoubtedly imposing, a burden upon the railway network and that that burden ought to be met accordingly; because, if they are to have the benefit of the railway network, they ought properly to take the burden.

15522. Having said that, can I call Mr Harston before the Committee.

 

MR ANDREW HARSTON, Sworn

Examined by MR STRAKER

15523. MR STRAKER: There is a set of slides which we are going to show and to which Mr Harston will speak.

15524. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr Straker, the Committee does not seem to have a copy of this evidence.

15525. MR STRAKER: Sir, can we provide those as soon as may be. I am so sorry.

15526. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Thank you very much. The Committee number is A173.

15527. MR STRAKER: Thank you very much, sir. Mr Harston, introducing you to the Committee, you are Andrew Harston, Port Development Director for Hutchison Ports UK Ltd.

(Mr Harston) That is correct.

15528. We note from the first slide your responsibility for the development of new and existing HPUK ports. Could we go to slide 2, please, and could you help us about the first matter that you note there.

(Mr Harston) We are not a railway undertaking, we are a port undertaking, but we are an important generator of traffic that goes on to the railway network. In our current port operations at Felixstowe and Thamesport we generate significant numbers of daily trains that are carried by the main inter-modal operators, Freightliner, GB Rail Freight and EWS. The ports are vitally important rail users which provide cargo that travels to the whole of the national network.

15529. We will come to the figures in due course. We see on this slide your role in relation to Crossrail. We know there has been an environmental statement, were you consulted about that?

(Mr Harston) No, we were not.

15530. So far as rail operators and ports are concerned, have you had an opportunity to consider whether that is addressed in the environmental statement?

(Mr Harston) We have, and we have no comments, but it was not considered.

15531. What about your role in the Timetable Working Group, to which reference has been made?

(Mr Harston) Again, because we are a non-railway undertaking, we were not included.

15532. Did Crossrail meet you?

(Mr Harston) No, they did not.

15533. Can we then go to the next slide. On the top of this slide there is a quotation: "Ports are critical links in the logistics chain." Where does that come from?

(Mr Harston) It comes from the recently published Government document: Ports Policy Review.

15534. It is 2006, is it?

(Mr Harston) It is. It is very recent. It is within the last eight weeks.

15535. Help us with the figures we see on this slide, please.

(Mr Harston) With the exception of the last line, which is not included, they are all from another Government publication, the Department for Transport's Focus on Ports which was published earlier in the year. Really it is just to set the scene. "Ports are critical links in the logistics chain" is a handy strap line, but what does that mean? Trade contributes 30 per cent of gross domestic product in the country and, because we are an island (with the exception of the Channel Tunnel), 95 per cent of the UK trade by volume is transported by sea and moves through the nation's ports. We understand that represents 75 per cent by value of total UK trade and therefore around £330 billion worth of business. Importantly, from my perspective, 42 per cent of that volume - and we are talking here principally about the containerised and roll-on/roll-off goods - 42 per cent of the nation's volume, moves through ports which are operated by my company.

15536. That is a very large proportion of the UK container trade goes through HPUK ports. Do we see where those parts are on slide 4?

(Mr Harston) Yes. Our interests in the UK are in Felixstowe, which is the UK's principal deep sea container port, and we are also the owners and operators of Harwich International Port and Thamesport on the Isle of Grain in Kent - the three which you can see circled in the red circle.

15537. The penultimate bullet point identifies that there are two substantial new port projects. Are they the ones I have mentioned as Felixstowe and Harwich?

(Mr Harston) They are indeed, Mr Straker, and they were recently approved by the Secretaries of State and represent the two major new deep sea port schemes for the UK.

15538. If we go to slide 5, do we there see the situation as it is today, in 2006, where the trains get to, goods having come into Felixstowe?

(Mr Harston) Yes. That was really just to give the Committee a flavour of the national importance of Felixstowe, in that we are handling 24 trains each and every day of the week, Monday to Friday, and Saturday services in addition. This year we will move 369,000 containers to and from the port of Felixstowe by rail and that is approximately ten per cent more than we moved last year. It is very important in the overall mix of business that we handle and the service that our customers look for.

15539. Plainly there will be businesses which will depend upon the import and export via rail throughout the United Kingdom.

(Mr Harston) That is very much the case. You can see the very strong presence of the North West: Manchester, Liverpool and the Midlands in that context, but also Scotland and Wales.

 

15540. Then if we go to the next slide, please. We can see the Port of Felixstowe is identified and you recorded certain details about it, identifying that it is the fifth largest container port in Northern Europe. As a port does it compete with other ports in Northern Europe?

(Mr Harston) We do compete, particularly with the ports in Rotterdam and Antwerp who also are expanding very rapidly and are always looking to secure a greater share of UK trade.

15541. As far as generation of freight by rail is concerned, can you help the Committee as to the largest single generator of freight by rail in this country?

(Mr Harston) In terms of containerised trade, it is by far the port of Felixstowe.

15542. Then you record on those slides in detail about the volume. We can pass on to slide 7 where we see Felixstowe South reconfiguration. This provides for some additional, nearly a kilometre of quay?

(Mr Harston) Very much so.

15543. It increased the capacity to 5.29 million, and those are called 20 foot equivalent units. That is effectively half a container as we might recognise it, is it?

(Mr Harston) It is. If you look at the 40 foot containers that you see on the public highway, those are two TEUs - I am sure you have been burdened with lots of railway buzzwords but that is one of our industry terms. It is how we measure our throughput, 20 foot equivalent units.

15544. This records what happens by way of the application having been made, the inquiry beginning, planning permission coming to be granted and a resolution to make a Harbour Revision Order. The work is still to be undertaken, of course, physically to construct that?

(Mr Harston) Yes.

15545. That is recognised and permitted by the Secretary of State. If we go to the next slide, can you help us there, please, as to these quotations?

(Mr Harston) Yes, in the context of Felixstowe South because we are actually reconfiguring the existing port - that is why it is a "reconfiguration" rather than a "new development" - it was recognised by the first Secretary of State that the Felixstowe South reconfiguration would make a contribution to meeting an urgent and recognised national need, as the slide says; but, importantly, while achieving improved safety on the roads and increasing the share of goods by rail. Obviously the Secretary of State for Transport said there is a pressing need for additional deepwater container facilities in the UK and that Felixstowe South is suitable for meeting that need and would do so.

15546. You also record what the Secretary of State for Transport records, namely a pressing need for additional deepwater container handling facilities in the United Kingdom with Felixstowe being suitable for meeting that need and would do so and the source of the relevant decision letters?

(Mr Harston) Which is very recent - February 2006.

15547. MR STRAKER: Then if we go over to slide 9, please.

15548. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr Straker, you have made the point very eloquently. We know this is important and know you have done a lot of work. What I want to know is what you want us to do. We cannot give you an extra kilometre of landing space at Felixstowe. I am sure you have come to us with something to do with Crossrail. Perhaps we could move on.

15549. MR STRAKER: Most certainly, sir. Classification we just glance at slides 9 and 10. The particular reason why it is important to have that in mind is because the Secretary of State, in deciding to say "Yes, you can have your new container terminal at Bathside Bay", which is shown in slide 9 and then spoken to in slide 10, was because you were saying this is a matter of imperative reason of overriding public interest that it should be there, with the freight to go by rail, or a given proportion?

(Mr Harston) Yes.

15550. We then go to slide 11, and we see the rail performance in 2006. That identifies, does it, what is happening at the moment?

(Mr Harston) It does. Again, it is the figures we talked about - slightly over 24 trains at the moment but, importantly, 18 of those trains, or 36 paths daily, requiring the transit of the Great Eastern Maine Line, the railway works that we talked about earlier

15551. Thank you. Then if we go to slide 12, please. You will see the situation in 2014.

(Mr Harston) At that stage our forecasts, which are in the public domain, predict 30 train departures from Bathside Bay, and Felixstowe at that stage (because Bathside Bay, the first stage, will be developed) generates 677,000 containers annually; but again, importantly in the context of the debate here, 22 trains a day via the Great Eastern Main Line, or 44 paths.

15552. We can note, can we, that this was all agreed with the Strategic Rail Authority and the Highways Agency at the public inquiries?

(Mr Harston) It was indeed, at both public inquiries - Felixstowe South and for the Harwich International Container Terminal.

15553. The public inquiries have taken something in excess of six months?

(Mr Harston) That is correct.

15554. Then you have the position at slide 13 for Haven Ports rail requirements 2023. You have done on this slide a similar picture but of course with different numbers by this stage, where you are looking at 47 train departures from the Haven Ports each day in 2023?

(Mr Harston) That is correct. Again, this was our transport assessment, our own planning forecasts and the 15-year period that we considered in terms of traffic generation from our ports, and the impact that those volumes would have on the national network; but also the requirements of the Highways Agency and the Strategic Rail Authority to increase the modal share and get more goods on rail through Felixstowe and in turn, importantly, that would then take us in excess of a million containers annually moving by rail from the two developments; and, very importantly, 34 trains daily via the Great Eastern, or 68 paths.

15555. How did it come to pass that 2023 was looked at?

(Mr Harston) Because that was 15 years from the date of implementation of the works, which was the period we agreed to consider.

15556. Then you refer at slide 14 to a joint study/statement of common ground. Can you help us about this document, please?

(Mr Harston) I have got a copy here; it is not a document that we are intending to submit but it is publicly available on the planning inspectorate website. The joint study approach and statement of common ground was the way, through our own public inquiries, we approached the issue of future rail and road capacity. In terms of railways the joint study and the statement was produced in conjunction with the Strategic Rail Authority, Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Coastal District Council. The findings that came out of the joint study and the recommendations of works to be undertaken were verified by Network Rail and, importantly, the Strategic Access Planning Team, the SAP team, within that; and that the conclusions, very briefly stated there, were that the Great Eastern Main Line, in combination with the North London Line (and you have heard a lot about railways and roads, this is the M25 around London as far as our trains are concerned) can provide enough capacity for a 25 per cent share in the Felixstowe South only scenario, and that until 2017 there are enough paths.

15557. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr Straker, we understand; you have made your point; the Committee has got it. Can we move on? We are delighted about the roads in Suffolk but we want to know what you want us to do for you?

15558. MR STRAKER: Of course, sir. Can it just be noted there, that last point in evidence being given, that there is presently sufficient capacity which has been identified as present until 2017 as recorded there, and until 2018. Can we just glance through slide 15, because there we see what it was that HPUK actually did by way of works to the national railway network and how that was dealt with and has been reported to the Secretary of State, and similarly on slide 16. Slide 17 records the importance of non-displacement of rail traffic; and that is verified again in slides 18 and 19 and what actually happens. Then if we just go on to slide 20, please. We can see there the approach that was followed at HPUK public inquiries. The design year taken; committed developments must be included in assessment; wider impacts must be considered. Pausing there, for example Doncaster, how far do the works that you have been asked to undertake extend?

(Mr Harston) Doncaster, for instance, is approximately 180 miles from Felixstowe, and we are required to consider works and impacts through to what was termed the "South Yorkshire terminals" The impact of the Port of Felixstowe and Harwich developments, located as they are in Suffolk and Essex, were considered to have an effect as far afield as Selby, Doncaster and Leeds. We as Hutchison Ports were required to provide a solution; importantly to fund those works, which one of the earlier points on slide 15, I think, noted - that, Crossrail aside, I think we do probably represent the largest private sector investment in the railway network. My company will be paying something of the order of £75 million for railway works, for which it is very important that we secure this capacity to support our schemes, and for which my shareholders (like some of the other Petitioners that have been before you) are looking for the certainty and security, so that investment achieves the return it was designed to.

15559. Then we go to slide 21, please. Here we see the problem. Can you just take us through this, please?

(Mr Harston) Indeed, notwithstanding the points that were made at the opening today, I think Mr Watson's work of last week did identify that Crossrail worsens capacity on the Great Eastern by a further eight paths in 2015. From our point of view we do not believe that the forecasts we could have provided were taken account of in any shape or form, nor the statements that had been made previously by at least the Strategic Rail Authority with work provided by the SAP team which identified that our work had sufficient capacity until at least 2017. We do believe that Crossrail worsens the available rail capacity, specifically on the Great Eastern but, importantly, therefore on the route through the North London Line and connectivity for the rest of the country; that Crossrail did not consider committed, nationally important developments such as our own; and that there appears to be no certainty about the real impact of Crossrail specifically as far as our own freight impact on the network is concerned.

15560. Then we come to this solution as far as this matter is concerned. This is particularly "what we want to happen". Can you help us please on this solution, slide 22?

(Mr Harston) Yes, and I know that Mr Garratt is also going to comment on a number of these matters subsequently. Validation of the timetable study - and I think a point that has been made previously is the robustness of that timetable study; and, from our perspective, the inclusion of generators of rail traffic and, importantly, the ports in any of that work in validating the study, of identifying the real capacity that is available and then deciding how that can be used; and our track access option, with which we are also in negotiation with ORR and NR in the context of this, to secure capacity for HPUK ports. Very importantly, we cannot see how the traffic that today is able to traverse the Great Eastern Main Line will be catered for in the future without improvements to the Felixstowe to Nuneaton route; and the work that we have done with the SRA and subsequently with Network Rail including the studies and works we are currently involved with, with Network Rail, have identified solutions for HPUK's port traffic; but we want to see work done through the timetabling study to guarantee that their solutions are robust in light of the Crossrail proposal. That the improvements of the Felixstowe to Nuneaton route, much of which were undertaken ourselves between Felixstowe and Peterborough, but the further works then that go through to Nuneaton, would allow new port developments to continue to use rail. A benefit is that it will take freight away from London, particularly the aspirations of TFL that have been discussed; and benefits for passengers, residents and the environment -----

15561. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I cannot take that into consideration but it is nice to hear it. Thank you for doing the work but it is not relevant to us.

15562. MR STRAKER: Just so I have got that clear, that was the third bullet point?

15563. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Yes.

15564. MR STRAKER: Costs then.

(Mr Harston) In terms of the works on the Felixstowe to Nuneaton route, there have been many costs talked about over the last number of years, but we believe that a cost of the order of £48-50 million has been proposed for gauge clearing, which is to create track suitable for carrying 9'6" containers, which will be vitally important to allow that route to be used; but for a sum which in outside terms has been discussed as up to £400 million; that the route could be provided to create much more capacity to deal with many of the issues we considered in terms of a shortage of capacity which is exacerbated by Crossrail on the Great Eastern.

15565. Then the penultimate point touches upon the value if one has forced traffic from the rail onto the roads, which is then identified and work has been done. Then you record Crossrail cost, which is presently forecast?

(Mr Harston) Indeed.

15566. That all derives, does it, from the proposition that given the imposition of Crossrail trains onto the network the capacity to carry freight trains is reduced?

(Mr Harston) Yes, it is.

15567. Then if we go over the page, please, we have put in summary form and do not need to go through all these particular legal powers which are identified, but they enable Crossrail, so to speak, to secure its position on the railway, and to secure the necessary access for Crossrail?

(Mr Harston) Yes.

15568. Then if we go on to slide 24, we can see what the consequence of those particular provisions is. Can you help us on these matters, particularly the third matter, because you have identified the legal powers to enable Crossrail to seize rail capacity, and that therefore has a threatening effect on freight services to ports. No protection - can you help us as far as that matter is concerned?

(Mr Harston) HPUK, as an important generator of rail traffic, are not a railway undertaking; so it is our understanding that in terms of the provisions and the powers being sought, there is no protection for HPUK or other non-railway users. Yet we are very important in terms of the generational traffic, and the railways are extremely important to how we are able to perform our business. The difference I think between ourselves and freight operating companies is that our investments are fixed. When we make those investments we cannot pick them up and take them away. We are where we are by dint of our geography and the business that we operate, and that is very different from the freight operating companies who, ultimately, could actually provide traction to other businesses elsewhere in the country; but our location is fixed and our need for it is absolute.

15569. You touch upon access options, and the point you are there making is what?

(Mr Harston) In essence the access option powers that are being sought effectively give Crossrail still that ability to seize rail capacity which, in many respects, has the same effect as the powers that they are seeking under the Bill anyway

15570. Then we see the capacity cannot be solved by access options and the solution is Felixstowe to Nuneaton and the HPUK option. We put up again on slide 25 the solution which we have seen before?

(Mr Harston) Yes.

15571. MR STRAKER: It repeats those particular matters and secures that one should have study, the option and the improvements to the Felixstowe-Nuneaton line consequential upon -----

15572. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr Straker, we have had representation. Mr George very kindly brought this up before. I think you can safely say we are well aware of it.

15573. MR STRAKER: I am gratified to hear that, because plainly it is a matter of huge importance for the single most important generator of rail freight, and the capacity to carry should be present. That is all I wanted to ask Mr Harston by way of examination-in-chief, unless you want me to deal with any other particular matter at this moment?

15574. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: No. Thank you very much. Ms Lieven?

 

Cross-examined by MS LIEVEN

15575. MS LIEVEN: I have one question so the Committee understand what is going on. Could you look at your slide 16, which is page 17. This is work that you are being required to pay for under section 106 agreement, the planning agreement, consequential upon your two planning permissions extending Felixstowe and Bathside Bay?

(Mr Harston) That is correct.

15576. In the second bullet where you talk about W10 gauge clearance, cross country between Ipswich and Peterborough, that is the first part of what has become known in this hearing as Felixstowe to Nuneaton, is it not?

(Mr Harston) It is, yes.

15577. And so, as I understand it, you have been required by the Secretary of State, I think pursuant to an agreement largely between yourselves and the strategic rail authority as was, to pay for extensive work to allow your containers to use the cross-country route that goes Felixstowe, Peterborough and Nuneaton?

(Mr Harston) We have been required to do that but only following extensive study that identified with timetabling where the capacity requirements were in order to carry the traffic which we generate through our ports and then provide the necessary infrastructure throughout the national network to deal with that effect. Those were works that were identified to meet the model share that we had agreement with parties.

15578. I understand. You made reference to Doncaster. Perhaps not totally surprisingly, given this is a hearing on the Crossrail project, I cannot find a rail drawing that takes us to Doncaster in detail, but can we agree the reason you have been required to pay for works at Doncaster is because your containers are going on trains through that bit of the rail network at Doncaster?

(Mr Harston) Yes, that is correct.

15579. You are having a direct impact on the rail network at Doncaster?

(Mr Harston) Doncaster and many other parts of the rail network, but it was identified that the works at Doncaster were required because they did not come under any of the plans that were being pursued by Network Rail.

15580. One final question on a subject that the Committee know an awful lot about by now. Slide 24, exhibit 25, it is something I feel impelled to pick you up on, the fourth bullet point "Access options give exclusive rights to Crossrail". I must say that came as a massive surprise to us. Are you saying that Crossrail is seeking exclusive rights on the Great Eastern through the access option? That is certainly not our understanding of what we are doing.

(Mr Harston) Exclusive rights to the access options you were seeking.

15581. Exactly in the same way that any train operator who seeks an access option gets exclusive rights to their own access option?

(Mr Harston) I cannot argue with that, but the points I have seen made in the transcripts is that standing on its own, that is fine, but with the powers currently sought under the Bill there is no certainty that the access option will only relate to those tracks.

15582. The point in that bullet point is not really about the access option, it is about the railway clauses in the Bill, is that fair?

(Mr Harston) It has the same effect as powers.

15583. MS LIEVEN: Thank you very much.

15584. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr Straker, anything else?

Re-examined by MR STRAKER

15585. MR STRAKER: Can I ask this, you were asked about questions that touched on Doncaster and the fact that trains go through Doncaster. Help the Committee, please, in this way, as far as trains from the Haven ports going anywhere throughout the United Kingdom is concerned, do they travel through London?

(Mr Harston) I think it is a very important point, Mr Straker, and the reason that we are undertaking the works or are required to undertake the works between Felixstowe and Peterborough is the timetabling work and the capacity work, which we undertook with the strategic rail authority and the Network Rail Strategic Access Planning team verified, validated and the agreed the number of paths that are available to us, is because ordinarily that traffic would do the same as road traffic, it would go via the north London lines and up the west coast mainline or the east coast mainline to be distributed nationally. Having identified the number of paths that are available on those routes, it was identified that there would be a shortfall and that shortfall could be met by carrying out the works across country so the east coast mainline could be joined at Peterborough and effectively create a bypass for the north London line, but that was on the basis of the capacity being made available to us, from which Crossrail undoubtedly takes away a significant part of that capacity.

15586. MR STRAKER: With Crossrail taking away that capacity, what difference is there between the situation which confronted you at Harwich and Felixstowe in terms of the trains on the line crossing through London and Crossrail deflecting trains from London?

(Mr Harston) I do not think there is any difference.

15587. MR STRAKER: Thank you very much, sir. That is all I want to ask by way of re-examination.

15588. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr Harston, please stand down.

 

The witness withdrew

15589. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I think you have a second witness?

15590. MR STRAKER: Yes, that is correct, sir. The second witness, sir, I think has already at least started in another context to give evidence to your Committee. Mr Mike Garratt.

MR MIKE GARRATT, Sworn

Examined by MR STRAKER

15591. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: If I may make a point to Mr Straker and Ms Lieven, I think Doncaster and Nuneaton can stay off the menu for the rest of the afternoon. I think the point has been well made in three days. We accept the points. There is nothing we can do. The point is understood.

15592. MR STRAKER: I am very grateful, sir, for that indication. The essential point we very much want the Committee to have in mind is that the consequences of putting something into a railway network are felt beyond the need of the present.

15593. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: The Committee has already accepted that. Thank you very much.

15594. MR STRAKER: Can I then simply reintroduce Mr Garratt to the Committee. Mr Mike Garratt, you are the managing director of MSD Transmodel and you, likewise, have produced some slides and, once again, I suspect, sir, you will have the slides as soon as may be. You record your experience. We can pass on to slide two the questions which you were asked and we can deal with that, I suspect, at pace because you were asked questions to help, we trust, the Committee in its consideration of this matter. Can we then look at slide three, please, or number three. You here identify, do you, what happens when one decides whether or not to grant permission or planning permission?

(Mr Garratt) That is so.

15595. A route and looking ahead rather than the situation as it is currently. If we go to slide four, please. What will things be like when the development is operating? Has Crossrail asked that question?

(Mr Garratt) In this context it appears not, no.

15596. Slide five and I take this quickly, sir, with your leave, you record the growth in port container traffic with the need to accommodate that and figure one continuing gives the container volumes once again in TEU 20-foot equivalent units up to 2020. You have done in a forecast of train movements, figure two, for Felixstowe. Bathside Bay, sir, is also known as "Harwich International Container Port".

15597. Let us look at figure three, please. I want your help, Mr Garratt, about this one. If we look at all rail freight in 2005, we have got something in the order of 20 million tons?

(Mr Garratt) That is correct. What this slide is attempting to show is there are currently about 20 million tons of rail freight in, at and through London of which about half, ten million, pass through. Of those ten million tons passing through, the majority, 5.7 million tons, is contained traffic and, therefore, in the long run and is available to bypass if you like. They do not necessarily have to be there.

15598. Ten million tons passing through London with the capacity, therefore, to be affected by other trains within London?

(Mr Garratt) That is correct.

15599. Then we have the Haven port rail traffic, please, which records where that goes and one can take this, I suspect, to some degree of speed as well. That records where it comes from and what is presently the position. We get to slide seven, please, where you have recorded certain rail volumes going through Forest Gate?

(Mr Garratt) Yes, if I can make a small correction here. The first bullet should read "27 paths in each direction on the Great Eastern through Shenfield to accommodate up to 24 trains in each direction".

15600. Your 24 paths available, is that something which stands?

(Mr Garratt) No, the next bullet stands. The path exercise, which I am about to describe, describes 14 paths available from Haven on the great eastern line and these were identified in a separate exercise by Network Rail last year. That is shown in the footnote at the bottom of the slide.

15601. The Network Rail report, and that is also known by some other name, is it?

(Mr Garratt) It has been done by the SAP team, the Strategic Access Planning team.

15602. Very well. That enables one to identify what the volumes are and then you come, please, to slide eight and we should take this slightly more slowly, I suspect. Principal rail logistics issues, you identify the principal bottleneck at Forest Gate with most westbound freight trains heading for the west coast mainline at Willesden?

(Mr Garratt) That is correct. I think this has been well discussed already before the Committee, but to make a point that was made earlier today. There is, I would argue, interaction between the Crossrail tracks between Forest Gate and Stratford in a way that does affect traffic from the ports.

15603. Ms Lieven said, when she made her opening remarks, that Crossrail were not going to interfere with freight trains or at least freight trains from the Haven ports here or hereabouts. Can you help the Committee as to what the true position is there?

(Mr Garratt) It surprised me, so I had to think about this quite quickly. First of all, there are freight trains on the central electric tracks, the slow tracks, and the slide coming up in a little while coincidentally describes that. Secondly, there is bound to be interaction between the freight trains running through the Haven ports and those coming from the Thameside ports simply because the more passenger trains that are on the slow tracks, the harder it will be for trains to run through the Barking line and find gaps and in such a way that will reduce flexibility, it is bound to have an impact on the Haven port traffic. It seems to me, this has already been demonstrated by the Timetable Working Group committee report. That is why I am surprised to hear that comment this morning. On page 23, I think it is of that report, there is a table which has been quoted a few times. I have to say I am quite critical of the methodology that was used to arrive at this table. On page 23 of that report, it distinguishes between the routes via Shenfield and the routes via Barking and it shows, as has been said several times, a worsening, if we look at it as a consequence of Crossrail. If we look at the two top parts of that table and looking at the figure in the final column, we see a shortfall of -8 without Crossrail and -16 with Crossrail which seems to suggest that on the evidence from the Timetable Working Group committee there is an impact. Eight paths in one direction is quite serious given the evidence Andrew Harston just gave. What was being looked for was 11 or 12 extra paths as a consequence of the Haven port development, eight is a big number.

15604. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr Garratt, can I cut in just a second. I do not know if you have seen the transcripts of the last few days; we have had an awful lot of timetabling problems. The Promoters are going to come back as quickly as they can with the timetabling situations and we know that as a committee because we are confused as well. What I would like you to do is to allow the Committee to come back, and then come back to us if you feel you want to. Things may change. You obviously have not heard that.

(Mr Garratt) I have heard that and I appreciate that. I can only answer the questions.

15605. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I accept that. What we will do now is to move on because I want to see what they come back with as much as you do because we are confused as well, so do not worry. We are both trying to find out exactly what the future would be. Is that okay?

15606. MR STRAKER: That is perfectly acceptable, sir, because we would very much like to. I hope the request is related to us as well as Mr Garratt. We would very much like the opportunity.

15607. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: It extends to all.

15608. MR STRAKER: I am much obliged, sir, because it is of such a critical matter, the question of timetabling, which so far, as I have said, we have not played a part. Could I, with that in mind, move on and we can pass over, therefore, what is called figure four, "The quail map of Forest Gate and Stratford area" which reveals the multiplicity of tracks and the scope for one train to impede another. We can note at your slide nine, please, Mr Garratt, we have got the railway capacity which was agreed in sense?

(Mr Garratt) That is correct.

15609. And then the pathing exercise which was done in relation to that figure five, I suspect I can pass over much of this in the light of what you have said, sir, at pace because that bears upon the timetabling questions. Would that be right Mr Garratt?

(Mr Garratt) If I can make just one very short point which I think is relevant and that is to draw attention to the exercise of the Hutchison Commission last year from Network Rail which, to Network Rail's satisfaction, showed that the available paths were there and that needs to be taken into account.

15610. Thank you very much. Passing in the light of what Mr Liddell‑Grainger has very kindly said, passing over that and the opportunity to come back, we can mention, I suspect, for the purpose of the exposition of figure six, which deals the container trains per day without the Haven ports, where you are looking at that and showing the works which are being done and recording the sufficiency of paths available via London at present?

(Mr Garratt) That is correct.

15611. And then you have done a series of figures which I am simply going to ask to be flicked through, if I may, 7, 8, 9 and 10 which demonstrate the character of the work done and how the paths have become loaded in consequence of the increased use of the railway, is that right?

(Mr Garratt) That is correct and the Committee has seen similar points before.

15612. Can we then pass over number ten, which deals with a timetabling point, and we pass over 11 and go to figure 11, please, where you have shown in graphic form the problem of Shenfield and Stratford because of the multiplicity of trains trying to work their way through.

(Mr Garratt) What I was trying to do in this apparently very complicated graph is to illustrate a relatively simple principle and it again seems like a criticism of the Timetable Working Group committee work. The exercise which we just had on the screen there, the page 23 exercise, was only looking at Shenfield to Stratford and we plotted on the existing working timetable in a pale blue line what the extra paths identified. I am trying to illustrate here the weakness of an approach like that, because there is no confidence or surety that the train could reach there. I show with the blue dotted line that, in fact, the other trains would squeeze that train out before it even arrived there. It is really important to do a timetabling exercise from origin to investigation, otherwise we would not be able to.

15613. We can pass from that then. That was figure 11. You then mentioned the Transport for London's plans which I know have already been spoken to before the Committee. These bear upon the North London Line where Transport for London obviously want to increase substantially the amount of passenger trains. We then, I suspect, go to slide 13 where you record what is happening on the Crossrail scheme and certain matters of accommodation. Can we simply note here the third bullet point: "Crossrail accommodates merely rail freight volumes - 'Train plans...are being prepared on the basis that...freight services will continue to operate at broadly existing levels'".

(Mr Garratt) That is right. That is the fundamental problem we have with these paths.

15614. Then 14 deals with the timetable which I leave over, and 15 touches upon the impact of Crossrail and can we just look at that for a moment please, where you describe it and perhaps you can take us through these points.

(Mr Garratt) This is really, as I think the Committee are now aware, that the impact of the Crossrail services is to reduce the gaps available between passenger trains in the Forest Gate area and making crossing movements that much more difficult, reducing flexibility and reducing capacity. I am aware that the TfL plans were discussed yesterday. It seems to me most important that these are seen together with the Crossrail plans and indeed, as they precede Crossrail, they should be taken in a sequential fashion in the timetabling evaluation.

15615. Then 16 please, the solution of the cross-country route. Can you help us with this slide please.

(Mr Garratt) Not wishing to bore the Committee further, but this seems to be the obvious solution. The decision by the Government to grant consent to the Haven port development on grounds of overriding interest was, I think, very important in the context and I think the Crossrail plans threaten to confound that, and the impact of Crossrail can be readily overcome by removing that through-London traffic, which I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, to the cross-country route.

15616. Then I can take you, I think, to the solution on 17 which you record of Felixstowe to Nuneaton and we can just glance at that, and you record at 18 the benefits of that. Then we get, do we, at 19 the summary in relation to your material where we see the offer to plan only to cater for existing rail freight and you spell out the situation there?

(Mr Garratt) That is right. Even that may not be deliverable as a consequence of the TfL plans.

15617. Thank you very much. Sir, I can leave those matters there. I have dealt with that, I confess, apace in the light of your observation and I hope that was all right.

15618. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I would just say, Mr Straker, that if I had seen anything, I would have stopped you.

15619. MR STRAKER: I am very much obliged, sir. Therefore, on that basis, sir, we would very much like to come back on the timetable matter, as you have indicated, and we would like actually HPUK to be on the Timetable Working Group.

15620. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: If there is a case for you to come back, we will look at it and have a think about it, but it will be for us to decide.

15621. MR STRAKER: Yes, of course, sir.

15622. MS LIEVEN: I think, sir, before I cross-examine, it may be just important to clarify this a tiny bit. What we are intending to do is write to the Committee explaining where we have got to on timetabling and something about the conclusions that are reached and how they are going to be handled from here on. We do have a desire to bring this Committee to a halt one day and not to keep coming back on issues because there is quite a long shopping list by now of people who are coming back generally wholly appropriately, but we would not want to raise the expectation that everybody who is concerned about freight and timetabling, which is in truth all the Petitioners in this two-week slot, are going to get some other slot by which we will call evidence on timetabling and they will come back and make their case again. We are going to write to the Committee in the terms discussed yesterday. I hope that is acceptable, sir.

15623. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I totally accept that.

15624. MS LIEVEN: I think Mr Straker may have expectations which we were not intending to meet, unless the Committee directly instructed us to.

15625. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: We will wait until you come back to us, Ms Lieven. As you are well aware, by the end of the year it will not be our problem, but the House of Lords', so Mr Straker may get a second bite of the cherry.

15626. MS LIEVEN: He will undoubtedly get a second bite of the cherry in the House of Lords and about that there is no issue.

15627. MR STRAKER: Sir, I am more than happy obviously to be entirely in your hands about this matter. The point I do make, if I may, and emphasise is the single importance of Hutchison Ports in connection with this given the volume of material actually carried and, sir, in that regard we stand differently maybe from others as to our need to be involved, at the very least, in the working of the Timetable Working Group because one of the deficiencies, it may well be thought, is the inadequacy of those who have presently been involved in terms of the list of those involved.

15628. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I think your learned colleague Mr George made that very clear.

15629. MR STRAKER: I am sure he did, sir. He makes matters very clear.

15630. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Ms Lieven?

 

Cross-examined by MS LIEVEN

15631. MS LIEVEN: There is just one thing I want to ask you, Mr Garratt, because as I have, I think, said on a number of occasions, you are coming back on Tuesday to have the pleasure of locking horns with Mr Elvin on some of these matters and I will not, therefore, engage. There is just one thing which is very specific about the Haven ports on your exhibits which I wanted to ask about. Could we put up exhibit page 11 of your exhibits. I do not have the slide numbers, I am afraid. You refer at the second bullet point to the point that the pathing exercise identifies 14 further paths available from Haven to the West Coast Main Line. Do you see that?

(Mr Garratt) I do.

15632. And that is coming down the Great Eastern and then getting on to the North London and then skipping round to the West Coast Main Line.

(Mr Garratt) Yes.

15633. How many of those paths are on the electric lines during the day? Just so the Committee understand the question ----

(Mr Garratt) I understand the question, but ----

15634. Well, you may, but the Committee may possibly understand less. The point I am trying to get at is to establish how many of those paths are affected by Crossrail because a large proportion of freight paths are generally at night and the vast majority of freight paths on this route coming in from Shenfield are, as I have already said, on the main lines and not the lines being used by Crossrail, so I just wanted to know whether you knew the answer to that, Mr Garratt.

(Mr Garratt) I can provide the answer, I have it in front of me, so perhaps people would care to wait for a couple of minutes while I check that.

15635. I am quite happy for you to come back to us informally and then Mr Elvin can come back to this on Tuesday if he wants to.

(Mr Garratt) Yes, okay, but can I just make another point which is that I am not sure I agree with the statement you made that there is no interaction between the services from the Haven ports and the electric lines. You made that point in opening this morning and I am not sure I agree.

15636. I do not think I said there was no interaction, and Mr Berryman will give evidence on that in a minute. Could we put up Mr Watson's exhibit page 31 which we saw before. As far as the trains from the Haven ports are concerned, coming in from the east, they are coming in on a two-track line as far as somewhere just a bit east of Shenfield, yes?

(Mr Garratt) They are.

15637. There are very significant constraints, are there not, on how much more freight you can get coming down the line before you ever get to Shenfield?

(Mr Garratt) Yes, there is an issue here. They are sharing tracks with the passenger trains, without question, and there certainly is a limit. That limit is dictated by the speed and the stopping patterns of those passenger trains. We saw only in the last few days how that sort of relationship can be changed. On July 7, so only a few days ago, Network Rail produced a conclusion, if you like, on their East Coast Main Line reanalysis of the timetable at the ORR's instruction and found an extra ten paths a day per direction specifically because precise timings had been adjusted with the co-operation of other train operators once it was taken that maximising capacity was the prime objective, so these are not absolutes and there is definitely an opportunity here to make some changes. I personally think that until that sort of exercise has been done on the Great Eastern, we cannot really have a proper baseline from which to start arriving at different conclusions. We are all the time making and amending, if you like, but yes, I would be happy to agree with your point.

15638. MS LIEVEN: Thank you very much. That is all, sir.

15639. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr Straker, that evidence is A174. (The same marked).

15640. MR STRAKER: Thank you, sir. That is all I wanted to call by way of evidence.

15641. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr Garratt, you may stand down.

 

The witness withdrew

15642.
MS LIEVEN: Sir, can I call Mr Berryman.

 

MR KEITH BERRYMAN, recalled

Examined by MS LIEVEN

15643. MS LIEVEN: Mr Berryman, you are well known to the Committee. Can you just start by explaining the general approach of Crossrail to this issue of pinchpoints on the network for freight?

(Mr Berryman) I think anybody who starts looking at freight capacity in the UK generally will quickly recognise that there are a number of serious pinchpoints and they are scattered in various parts of the country. Lord Berkeley was sitting in here a few moments ago, he has left now unfortunately, but if he was still here he could give you a list as long as your arm of pinchpoints which exist for freight. In London there are several, some of which you have heard about in evidence already. This was recognised when we first started planning the Crossrail project and it I mentioned in the London East-West Study Report which formed the basis of the scheme going forward. The scheme based on the premise that there should be no worsening of the present position as a result of Crossrail. In other words, the present capacity plus existing growth capacity should be provided for by the scheme. The design is based on that starting point.

15644. Then if we take that down to the next level of specificity, how does the situation differ between the Great Eastern and the Great Western?

(Mr Berryman) There are several differences in what is going on here and there are two main areas which we focused on dealing with freight in the design of the scheme. The first thing on the Great Eastern was to make sure that capacity for container traffic coming from the east coast ports is maintained at the level now plus maintaining the existing potential for growth, and that is very significant traffic and very important to the country, as I think you have heard already. The other thing was to maintain capacity and also the freight terminals on the Great Western where the issues are very different. It might be worth just talking about the issue of organic growth here and non-organic growth. On the Great Eastern we were and are aware that there are a number of port developments which have taken place which will lead to step changes in the amount of containers being shipped through this route, whereas on the Great Western we expect the pattern of freight to more or less as it is. It may wax and wane as the economy changes and goes up and down, but we do not see any big step changes coming which would have a sudden impact on the level of freight on that side. What we can do in providing the Crossrail infrastructure is to provide the capacity for developments which would not have been there absent Crossrail. In other words, if something could not be done before Crossrail was built, we are not able to provide the capacity to do those things as part of the Crossrail scheme. This was recognised again in the London East-West Study by suggesting various upgrades which should take place. One of these is the Gospel Oak-Barking line which we have heard a lot about which I think is generally agreed between all parties in the rail industry, including Network Rail, that this needs to be upgraded, but this does not need powers, it does not need a Bill or even a transport Works Order. It is an existing line, so all it needs is to be made to work properly and that will be taken care of by other industry processes, for example, the Transport Innovation Fund where a decision has recently been announced that this scheme will be shortlisted for improvement.

15645. I think the last point on the generality, before we come to the issue of Forest Gate, is just on timetabling. Does it make sense to be going down the line being suggested by this Petitioner and others to timetable in detail for ten or 15 years in advance?

(Mr Berryman) I does not, and I can give you a couple of examples. My wife, Mrs Berryman, is woken every morning at 2.30am by a freight train which comes into Luton. That is a freight train which is delivering aggregate and stone for the widening of the M1 motorway. That traffic did not exist ten years ago and there would have been no way anybody writing the timetable ten years ago could have forecasted that that traffic would exist. Traffic, as we have heard, on the freight trains runs when there are loads available and it does not just run willy-nilly. If I take another less happy example, although Mrs Berryman being woken up at 2.30 in the morning is not very happy, but anyone planning the timetable ten years ago would have included Post Office traffic in the timetable, and that traffic has been lost to rail. Therefore, freight traffic goes up and down according to the economy and according to the vagaries of the business climate. What we can take into account, and what we have tried to take into account are the, if you like, overall trains, so if you take the evidence given by the aggregates industry gentleman yesterday, he is forecasting a growth in the rise of aggregates and yes, we can take that into account, but not the exact terminals to which it will go. Similarly, with containers, we can take an overall view that container traffic will grow and we are prepared to accept that, but we cannot design the timetable to the minute detail which would ultimately be needed.

15646. Can we move from there to the very specific point at what has become the Forest Gate pinchpoint, and I am sorry, sir, to have to trouble you with this drawing, but, Mr Berryman, can you explain what this shows.

(Mr Berryman) Yes, the top drawing here (indicating) shows the layout as it now is.

15647. Just orientate us a little, would you?

(Mr Berryman) This is Stratford (indicating) and this is the route towards London (indicating) and this is the route towards Shenfield (indicating). The bottom diagram shows what will happen. Now, the interesting thing here is that it shows the lines which will be used by Crossrail marked in red and you can see that the electric lines, which are on the north side of the layout here (indicating), cross over by a flyover and are now on the south side. This is where the conflicting movement we have heard so much about takes place on the Forest Gate junction just here (indicating). A train coming down the main line, and most of the freight trains on this route do come down the main line and we only think there are about six or eight a day which use the relief lines, but coming down this line here (indicating), if it has to be held for any reason, it has to be put away in a loop which runs round the back here (indicating) and it waits then for another train to overtake it. When that train comes out of the loop, instead of going back on to the main lines, which are the lines it wants to be on, it goes on to the electric lines and it then has to make that crossing movement at Forest Gate which the trains coming from Barking have to make. If we could look at the layout that we have proposed to build further out, you can see that this is Shenfield (indicating) and this is the route going out towards Ipswich (indicating) and in this area here (indicating) in the Chadwell Heath area, it is proposed to provide a loop. These are the fast lines, these are the main lines which freight trains use, so as the train is put away to allow another train to pass, when it comes back, it comes back on to the main lines, so avoids that complicated crossing movement which we have heard so much about. We would say that this increases capacity on the main lines compared to what is there now. Moreover, even because Crossrail trains are using the electric lines, the limited number of freight trains which do use those electric lines, which are in a form of looping out, a form of putting them away so that other trains can overtake them, they can still continue to do that after the Crossrail scheme is built. Is that making sense?

15648. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Yes.

15649. MS LIEVEN: It is a pity Mr Hopkins is not here or we could get into the detail! Mr Berryman, I think that is everything I have to ask you. Thank you very much.

 

Cross-examined by MR STRAKER

15650. MR STRAKER: Can I just ask you a few questions, Mr Berryman, please and, first, this: it is right, is it not, that on any account Crossrail will worsen capacity for the ability to carry freight east of London?

(Mr Berryman) It will certainly have some impact on freight which is going off towards Barking. I would not think it would have any impact on freight which is going out towards the Haven ports.

15651. The timetable study records, does it not, that the position is going to be made worse by Crossrail?

(Mr Berryman) Primarily because of the reason I have just mentioned.

15652. So Crossrail will make matters worse and making matters worse, Mr Berryman, means, does it not, that some trains which otherwise would have been able to go and carry freight will not be able to go?

(Mr Berryman) Yes, if nothing else changes, yes.

15653. So somebody will be losing the benefit of capacity which would otherwise be available by the worsening which occurs?

(Mr Berryman) Yes ----

15654. And at the moment, Mr Berryman, the position is one, is it not - I am sorry?

(Mr Berryman) I had not quite finished.

15655. I do beg your pardon.

(Mr Berryman) The position at the moment is that, even with Crossrail, significant growth can be allowed for, but it is insufficient to allow for the growth which is forecast not from your clients' ports, but from the Tilbury and Thameside ports. As I have already explained in my evidence, that has long been recognised by everyone in the rail industry and there are rail industry procedures for dealing with that problem and, as mentioned earlier on, the TIF process is part of that process.

15656. If we can just travel back for a moment, Crossrail making matters worse, as we have seen, loses the ability for somebody to run a train which otherwise would be run.

(Mr Berryman) For somebody, but not for your clients. From your clients' perspective, the matter is not made any worse and it remains exactly as it is now.

15657. We can come to that if needs be and it may be that the matter finds expression in the timetabling work, but, as far as the situation which we have just described is concerned, Crossrail making matters worse and displacing someone who would otherwise be on the railway, there is no present proposal, is there, that if that benefit of capacity is lost that Crossrail is going to mitigate that loss of capacity?

(Mr Berryman) Crossrail is part of the whole railway industry. It is not something which stands in isolation. We have a Secretary of State for Transport who is responsible for judging and making decisions about these points. If the whole rail network did not change and the conflicts were introduced at Forest Gate, yes, there would be some worsening, but that is not something which I think the Secretary of State or the Department for Transport would just leave to lie.

15658. Am I right, Mr Berryman, that if someone is driven off the railway in consequence of the worsening which is agreed would occur, there is no present proposal by Crossrail to mitigate that effect, is there?

(Mr Berryman) No. That is not what Crossrail is about.

15659. Then, as far as my clients are concerned, you will have seen, will you not, that there were substantial inquiries which took place both into Felixstowe and into Harwich International Container Terminal?

(Mr Berryman) Yes.

15660. And you will have seen, will you not, that substantial work took place at those inquiries and before those inquiries into railway capacity?

(Mr Berryman) Yes, I am aware of that.

15661. It is right, is it not, that that position which was adopted at the inquiries finds expression in the decisions of the Secretary of State?

(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is correct.

15662. It is right, is it not, that those decisions and the work which was done led to the conclusion that there was capacity for that which was proposed at Bathside Bay, Harwich and Felixstowe?

(Mr Berryman) Yes, I would not disagree with that. Our contention would be that that capacity still exists and we are not affecting it.

15663. Am I right in supposing that that statement of common ground which was made at the inquiry was not, and has not, been taken into account by Crossrail in its work so far?

(Mr Berryman) No, you are completely wrong in saying that. As I have said several times already, our intention is to maintain the existing capacity on the Great Eastern for trains coming down from the Harwich direction. The whole design of the scheme is based on doing that.

15664. Am I right in supposing that, having recognised that work and taken account of that work, the position was adopted that if Hutchison Ports impact upon the capacity of the railway, they were going to pay for that?

(Mr Berryman) No, I do not quite see what that has got to do with this at all. We are suggesting to you, in fact I am telling you, that the design of the scheme is such that it will not have any impact on the trains coming from that direction.

15665. My question was directed towards your understanding of the position that Hutchison, Bathside Bay and Felixstowe, that if they had impacted upon the capacity of the railway network, Hutchison Ports were being made to pay for that impact on capacity. That is right, is it not?

(Mr Berryman) I assume that is through the planning process, through a Section 106 agreement.

15666. Yes. You have studied the material, have you, Mr Berryman?

(Mr Berryman) I regret to say, I have not studied the actual Section 106, but I am aware of its existence.

15667. Why, can you tell the Committee please, should Crossrail stand in a different position from Hutchison? If Crossrail cause a loss of capacity, why should they not meet the burden which they have created?

(Mr Berryman) It is an academic question because Crossrail will not cause a loss of capacity on this route, as I keep saying.

15668. And that is going to be established, is it not, at least in part, by timetabling work to come?

(Mr Berryman) I think that has been established as far as this route is concerned. There are a whole range of other issues about what happens on the North London Line, what happens on other parts of the network which affect the pathing of trains from your clients' ports to their destinations. All we are saying is that the works which are being done for Crossrail will not affect those paths and those paths will be provided just as if Crossrail had never happened. All the other issues about what happens on the North London Line and all that sort of thing are completely irrelevant to this scheme and that has to be sorted out separately as part of that scheme. All we are doing is providing infrastructure which would allow your clients' trains to run exactly as they do now.

15669. Mr Berryman, can we just get this right please: that the position so far as far as Crossrail is concerned is that some timetabling work has taken place?

(Mr Berryman) Yes.

15670. And further timetable work is going to take place?

(Mr Berryman) Yes, of course.

15671. One does not need to explore before this Committee why that is so.

(Mr Berryman) Well, I can tell you that the timetable work will probably be a continuous piece of work which goes on until the railway opens because that is the nature of railway planning.

15672. Well, the timetable work, at least in part, is going to reveal, is it not, what the situation is as far as capacity is concerned?

(Mr Berryman) Yes.

15673. So it is impossible for you to say, is it not, that you do not bear upon the potential capacity of the railway to take freight traffic from the Haven?

(Mr Berryman) No, it is perfectly possible for us to say that because we are providing exactly the same capacity as is there now. We are taking nothing away from those routes coming in from the Haven. If you were arguing for another client about Tilbury and those lines, then that would be a different argument, but for the purposes of what your clients want to do, we are not having any impact at all.

15674. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr Straker, it is 11.30 and coffee time, so I suspend the sitting for 15 minutes.

 

After a short break

 

15675. MR STRAKER: Mr Berryman, I wonder whether you could look at, and we could have put on the screen, slide 13 from Mr Garratt's evidence just given. This is in the context of your consideration of rail freight volumes. There we see the third bullet point which cross-refers to an information paper produced by Crossrail - do you see that - E6?

(Mr Berryman) Yes.

15676. "Crossrail accommodates merely existing rail freight volumes", and then there is a quotation from the Crossrail information paper, is there not? You see that?

(Mr Berryman) Yes.

15677. How it refers to, "...on the basis that freight services will continue to operate at broadly existing levels". Yes?

(Mr Berryman) It says that train paths are being compared on that basis. That was the initial stab at a train plan. Of course you have to start with something which exists. As you know from the Timetable Working Group, a lot of work is done beyond that.

15678. And there is a lot of work still to be done.

(Mr Berryman) I would not deny that for a second.

15679. So we see there that it is right, is it not, that you have not thought about what is going to happen as per the decisions which have been made for Bathside Bay, Harwich International Container Terminal and Felixstowe?

(Mr Berryman) No, it is wrong to say that. We have actually, as I think you will know already, looked at freight growth which will happen over the period for which we have information available and we have worked out the standard hours for those flows. For the reasons that I gave earlier, it is impossible to do a detailed timetable at this stage and we can only do something which is fairly generic for looking ten years ahead.

15680. Do you say that you, Crossrail, have no effect at all upon that which is forecast to grow and has been agreed to grow in the Secretary of State's decisions for the container terminal ports?

(Mr Berryman) Yes. As far as I am able to see, we have no impact at all on that.

15681. Are you prepared for Crossrail to undertake that you will not displace any of that freight traffic both present and forecast to 2023?

(Mr Berryman) I do not know what better undertaking I can give you than I already have to say that our system has been designed to allow for the uninterrupted flow of freight from that direction. Proving the kind of statement that you have made or measuring it would be an impossible task. You would have to have two identical railways, one which was running some traffic and one which was not.

15682. Well, we have your answer. Can you just look please at page 24 of 50 of the Crossrail Timetable Working Group, which is P106. We have seen this before and the Committee have seen this before, so we are familiar with it.

(Mr Berryman) Yes.

15683. The right-hand column, Stratford to Shenfield, at the top is what we are concerned with. That of course is a line which affects my clients, is it not?

(Mr Berryman) It is indeed, yes.

15684. We see there, do we not, that we have got a worsening of the situation, minus 16 compared to minus eight.

(Mr Berryman) Yes, compared to the forecast demand in 2014, but how many of those trains could be accommodated now? The point I am trying to get across to you, and obviously failing, is that what we are doing is not making the situation any worse or any better than it is now. We are saying that you can run 35 trains a day on this route in one direction and, I think, 27 in the other. I would be prepared to wager that that is no different from what can be accommodated now. You are making a much more general point that the possible growth in your traffic cannot be accommodated by the railway. What I am saying to you is that that may well be the case, but that is not because we are making the situation worse, but it is because the situation is as it is.

15685. You say that, despite the fact that the Committee has had evidence that Crossrail is making it worse.

(Mr Berryman) Well, they have had evidence which we are responding to in writing in due course.

15686. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I think, Mr Straker, this is a little unfair. We are waiting for a response from the Promoters. I take the point on board, but I think until we get that response, we cannot deal with it.

15687. MR STRAKER: Very well, sir. I am very happy with that and we have obviously the transcripts available. Can we then touch upon one or two other matters please, Mr Berryman, because you say that you cannot think about these matters ahead because your wife wakes up in the morning with a freight train going past.

(Mr Berryman) It is very disturbing.

15688. Can we just see that a little bit further. Have you spoken to, for example, Hutchison Ports in connection with how they organise the carriage of freight by rail?

(Mr Berryman) No, I do not think we have.

15689. Have you spoken to any port or operator as to whether in fact there is a programme involved with a forward consideration of traffic movements which might depend upon precise timetabling and working out?

(Mr Berryman) No, we have not and neither have we spoken to any supermarket operators who are freight-users or steel suppliers who are freight-users or coal miners. The only people we have spoken to are people who actually have premises on the railway, which is mainly the aggregate carriers obviously, and the people who operate trains and we have relied on the operators of the trains to tell us what their customers would be doing. It would be an impossible task to go round the entire freight industry and establish at customer level what everyone is doing. All we can do is take the overall economic forecast which we have referred to in the past and then talk to individual train operators about how they would work, and we have had many, many meetings with those train operators. We totted up yesterday that we had had over 60 meetings with EWS, for example, and I would be surprised if we had had less than 30 meetings with Freightliner who I think are the main carriers from your clients' ports.

15690. As far as my clients are concerned, am I right in supposing that you have read and agreed that my clients' proposals are of vital national importance?

(Mr Berryman) I do not doubt that for a second.

15691. Am I right in supposing that you have read and agreed that my clients are the single biggest contributor to rail freight carried on the railway?

(Mr Berryman) Yes, I have no reason to doubt that.

15692. Just tell me please, Mr Berryman, why it is that you have not spoken to my clients about the impact of Crossrail upon their services.

(Mr Berryman) Because the people that we deal with are the train operators, the people who operate the trains on the network. They are the people who will, together with Network Rail, set the timetable and work out how the trains are going to move and the whole operation of the railway. The fact of the importance of the ports of course is accepted and no one would deny that for a second, but it is not something that is appropriate for us to go to any ultimate end user to find out why they are using the railway. That would be an absolutely impossible task.

15693. Mr Berryman, did I ask you to go to every end user?

(Mr Berryman) No, you did not, but I think there would be a precedent set, would there not, if we went to your clients and not to other end users.

15694. Sir, I am going to leave matters there because plainly we are going to touch back, as far as timetabling matters are concerned, which are critical, as this witness has agreed, to the question of capacity. Sir, you have a variety of material on capacity and I will be making some observations in a moment.

 

Re-examined by MS LIEVEN

15695. MS LIEVEN: There is just one point, Mr Berryman, and I am sure the Committee has got it, but let us just make it absolutely clear. Staying on that table, this worsening that Mr Straker keeps going on about for freight, what we see on this table is that the first set of figures comes down to a figure of minus eight, yes, and that is without Crossrail?

(Mr Berryman) Yes.

15696. The second block comes to minus 16 with Crossrail.

(Mr Berryman) Yes.

15697. Can you just explain what that means in practical terms? Does it mean that Crossrail is actually practically in 2015, when it comes on line, stopping any freight trains running or have they been stopped effectively already, or constrained, to use the jargon?

(Mr Berryman) They have been constrained already, yes.

15698. So in real rather than theoretical terms, does Crossrail make any difference to the ability of freight to grow on the Great Eastern?

(Mr Berryman) No.

15699. MS LIEVEN: Thank you very much.

15700. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I think the timetabling is going to come back and haunt us again and again. I would ask you, we would like to see this response, Ms Lieven, when they are ready and I accept that you want to keep coming back to it and, if we can, we will reserve judgment until we have seen that.

15701. MS LIEVEN: Yes, and we are still, I hope, aiming for a timetable of producing a letter to you by Monday and setting it out.

(Mr Berryman) I can confirm that that will be done by Monday.

15702. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: The Committee looks forward to seeing that.

 

The witness withdrew

15703. MS LIEVEN: I will do a very, very short closing, sir. Sir, there are just two really important points coming out of Mr Straker's opening. Crossrail has not accepted that Crossrail will make the position worse for freight. The crucial point is the one I just took Mr Berryman to and there are two crucial points as far as Hutchison is concerned. First of all, as Mr Berryman said at least six times, so I hope Hutchison understand this, we are not, even in theoretical terms, making the position worse for the freight coming from the Haven ports because they do not cross the Crossrail lines. It is as simple as that.

15704. So far as the worsening that Mr Watson made reference to is concerned, that is completely theoretical because the constraints that exist at Forest Gate at the moment mean that we cannot get those extra paths in there, so when Crossrail comes along, it is not making that any worse in real terms because until somebody removes the blockage on the constraint that already exists, Crossrail are saying that you cannot get 16 theoretical paths rather than eight theoretical paths makes precisely no difference in the real world. As Mr Berryman said, the solution is probably Gospel Oak to Barking - although I do not want to pre-empt other people's decisions - and that is being dealt with through normal Department of Transport mechanisms.

15705. The other point to pick out from Mr Straker's opening and his own witnesses' evidence is that we have considered future growth. It is considered in the Timetable Working Group report in detail. Mr Straker refers to E6. If you look at the very small print at the bottom of E6, you will see that it was written months before the Timetable Working Group reported. It may be that the paragraph has not set out the whole story but, having got the Timetable Working Group report, it is quite apparent that we have considered and catered for future growth.

15706. I would like to make completely clear, on Mr Harston's evidence, that we are not seeking exclusive rights through the Access Option. Through the Access Option we are seeking to be treated like any other train operator, through the independent adjudication of a third party, the Office of the Rail Regulator.

15707. I have two points on the specifics of Hutchison. There is no doubt that Hutchison, through its two planning permissions, is going to create a very significant increase in freight - as Mr Berryman described it, "a step change" - but really the simple point is: Why should that be the responsibility of Crossrail? As we have seen in their own evidence, the major solution to that is Felixstowe to Nuneaton and that was taken into account through the planning process. To put it very crudely, Felixstowe to Nuneaton is really nothing to do with Crossrail whatsoever. It is not only geographically divorced, it is practically divorced. That is an upgrade that is required because of Hutchison's step change, not because we are building a railway through London.

15708. Finally, on the facts of the case, we just do not impact on their interest. One really does not need to take it any further than that. Thank you very much, sir.

15709. MR STRAKER: Sir, what has been said, to be perfectly blunt about this, and what has been put forward by Crossrail, is quite extraordinary. For it to be said that Crossrail does not impact upon Haven Ports and does not affect the trains which emerge from the Haven ports and carry the freight which is so important, as my learned friend Ms Lieven has just done, is frankly ludicrous. The evidence that you have before this Committee shows a considerable volume of trains, cross-country trains, which come and go through London and are impacted by the fact that more trains are going to be run in London courtesy of Crossrail. You will recollect the evidence given by Mr Garratt this morning, in which one of his figures showed that effectively half the material has to go through London at the moment.

15710. Likewise, it is extraordinary that it is said now by Crossrail that Crossrail does not make matters worse when they have themselves called a witness who said expressly to this Committee that it makes matters worse - see the transcript, day 12, page 48, paragraph 13718, and subsequently, in cross-examination by my learned friend Mr George, who has absolutely expressed they make matters worse.

15711. That being the position and it being ludicrous to suggest that Crossrail does not affect trains which run across London at the moment, it should next be noted that the position as far as Crossrail is concerned has been made perfectly explicit. I showed you that slide in conjunction with Mr Berryman a moment or two ago which reveals that they have looked at the position now for freight. If you have an opportunity hereafter, you may care to glance at the transcript of today's proceedings and the questions and answers of Mr Berryman, when, time and time again he put it in terms of "now we have considered the freight". You will think it important, no doubt, that, when I asked Mr Berryman whether or not Crossrail were prepared to undertake, bearing in mind the nationally important position of the Haven ports, that they would not affect the capacity which had been agreed to by the Secretaries of State in the relevant decisions, he declined effectively to do so, saying, "Well, I just said the position is what it is."

15712. The whole system here, in my respectful submission, and bearing in mind the timetabling work which is to come, seems something, if I may respectfully say so, of a shambles. The situation as far as the timetabling work is concerned is that a great deal, plainly has to be done. The timetable affects and bears upon the capacity, and that work still has to be done, and yet you are presented today with evidence which seeks to respond to serious points made by the largest port operators in this country by saying, "Well, my wife is woken up at 2.30 in the morning and therefore we cannot sensibly deal with your plans and aspirations for Felixstowe and Harwich." This is a ridiculous way, frankly, to proceed.

15713. What, therefore, is the position that I would invite you to - the Chairman, correctly, if I may respectfully say so, having observed once or twice in the course of the morning: "What is it that you want us, the Committee, to do?" We want from this process, if I may describe it in that way, first, that the Timetable Working Group should be properly done and should involve Hutchison Ports (UK). Secondly, we want the ability of Hutchison Ports to access the railway in accordance with the decisions which have been made in the national interest to be recognised and provided for. We want the Bill to be amended so that the position is one whereby people cannot, when they have made proper arrangements to be enter on to the railway, be forced off at the behest of Crossrail. We would wish, also, if there is a timetable which is properly prepared so as to secure that the freight can be carried, that commitments can be made to it.

15714. If the position is one whereby no undertaking is going to be given that the freight can be carried from the Haven ports, notwithstanding its national importance, then, sir, the answer is obvious. What ought to occur is this simple exercise: you ought to say that there ought to be works carried out elsewhere on the network - it happens to be Felixstowe to Nuneaton - which relieve that capacity and therefore put Crossrail in precisely the same position as Hutchison Ports were put; namely, "You are bringing forward this effect on the capacity of the system, therefore you should bear that consequence."

15715. Sir, in simple terms, Crossrail are here saying, "We have a present rail network and we want to take the benefit of being able to go onto that network. Going onto that network is going to displace others, but we do not wish to take that burden, despite the fact that everybody else in the real world has to take that burden." I simply ask that that matter be corrected and that the burden cast upon the network by Crossrail should be borne by Crossrail.

15716. That is the tenor of the remark which I wish to make. Unless I am reminded of anything, that is all that I would wish to observe to you, sir.

15717. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Thank you, Mr Straker.

The Petition of Maersk.

 

MR CHARLES GEORGE QC appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.

 

BIRCHAM DYSON BELL appeared as Agent.

15718. Mr George, good morning.

15719. MR GEORGE: Good morning, sir. It is a pleasure to be back. The Petition of Maersk parallels evidence and arguments that other petitioners have already made to the Committee but does so from a different perspective, that of one of the largest shipping companies in the world were somewhat taken aback that the project has advanced thus far without apparent appreciation of the potential impact on rail freight and its role in the national economy.

15720. Can I say at once, sir, that Maersk use both what is to be known as the Barking Line to the Thameside ports to Tilbury and the line with which you have been concerned earlier this morning, so that we are not going to get too concerned in the argument as to whether one of them is not affected. I make it absolutely plain that our position, along with other evidence, is exactly the same as that put forward by Mr Straker, that there is an effect on that line as well, but we also are involved very much in Tilbury and therefore are concerned there. In short, as I suspect the Committee is already aware, there is a major problem about this bottleneck between Stratford and Gospel Oak, and something has to be done about it. That is really the nub of what most of the petitions concerned with the eastern part of the line are about. We keep hearing from the Promoter: "Yes, there is a problem, it is an existing problem, Crossrail does not affect it." We say two matters: one that Crossrail does affect it, but that, in any event, something has to be done quickly about it.

15721. As we see it, there is a fairly simple choice: either Crossrail goes ahead without amendments to the Bill or further undertakings, in which case Maersk and its customers will increasingly turn from rail freight to road freight, with the environmental consequences and costs that means, or something must be done to provide more capacity for freight and/or to constrain the ability of Crossrail to sterilise potential freight paths on the Great Eastern Line.

15722. There are just two other matters. It is a common place, when one is seeking a planning permission - which in effect is what is being sought here by Crossrail: by parliamentary means they are seeking permission to construct it - for a condition to be imposed that the scheme shall not generate traffic until something has happened. The position is exactly the same here. The Committee has no powers to compel, let us say, Gospel Oak/Barking works to be done or to compel the upgrade to Nuneaton, but it has a perfectly good power to say to Crossrail: "You shall not implement your powers to the extent of running trains until something has been done about those matters." That is perfectly within your powers.

15723. If you feel that is to go too far, there cannot be any dispute that you could report back to the House, and in that way to the Secretary of State, that this is a very major concern and that the one person who has the power to unlock it is the Department for Transport, the one power who is promoting this Bill.

15724. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Correct.

15725. MR GEORGE: You keep being told it is all being dealt with through the Transport Innovation Fund and other processes, but all that has happened is that these two schemes have been put forward as preliminaries for the preparation of business cases, with decisions to take place at some unidentified time in the future. That is simply not enough. It is a question of shuffling it off. The important message to go back is: No Crossrail, until something has been done. It is not as though we are saying: Put off Crossrail. Crossrail is not going to happen for many years, because of the funding arrangements, so there is plenty of time, but there is only plenty of time providing something is happening during that time, because there is a very real danger that the view is taken: Crossrail is some way off; let us just let everything drift.

15726. That is the first very important matter. The second matter is that Maersk is not at all reassured by being told: "If there are any problems, the other House remains" - that is the Committee in the House of Lords - "and they could look at those matters." This Bill has, as is entirely proper for a scheme of this importance, been introduced in your House. Whether the scheme is acceptable is primarily a matter for this Committee and that involves this Committee being satisfied of the timetabling matters. Their Lordships will go into the matter, they may have more time than you, but the buck simply cannot be passed and it is only being passed because Crossrail say: "It is all going to take some time to do these matters, and we do not want to keep this Committee waiting for it." But really that is Crossrail's own fault, if they have not got the work done yet, and they have to get a move on. It will be very interesting to see what they do say next Monday. We hope that it will not simply be saying, "We are sorry, we cannot give you the information yet, but, don't worry, in a year or so's time their Lordships will have it." That is simply not enough. If that is the position, we would ask the Committee to take strenuous steps to avoid that happening.

15727. With that by way of introduction, I am going to call Mr Friis. There is a very small bundle of exhibits, two exhibits, and I anticipate that the Committee would wish to give a number to those.

15728. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: MK:1 will be A175/1 and MK:2 will be A175/2.

15729. MR GEORGE: Thank you, sir.

 

MR SOREN FRIIS, Sworn

Examined by MR GEORGE

15730. MR GEORGE: You are Soren Friis, is that right?

(Mr Friis) That is right, sir.

15731. You are from Denmark, is that right?

(Mr Friis) Yes.

15732. You are the General Manager of Operations and Planning with the Maersk Company Limited, is that right?

(Mr Friis) Yes.

15733. That is the agent of Maersk Line in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

(Mr Friis) Yes.

15734. How long have you held your current position?

(Mr Friis) I have held my current position for 13 months.

15735. How long have you worked within liner shipping.

(Mr Friis) Twelve years.

15736. What is your responsibility within Maersk Line?

(Mr Friis) My responsibility is the strategic planning of capacity and operations within the UK and Ireland.

15737. First of all, tell us about Maersk's business briefly.

(Mr Friis) We are predominantly concerned with moving deep sea containers on a worldwide basis. Within the UK we have 10,000 UK staff operating at land and sea. In Felixstowe Terminal alone, we have about 250. We are the largest ship owner in the UK, with 49 vessels under the UK flag. Together with the parent company Maersk Line, we operate 500 container ships and 1.4 million containers. Further, we have companies worldwide, in 120 countries worldwide.

15738. I think you have been able to attend the Committee in the last few days. Do you support the concerns which have been raised by petitioners this week?

(Mr Friis) We do indeed. We support the concerns expressed by Freightliner and Hutchison Ports.

15739. Could we put on the screen your first exhibit.

(Mr Friis) In 2006, 130,000 containers by rail is what we expect to move. We have outlined on the first exhibit those that move on routes that are affected by Crossrail, which come to just under 100,000 in 2006.

15740. When you say they are impacted by Crossrail, that is potentially impacted.

(Mr Friis) Yes, potentially impacted.

15741. You are not suggesting that they will all be unable to be carried.

(Mr Friis) No, these 100,000 containers are moved on rail routes that Crossrail will affect.

 

15742. I said in opening, and you were able to confirm that you are as much concerned about Tilbury, that is the Barking line, as you are about the line out to the ports which Mr Straker was representing?

(Mr Friis) Certainly, yes.

15743. Now could we please turn to your exhibit MK2, and we can take this matter very swiftly indeed. The Committee will be very familiar with some of these matters. So far as capacity is concerned, item 1 deals with the timetabling work. You have heard from the Chairman that he is very anxious that the Committee have a report from Crossrail on the timetabling. Is that a desire that you share?

(Mr Friis) We do indeed. It is very important that work is continued so that we can see whether or not we can grow uninhibited between now and 2015.

15744. I do not think we need say any more about 1 and 2, they are on the record. So far as your item 3 is concerned, network enhancements, I think in the second line for the word "listed" we need to put "asterisked", and that refers to the exhibit Mr Smith produced; and you are supporting the view that the freight enhancements ought to be in place, are you not, at the earliest opportunity?

(Mr Friis) Certainly, yes.

15745. We have heard this morning about the loop at Chadwell Heath which is mentioned, which is one of those matters which can be one of a series of matters which you require to be in place before the Crossrail trains are running?

(Mr Friis) Yes.

15746. So far as your item 4 is concerned, that is the further enhancements. That primarily is the Gospel Oak and Felixstowe/Nuneaton works, is it not, about which the Committee have heard a great deal, and I think about which you do not want to say any more yourself. Is that right?

(Mr Friis) That is correct, yes.

15747. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Thank you!

15748. MR GEORGE: It does not mean they are not very important.

15749. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I accept they are important, Mr George. I think we have heard that.

15750. MR GEORGE: Item 5: regulation. The Committee have heard a great deal about amendments sought to the railways clauses bill Can you just say why this is a matter of concern to you as a shipping company?

(Mr Friis) Our concern is really a concern on behalf of our customers, in the sense that they expect a level playing field between rail and road. They expect that we are able to move containers on their behalf. Many of our customers expect that we move them by rail because it is the preferred mode for many of our customers. They are quite happy and prepared, as are we, to move these onto road should we not be able to move them by rail. It is a more expensive solution but they would prefer that rather than see interruptions to their cargo flow.

15751. What message is sent to your clients and to yourselves so long as the railway clauses, in what has been describe as their "rather Draconian form, stay in the Bill?

(Mr Friis) The message really comes that there is no security for the future of rail. It may be that we will only be impacted in 2015, or some point in time between now and 2015; but we see it as a signal that investment in rail and in terminals handling rail volumes is really not safeguarded.

15752. So far as item 6 is concerned, you are not seeking compensation for yourself; you are simply joining in the appeal made by the freight operators that they should be compensated in the way in which the Committee has already heard in considerable evidence yesterday and the day before?

(Mr Friis) That is correct, yes.

15753. You have taken the matter very quickly. Is there any additional matter you wish to draw to the Committee's attention?

(Mr Friis) No, I believe we have covered most of the things.

15754. MR GEORGE: Thank you very much.

15755. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr George, thank you. Ms Lieven?

15756. MS LIEVEN: These are all matters that we have covered already, and I do not think there is any benefit in going back over them again; but just to acknowledge on the record, yet again, we completely accept the importance of this business and the general freight business.

 

The witness withdrew

 

15757. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr George, is there anything else?

15758. MR GEORGE: I do not think that it would be useful for me to make a formal closing here. I do not think Ms Lieven intends to.

15759. MS LIEVEN: No, sir. There is no point in closing - the Committee know it all.

15760. MR GEORGE: I am prepared to leave it there - reminding you of the matters I said in opening. I am wholly satisfied that the Committee is aware of the urgency which is involved and the importance in these matters. Thank you, sir.

15761. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I would just make one comment, Mr George. Thank you for pulling me up on the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I can absolutely assure you that we will do the job as given the timetable we have. I can also assure that the conversations we have between this House and the House of Lords are always full and very frank. The noble Lords miss very little. You are very well aware that many of your esteemed colleagues sit there. I can assure you if you feel that anything may be "got past" by Crossrail, it will not. We do not have the time but our noble friends next door certainly will. I can assure you we will not be allowing them to miss a point.

15762. MR GEORGE: I intended no criticism of their Lordships' House. I am merely anxious that your Committee should perform its full task

15763. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr George, thank you very much. Could I now call Mr Andrew Newcombe.

 

The Petition of the ExCel Centre.

 

MR ANDREW NEWCOMBE QC appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.

 

BIRCHAM DYSON BELL appeared as Agent.

15764. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: By way of opening, Ms Lieven, would you like to say anything?

15765. MS LIEVEN: Sir, I would. This has come on a mite faster than we had expected so there is a bit of desperate looking for the plan to show to the Committee. This is the Petition on behalf of what is known colloquially as the ExCel Centre.

15766. The Excel Centre is a very large exhibition centre in Docklands which members of the Committee may be familiar with, which is adjacent to the existing Custom House DLR station. In this location the Committee may remember (although in truth we have had very few petitions on this section before the Committee, so I do not know to what degree this will come as new material) that we are taking over this portion of the North London Line, a line the Committee has become very familiar with but in a slightly different bit of the North London Line; and Crossrail is emerging from a portal somewhat to the left of Custom House, taking over the North London Line and then running east past Royal Victoria Dock and off towards Abbey Wood. At the vicinity of ExCel, which is here, we need to do works in order to take over the North London Line and push the DLR lines very slightly to the south. The issue that arises in relation to the ExCel Centre, which is before this Committee (there have been other issues but those have all been agreed), is the impact on ExCel of those works pushing the DLR line to the south. Just so the Committee understand, one can see that it is a very constrained area, because the main road runs to the north of the tracks there. We obviously have the centre to the south. There is not very much room for manoeuvre at this location.

15767. If I can put up our exhibits 17304A002 we will get to the heart of the matter. Sir, this is the centre. This is the existing position. There are three lorry areas, if I can put them like that. That is the lorry queuing area. The next one to the left is also a lorry queuing area. It is the blue one which is the existing lorry park which is in issue today. That is the existing situation.

15768. If we can go on to 003, focussing in on the western area, the lorry holding area. What this plan shows in the mustardy-yellow section is the area that Crossrail requires temporarily for worksite and working area related to the movement of the works here. The dark purple area is the permanent land-take that Crossrail requires. The reason we need permanent land there is because of the shifting of the DLR tracks to the south. There are three issues relating to this area which ExCel bring before the Committee.

15769. The first is the temporary impact; the second is the permanent impact; and the third is compensation. So far as temporary impact is concerned, we will obviously hear from Mr Newcombe and his witnesses, but I believe we are very close to agreement on that (or perhaps not), but I will tell you what Crossrail has offered.

15770. So far as the temporary situation is concerned, Crossrail have offered to ExCel, for the duration of the authorised works, that the Promoter agrees to use reasonable endeavours to procure provision for the temporary relocation of parking facilities to accommodate up to, and then the number of vehicles will be agreed with ExCel as to the number impacted. Then the Promoter agrees, in consultation with LRUC, which is ExCel, to use all reasonable endeavours to limit the duration of its temporary occupancy and use of so much of the lorry park as is not to be permanently acquired, and to arrange for so much of the lorry park, as is not to be permanently acquired, to be reinstated to ExCel's reasonable satisfaction following completion of the works.

15771. To put it colloquially, on temporary loss there are a number of sites in the vicinity of ExCel which we will work with, the key player, the London Development Agency to find and assist ExCel to use for the temporary period. We will obviously start by looking to see if there are sites on their own land.

15772. The position is more difficult in relation to the permanent loss - we say it is perfectly straightforward but it is more difficult inasmuch as it is more difficult to find alternative sites. The permanent loss the Committee will remember is this small, thin purple slither. The area is obviously much smaller than for the temporary loss. I have to say, we are not convinced at the moment (although we will obviously listen carefully to what Excel say in evidence) that there is going to be much, if any, material impact on parking here.

15773. In any event, the issue seems to be something like parking for 16 HGVs, large HGVs. I think that is the maximum that ExCel themselves are in issue with. We say, we believe that there are a number of ways that ExCel could overcome that loss, if there really is a loss here, by using their existing spaces perhaps in slightly different ways.

15774. Sir, if we can pan out on that plan for a moment so we see the whole thing. It is worth noting at this stage two points: one is, ExCel have an outline planning permission for what is known as "ExCel 2" over to the east; but even taking that into account, we still believe that, through the slight re-jigging of surface level car parking, there really is a concern about spaces for 16 artics but on the land we are taking there is space to put them in, on existing surface level parking even after ExCel 2.

15775. The other point to make strongly in opening is that, if one goes back to Crossrail and Custom House station, the advent of Crossrail at this location will result in what we have come to know this morning as a "step change" in public transport provision for the ExCel Centre. At the moment it is served by DLR, doubtless a marvellous service, but nothing on the scale of Crossrail nor on the geographic scope of Crossrail. Once Crossrail arrives here there will be the ability of people to travel to ExCel by public transport from all over the South East with very great ease; and the station itself is being rebuilt for Crossrail. The Petition should be seen in the context of the truly enormous benefit to the ExCel Centre that Crossrail will bring, if one looks at the matter in the totality.

15776. Sir, that is a brief outline. I am sure we will see much more detail of the car parking spaces. I hope that is all the Committee needs at this stage.

15777. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Thank you, Ms Lieven; at this stage, yes.

15778. MR NEWCOMBE: Sir, good afternoon. It is a privilege in three ways to appear before the Committee. Firstly, to be here; secondly, to follow my pupil master, Mr Charles George; and, thirdly, I am most honoured for the first time ever in my career he has allowed me to use his lectern. I thought I ought to record that on the parliamentary transcript.

15779. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: If you break it, Mr Newcombe, you will never hear the end of it! You need to be careful!

15780. MR NEWCOMBE: If I break it, sir, I shall go outside and fall on my Swiss army knife in mortification!

15781. Sir, Mr George introduced his Petition earlier by saying that this is a "not until" petition. Ours is similar in that respect, in that it involves new subject matter as Ms Lieven has very helpfully explained. I will give you are little bit of the background, but the nub of the issue is the impact upon the parking and throughput of vehicles both permanently and temporarily. The impact of that is because the ExCel Centre as it presently exists, and as imminently to be extended pursuant of a Phase 2 development to which the Committee has just been referred, is essentially an empty box.

15782. It is an internationally important exhibition centre. Indeed members of the Committee will certainly be familiar with it, I anticipate, and may well have visited it. Imminently the Motor Show is opening there next week. In terms of the attraction of business to this country, it is already estimated of the order of some £600 million per annum, going up to of the order of a £1 billion with the advent of Phase 2. It is not in dispute that this is important. There is an additional element of importance which may be of assistance to the Committee. The Excel Centre will also be one of the venues for the 2012 Olympics, housing such matters as the boxing and the judo.

15783. The empty box to which I referred is exactly that. It is a stage to be set as a business showcase. Its success or failure in that respect is wholly dependent upon the ability to bring in and set up in attractive form whatever is the product or service being showcased. That is wholly dependent upon the throughput of significant traffic in terms of articulated lorries and smaller vehicles in the place management. They are presently in the existing situation, even before Crossrail, very tightly constrained in two important respects.

15784. Firstly, as Ms Lieven has already identified, and this is common ground, the existing space is extremely constrained. One can see from the exhibit that remains on the screen that the access has to be through a narrow corridor, sandwiched between the northern end of the site and the existing rail corridor.

15785. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr Newcombe, could you orientate us. When you say "the north", it is the road on the right‑hand side, above the yellow? That is the access road, is it?

15786. MR NEWCOMBE: It runs along the front. Yes, you can see the north arrow, top left‑hand corner and the access road runs roughly east-west along it.

15787. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Okay, thank you.

15788. MR NEWCOMBE: If I can invite those who operate the machine to bring up ExCel 5, the Committee will there see the London dome in the Greenwich loop, and away from the left of that we are looking from the west essentially towards the east. The red light has been helpfully put on the existing centre, so one can see the Royal Victoria Dock immediately to the right and south of that and London City Airport just beyond the runway. If you go back to ExCel 4, you can see a slightly closer view from the same direction, identifying the existing Phase 1 development and the Phase 2 development, which was granted permission under exactly the same permission back in the1990s as the Phase 1 development, and at the moment is actively being pursued in negotiations so the final details can be agreed and a start made in the very near future will take out virtually the entirety of the land beyond the existing Phase 1 just between the existing Phase 1 centre and that large building just above where the red light is, which is the Ramada Hotel. I will come back to that in a moment.

15789. In terms of the access, sir, we can then move to ExCel 8. If the facility exists, it would be helpful if we can blow it up slightly to move in to concentrate on the corridor to the north of the existing Phase 1 side. One can see there, marked by coloured blocks, the sequencing. It is not helpful for me to go through with the Committee at this stage the detail of this. If questions arise, my witness in due course can deal with it, but, essentially, the box which is Phase 1 and the enlarged box which is Phase 2 are wholly dependent upon stage management, and I deliberately use the theatrical metaphor. The key person in all of this is my witness to come, Mr Melrose. He and his team, with the constraints which exist, namely space and time, have to bring in significant amounts of kit, not just what is on display but the display stands, the lighting, everything to garnish the empty box to make an attractive centre. They are always up against the stops and the bottom line is that the land-take proposed, both temporarily and permanently, for the Crossrail project has so adversely impacted on this as to materially affect the ability of ExCel to perform its given function. That is not to say it will shut up its shop and go home, but given its international importance, we say the effect will be sufficiently adverse. The tensions between the present operation of ExCel and the Crossrail proposal are such that we are saying to the Committee respectfully that Crossrail should not be allowed to progress until certain matters have been identified. Ms Lieven helpfully referred the Committee to the undertakings which presently have been put forward but, with respect, they go nowhere to give any certainty or comfort to your Petitioners today for two reasons.

15790. If we take the temporary situation, the undertaking presently on offer does not even condescend to the number of vehicles available or to be serviced. That of itself is sufficient to fundamentally flaw the Promoter's provision in that respect.

15791. As regards the permanent position, Ms Lieven did not show you the undertaking there on offer, but what Crossrail presently proposed, to those who might want to know, is that they, "Crossrail, will use their reasonable endeavours" in consultation with us. Parenthetically, that is extremely helpful to consult us, to identify within the existing ExCel site mitigation for permanent acquisition. I deliberately read that slowly because, essentially, Crossrail is saying to us two things. Firstly, "We do not know what the solution is, but we are not really very fussed about providing one at this stage", and, secondly, perhaps even more interestingly, implicit in the explicit with the undertaking presently on offer is a contention by Crossrail that "We do not know our business sufficiently but do not worry in due course, we, Crossrail, will come along, we will look at your problem and we will help you with it". For reasons, I hope the Committee will appreciate, that is simply not sufficient. Not until, we urge upon the Committee, is set out in a position statement which we have had prepared, because it occurred to us it is always helpful to have the matters set out in writing so there is no dubiety about what is being asked for. If I can invite that position statement to be put up. Unfortunately, we have not had this ingested as yet, but hopefully people will be able to read it and see it sufficiently.

15792. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: That will be A 177.

15793. MR NEWCOMBE: Thank you very much, I am grateful. I am not going to read it all, sir, I am going to give you the gist of it. The Promoter should undertake, to the extent it exercises the power to acquire any of our land compulsorily, before doing so, to provide the Petitioner will alternative land in substitution. Of course, all sides accept here that the area we presently use for this most important servicing is going to be materially reduced. It is our evidence that we cannot manage without it. In the case of the land to be taken permanently, we clearly want it on appropriate terms, otherwise it is of no use to us which is why we put in slight legalese, for which I make slight apology, on the terms which it comes.

15794. The third point, for which we ask, is in the case of the land proposed to be taken temporarily. Firstly, if it is only to be temporarily used by the Promoters, there is no justification for them acquiring it on a permanent basis. A perfectly good provision is available here for the identification powers to enter on land temporarily for the purposes of construction or whatever and then there are various other safeguards proposed under paragraph 1.3. Paragraph 1.4, in the case of both those scenarios, sets the criteria of the land which we need, we say, to allow us to continue to perform a function that everybody accepts is important.

15795. Then point number two, to the extent the Promoter is neither unable or, as presently appears, unwilling - I will come back to whether or not it is unable, at the moment it is certainly unwilling - to promote an additional provision. In that case and the "Promoter fails to secure" - I am reading from paragraph 2.2 - "in the inclusion of the Bill such additional powers", then we seek additionally such a clause to be included to enable us to claim compensation. Again I make a slight apology to the Committee, I anticipate this point may well have been raised by other Petitioners. The Committee will be familiar with the compensation code and, put shortly, whilst it is an admirable tool albeit complicated for quantifying the value of land, it is, on any analysis, defective in providing adequate compensation for such matters as business loss. As you will hear from Mr Melrose, there is no question that if this acquisition temporarily and permanently proceeds on the basis presently proposed by Crossrail, there will be business loss and it will appear that the compensation code will be inadequate to cover it. In my closing submission, sir, I will return to that, I am simply flagging the point at this stage.

15796. Sir, then point three comes back precisely to the 'not until' provision. I promise I will come back to the question of whether or not the Promoters here are able to promote an additional provision because, clearly, if they are unable to do so, then I am wasting my time and I am wasting the Committee's time, but it is a matter of common ground between us and the Promoters that there are alternative sites available. Therefore, the only sticking point is that presently the Crossrail team are not prepared, as we understand it, to countenance an additional provision. It may be, in due course of the evidence, sir, that we have to take the Committee to a report commissioned by Crossrail itself, by Mott MacDonald, reputable engineers, which looked at the question of alternative sites. They identified seven. They did not consult us in advance of that report, so we were not able to have an input into it. Indeed, as Mr Melrose will tell you in due course, that report was delivered to us in slightly unusual circumstances, rather like a volume of the Yellow Pages left on the doorstep without a covering letter. Nonetheless we got it, we have read it and are grateful for it. There are two of those sites which we think have some promise and there are additionally two other sites, one of which is on the third site, which are on lands available elsewhere. It, therefore, follows, unless we fundamentally misunderstand the evidence already produced by the Promoters including their minutes of a meeting with us on 26 June, that they themselves in those minutes identified the possibility of bringing forward an additional provision. They themselves in those minutes identified these sites which are available. They themselves have indicated that promoting an additional provision is perfectly possible. The only sticking point, therefore, sir, is will they or will they no? It is for that reason in a nutshell why the Petitioners come before you today and, in the nicest possible sense, invite the Committee in tactful and gentle terms to encourage those who promote this Bill to re-think this in terms of the additional provision. This is not simply a case of a petitioner coming forward, saying, "I have a business. I do not want to lose money. I do not care how nationally important this is, my business is very important". Nobody is denying that Crossrail is a massively important and laudable project. Although I have been slightly rude about the Crossrail team, having been on the other side myself in promoting bills and I entirely understand the difficulty of attending to all the various and disparate matters raised by the Petitioners and I anticipate this may very well be a welter of petitions and insufficient time to concentrate sufficiently on one particular aspect. There comes a time and this tension is clear and we invite the Committee in those terms to take the course we have set out in legal terms in our position statement and encourage Crossrail to do that which we seek. Of course, the Committee retains the element of sanction because we say "not until, not unless".

15797. Sir, those are the matters which I would indicate to you in opening. There is only one other point which I could usefully draw to your attention here, because I am deliberately seeking to sketch matters as briefly as I can here, so I can take less time in due course with Mr Melrose so you do not hear the same thing from both of us.

15798. Could I ask for ExCel 6 to be put up. To orientate the Committee again, we can see the north point. It is exactly the same as the orientations we have seen before, we have got the dock to the south and the red block is the existing Phase 1. This exhibit has the advantage of having blocked off in blue the already consented Phase 2, already consented under the 1990s permission, but which presently simply requires approval of certain matters reserved under conditions. This identifies in graphic and clear form the fundamental incompatibility between the only solution, as we understand it, that the Crossrail team could promote, and the Phase 2 development. Additionally, sir, I should note that this solution shown there by the green outline, and, indeed, Ms Lieven took you to an earlier version of one of the Crossrail exhibits showing it as well. This is a very recent innovation by the Crossrail team, it did not feature in the Mott MacDonald report and it is only in the lead-up to this Committee hearing today that this has emerged. Those are the matters which I would wish to summarise for the Committee in opening. I am just looking at the time. I am entirely in the Committee's hands.

15799. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: No, given that there are three minutes to go, we will have lunch and come back to Mr Melrose. You are finished at this stage?

15800. MR NEWCOMBE: I am finished my opening. The only thing I need to do is call my witness.

15801. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Then we shall do so after lunch. This Committee is now in recess until 2.30.

 

After a short adjournment

15802. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr Newcombe, you were about to call Mr Melrose, would you like to do that?

MR STEPHEN MELROSE, Sworn

Examined by MR NEWCOMBE

15803. MR NEWCOMBE: Thank you, Sir. For the purpose of Mr Melrose's evidence I am going to seek to avoid repeating those matters which I rehearsed in opening. Mr Melrose will tell the Committee if I have got anything wrong in that. We will be going, as far as the exhibits are concerned, partly to the ExCel sequence and partly to the exhibits helpfully provided by the Promoters and I will give you references as we go through. Mr Melrose, would you state your full name, please?

(Mr Melrose) Stephen Gerald Melrose.

15804. In terms of your proper job title, you are Service Director of ExCel but in opening I referred to the question of "front of house" and "behind the scenes" in theatrical terms. Can you summarise, for the purposes of the Committee, what is your role in the functioning of ExCel.

(Mr Melrose) To put it in context, my role is to direct and manage all the services for the ExCel Exhibition Centre. The key element of that is to ensure that all the services which we provide for our clients operate efficiently and they receive the best services they can.

15805. I want to take you straight to the way in which your team provide the back office powers which enables the front of house to perform so successfully and could we have ExCel 8 on the screen. Can we focus on the northern corridor between the railway line and ExCel. Mr Melrose, there are some coloured areas there. The drawing identifies, for instance, area one in the extreme right, the lorry holding area. Without going into too much detail please, could you identify the way in which you and your team bring in the new exhibits to put in place a new exhibition and then in due course break it up and bring in the next one.

(Mr Melrose) It is very simple. We recognised when we opened the venue that one of key elements of this space which we have got is the constraint of how we operate. A considerable amount of work goes into operating the lorry marshal area and it is structured very similar to a core operation where we determine that all vehicles come in from the east entrance and that is because it connects directly to all the major motorway and road networks. They go into area one where they leave their vehicle, go into our marshalling office and give the details about the event they have come for. They are given a security pass to go to our lorry bay. Once they have received that, that is displayed in their windscreen and they then move into area two which is the lorry queuing area. Once a delivery slot becomes available they move out of this area and they are marshalled up onto the lorryways and you can see the blue arrows there (indicating) determining which way they are going. They access the lorryway and make their deliveries. Once they finish their delivery they can then either leave the site or, as commonly happens, a lot choose to use the lorry park for reasons that they need to remain on site.

15806. Can we now move to Promoters' exhibit 002. Looking at that exhibit, Mr Melrose, could you concentrate on the purple and what appears to be a lime green colour on the screen. Do you see that immediately to the north of the ExCel arena?

(Mr Melrose) Yes, I do.

15807. Concentrate precisely on what is shaded there and go now to Promoters' exhibit 003. You see there the "During construction" and then "Post Crossrail regime". Those two areas, which we concentrated on before, have suddenly grown and morphed into a large purple area. Does the fact that the shading has become brighter and extends further reflect any meaningful demand on the land as far as you are concerned?

(Mr Melrose) I wish it did, it is does not. It has taken the key through road on the north side of the venue.

15808. Go then to the left of that to the west and look at the area which is being helpfully displayed to show firstly the dark purple area which will be lost through the slowing of the DLR, do you see that?

(Mr Melrose) Yes, I do.

15809. Then, as a guesstimate but no more than that for this reason at this stage of the temporary loss areas. The precise figures matter for the purpose of my next question. I want you to assume an extreme form. Assume that the Crossrail land take temporarily and permanently reduces, you do that for the purposes of breaking up exhibition A and installing exhibition B. You can only get one articulated lorry on site at a time. Do you understand the absurd extreme I am asking you to assume?

(Mr Melrose) Yes, I do.

15810. Thank you. Even on that absurd extreme, would that mean that ExCel would have to pack up its bags and stop performing?

(Mr Melrose) No, not in that absurd extreme but it would certainly compromise the efficiency of our operations and in terms of our commercial operation and the number of shows that we could host.

15811. Having identified the quantity of parking and lorry provision is not absolute, concentrate now on what is possibly going to be the real world if Crossrail passes it into law and it is implemented on the ground, a much more modest scale of land was involved there. Again, what impact will that have on your operations and I will take it in stages. Firstly, in terms of permanent land loss, I will come back to construction in a moment, what do you say in terms of the permanent land loss?

(Mr Melrose) That will have a significant impact. The lorry park, as I have said previously, is critical to the operations for two reasons. Obviously the health and safety of drivers when they are looking at their tachographs and everything like that, they could be out of time, if that very part in any form is not available that causes problems. Secondly, we have a considerable number of international deliveries that park up at the venue and the contractors work from the vehicles, they take deliveries and will then go back and repeat their deliveries because they can only deliver in a stage process. If those spaces are not available that will hit our operation considerably.

15812. In opening, I referred to constraints on your operations in your area, the behind the scenes element. Firstly, the time element. Secondly, the physical constraints of the land available. Let us take those in reverse order. Is there anything more we need to say about the restriction in terms of the physical area available for the Crossrail proposal?

(Mr Melrose) I am sorry I did not catch that.

15813. Insofar as the Crossrail proposal reduces the area of land physically, is there anything else we need to say about that or do you stand by your earlier answer?

(Mr Melrose) I would completely emphasise what I said. The impact of that land take will be significant in our operation.

15814. Now I come to the question of how long it takes to break down exhibition A and set up exhibition B. Again, what impact will Crossrail's proposals have in that respect?

(Mr Melrose) It would slow down the operation. We will have to transfer that lorry parking operation to the marshalling area which means that we will not have sufficient space to be able to deal with the events as we currently do which means it will add time to the events themselves and then obviously commercially that then becomes a difficulty that we, as a venue, would have to absorb the net effect of. Clients may well choose to go to other venues.

15815. What does it do in terms of the number of events that ExCel has showcased during the year?

(Mr Melrose) It would certainly have a detrimental effect on firstly the size of the shows which we can host and secondly and just as important the number of shows which we can host. I think it is important to highlight to everybody that ExCel is a venue that is able to host multi-tenancies and indeed on one occasion we have had ten events operating at the same time. With the impact of this proposal, we would not be able to do that?

15816. Thank you. Finally, on this exhibit if you look to the right of the ExCel building, do you see the lime green area?

(Mr Melrose) Yes, Sir.

15817. In terms of that as we understand it -and it will be confirmed in due course that we have understood correctly - that is a Crossrail proposal presumably in a permanent scenario to ease and solve your problem and I identified in opening the conflict between that and phase two of the existing planning permission. Can you give the Committee your opinion on the feasibility and appropriateness of that as a solution?

(Mr Melrose) Yes, I think, as has been mentioned previously, ExCel when it received its original planning permission our ambition was always to extend the venue and to have something that would compete with all the international venues and it is our intention to build phase two. We will be submitting papers to you by September of this year and building shortly thereafter and certainly the area highlighted in green would compromise that phase two building.

15818. It may assist the Committee if I mention by way of an aside,I have had an advantage over the lunch adjournment to have marked the Promoters' exhibits. I had the ones before but I have now got the numbered version. The planning permission, should anybody wish to refer to it, is in there (indicating). What is not in there is a further application to extend the time in which the details for phase two could be submitted and approved. It all goes back to the same outlying permission. Mr Melrose, can we move the Mott MacDonald Report which is a report produced on behalf of the Promoters. Please go to the conclusions of that report, which is on Promoters' exhibit 062. With your assistance, Mr Melrose, I want to identify the extent of which there is any ground between us and the Promoters. Do you see the top left of the left hand column, this is the conclusion section of that report.

(Mr Melrose) I do.

15819. Go down if you would please to 12.1 "Temporary loss of land for work sites". Would you read, for those who have not got it immediately available, the first paragraph of that?

(Mr Melrose) "During the course of construction of Victoria Dock Portal and Custom House station the use of land for worksites varies considerably over time. At each of the 14 stages, from the start of the advanced works through to the completion of systems installation, the size and configuration of the worksite areas change. In relation to the use of the ExCel lorry parking area at the western end of the site, the amount of land occupied varies from as little as 15%, up to 70% in the worst case scenario."

15820. You have already indicated that your view as to the impact of the 70% give or take spread. Could you also read the third paragraph of 12.1 which starts at the top of the right hand column?

15821. CHAIRMAN: Mr Newcombe, we can zoom in on that if that would be helpful. It saves Mr Melrose reading.

15822. MR NEWCOMBE: I am very grateful. Can I direct your attention, Mr Melrose, to the last sentence, "From the site observations outlined in this reports it is considered that there is sufficient spar capacity within the existing site to facilitate the displaced vehicles if adjustments to the existing management system were to be made." Do you agree or disagree?

(Mr Melrose) I totally disagree.

15823. Why?

(Mr Melrose) Because of the constraints that we are working under at this moment in time. Any reduction in land would have a serious impact on us.

15824. Going on, please, in 12.3, again in the right-hand column, the Promoter notes, in the context of any permanent impact from the sale of the DLR, that no mitigation has been identified.

(Mr Melrose) Correct.

15825. So far as other land that is available, could we please put up Promoter's exhibit 17304-008. In the paragraph where there are the bullet points, without reading through it, would you please confirm that those seven sites identified there as possible alternatives are, as I understand it, the sites identified by Mott MacDonald in their report.

(Mr Melrose) That is correct.

15826. We can see from that that ExCel, when you were consulted on this, identified that sites 2 and 3 had possibilities.

(Mr Melrose) Correct.

15827. In the next paragraph, we see reference to two other sites, one at Beckton Park and one at Carlsberg. Could you deal with each of those, so that the Committee understands their relevance.

(Mr Melrose) Yes. Beckton Park and Carlsberg are sites that we currently use for offsite parking. Beckton Park is a very close distance. It feeds off the main east entrance - indeed, we are currently using it for the build up of the motor show. It has been our recommendation to the Promoter to consider making certainly some of this area available. Also we felt that the Carlsberg site, at the west end of the site, was an area where, if we had offsite parking, that would be useful as well.

15828. The final element of this, is, as I indicated, from a meeting - the Promoter's own notes of the meeting with the ExCel team on 26 June. In the paragraph beginning: "JBaggs said ..." without reading it, we can see that the Promoter adverted to the possibility of an additional provision but indicated that at the moment they are not prepared to consider it or endorse it as an approach. Do you see that?

(Mr Melrose) Yes, I do.

15829. In terms of financial losses, I referred to this in opening, and again identified that part of that which we seek from this Committee is endorsement of a compensation provision which has been handed to the committee and to the Promoter. In terms of loss, were the Crossrail proposal to be implemented and you to take the land loss to which you have spoken, with the effects you have identified, what would that do in your estimation in broad terms so far as revenue is concerned for those who employ you?

(Mr Melrose) I believe it would certainly impact on the timescales to which we can operate the event. To put that in context, to take 20 of our biggest events, major events, we would expect to have to add a day-and-a-half to their tenancies, which would give us roughly 30 days' extra tenancy on the venue that we would not be able to sell, so we would essentially lose one-twelfth of our revenue. We put that figure at £3.5 million.

15830. Of necessity, that is a simplistic calculation. Let us assist the Committee as to how you reached it. Can you identify the approximate turnover of ExCel last year?

(Mr Melrose) Yes, it was £32 million.

15831. How have you then proceeded from that turnover figure to derive the £3.5 million figure you have identified?

(Mr Melrose) As I just said, we would have to add one-and-a-half tenancy to our major shows because we would not be able to operate under the same efficiencies that we currently can. We could not ask the clients to absorb those extra costs because that would disadvantage us commercially, so we would have to absorb that. That would represent one-twelfth of our revenue.

15832. Put on one side entirely the commercial loss to ExCel and its shareholders - ignore that for the present purposes - what is your assessment of the importance of the ExCel facility as a showcase for world trade?

(Mr Melrose) Since ExCel has opened, we have now hosted, on average, 440 events a year. We attract now nine of the top ten London shows. We attract most of the major blue chip shows. We are now having considerable impact on the international market. Certainly in terms of those shows that we can attract, we are now contributing, as I said earlier, £600 million to the London economy, and with our phase 2 development and continued growth we would expect that to grow to over £1 billion. Certainly any consent under the land requirement would have an impact on that.

15833. Finally, we have identified from the Promoter's own documents that there would appear to be common ground as to the availability of other sites which could be used. As a matter of law - please take it as an assumption from me: if I am wrong there will be submissions - ExCel cannot go out and acquire the acquisition of other land elsewhere just because it needs it. In those circumstances, assuming the additional provision is the appropriate way to proceed, so far as you are concerned are you aware of any reason why the Crossrail proposal should not incorporate an additional provision to secure one of the alternative sites which it appears to be common ground exists?

(Mr Melrose) No, I have no reason.

 

Cross-examined by MS LIEVEN

15834. MS LIEVEN: Mr Melrose, could we deal first with temporary loss and permanent loss please. So far as temporary loss is concerned, we are talking about something in the region of 31 HGV spaces.

(Mr Melrose) Roughly, yes.

15835. In your draft undertaking which Mr Newcombe put in this morning, you said you needed an alternative site within 500 metres.

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

15836. Can I put up the minutes of a meeting which you attended on 10 July, this Monday. You are Steve Melrose (SM) on that.

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

15837. In the penultimate paragraph on page 1: "BP questioned whether the lorry holding site was required to be close to the exhibition halls or if it was worth looking at off-site locations. SM" - that is you - "agreed it would be useful to explore these options though the site would need to be close enough to shuttle contractors in - a 10 minute turn around time was acceptable and Galleons Reach was as far out as ExCel would consider practical."

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

15838. On Monday you said to us a ten minute drive time.

(Mr Melrose) The 500 metres was put forward, and the question to me was how far would I consider going further - which was an open question. In the interest of compromise, geographically I had Galleons in my mind. The point of a ten minute drive is significantly important, in the sense that, if I am asking contractors to go to a lorry park that is ten minutes away, leave their vehicle there and then spend ten minutes coming back, we are losing 20 minutes working time.

15839. Thank you. Turning to the alternative sites that are being considered, could we look at ExCel 4, an aerial photo. I understand that the red splodge area on this is what we have described as Beckton Park.

(Mr Melrose) It is.

15840. That site itself is more than 500 metres from the ExCel building, is it not?

(Mr Melrose) From the ExCel building. I am working from the site perimeter, which you will see is from the hotel, and we also use the back road that runs just underneath DLR. It is fairly close to the 500 metres.

15841. I think we may be agreed on this, but, so far as finding alternative available sites for the temporary situation, there is no dispute, is there. If I can put up the document from your own website relating to the motor show - and it is not terribly easy to read - that shows under parking that for the motor show you managed to find 11,000 satellite spaces for people to park.

(Mr Melrose) We did.

15842. Some of those would not be appropriate for your artics, I quite understand.

(Mr Melrose) Certainly not.

15843. But the reality is that there is a lot of available space in the vicinity of the ExCel centre, is there not?

(Mr Melrose) 3,000 of those spaces are actually in Beckton Park.

15844. Sir, the minutes I put in are apparently P113. Mr Melrose, so far as the permanent position is concerned, we are there talking about the loss of space for something in the region of 16 articulated HGVs, is that right?

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

15845. I would like to check out what Mr Mould and I heard in evidence in chief. As I understood it, you said that the permanent loss would have significant impact for two reasons: you needed the area because of effectively the health and safety consideration for drivers.

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

15846. For them to have downtime, fill in their forms, perhaps have a snooze - have the break that European law requires.

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

15847. And you needed it in order to be able, effectively, to stage deliveries to the front door.

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

15848. As far as the first is concerned, the drivers could have that downtime anywhere. It does not need to be in the vicinity of ExCel. It does not have to be outside the front door for that consideration, does it?

(Mr Melrose) I would not agree with you on that. If you think that the drivers are coming internationally, they are being brought to ExCel through the Channel Tunnel, they could arrive at five in the morning, do their delivery and then they have to have their downtime. In terms of the nearest next lorry park that we operate, we would have to send them to Thurrock, if we did, down on the M25, which is a considerable distance.

15849. If you had another space within ten minute drive or whatever, that would be perfectly acceptable for that purpose, would it not?

(Mr Melrose) Potentially. I could not answer for the drivers.

15850. Equally, in terms of staged deliveries ----

(Mr Melrose) I am sorry, can I just ask what you mean by "staged deliveries"?

15851. As I understood this second point, it was about trying to make sure the drivers were somewhere where they could unload part of the kit that you need and then unload a second part reasonably expeditiously.

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

15852. You could effectively interrelate the parking area to get your kit in through the front door in an efficient manner.

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

15853. I can see that, if you cannot do it in an efficient manner, you may need extra time to set up your shows - which I think is what you are talking about.

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

15854. You can achieve that result within a reasonable vicinity of the site by communicating with the drivers on mobile phones, for instance, saying: "Right, come in now" and five minutes later they arrive, send them off on a ten minute drive, and five minutes later they come back.

(Mr Melrose) Yes. However, having said that, not all lorry drivers have mobile phones. Certainly in terms of the operation we have significant issues (a) in terms of language and (b) in terms of communication. Mostly, if we operate something like that, as we currently are, all the vehicles go to a holding point and then we operate a system from our own marshalling staff.

15855. Could we move on to how we might mitigate the permanent situation. First of all, can we put up our 003, just to show the area in question. We are talking about the loss of the thin purple strip to the west?

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

15856. In a permanent situation, as opposed to the temporary, you will still be able to echelon-park HGVs, articulated HGVs, along the lorry parking area?

(Mr Melrose) We will but there will have to be significant changes to the way that we operate. We certainly will not be able to manoeuvre as we currently do. As you will see, that south side of the lorry park borders the through road. To allow lorry access and to operate as they do with that strip of land gone, we will have to take out all the kerbstone, and all the protective barriering, and then the vehicles would have to drive front-nose in and then reverse out into a single carriageway. It would certainly change the way that we operate and certainly from an operating point of view I would seriously consider whether I would have to move that whole operation.

15857. Can I just look at what is going on at that site at the moment. Can we have the Mott Report, page 54, please. That is a photograph of the area in question, is it not?

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

15858. What you are losing is a strip of land on the righthand side of that where we can see a large number of transit vans parked?

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

15859. I am sure it is sometimes used for artics but is it also used -----

(Mr Melrose) Could you zoom in again, and you will see that there are number of trailers there without the actual cabins.

15860. What we see there, on the left, are artic HGVs without their cabins and, on the right, a number of transit vans?

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

15861. That is a fairly fair reflection of what, from our observation, is quite often going on on that site, with a mixture of parking?

(Mr Melrose) I will just challenge that, because that is certainly not a reflection of how it operates. Certainly at this moment in time that area is absolutely full for the Motor Show, it certainly is. By the document that you have got here, the Mott Report, it shows that it was 90 per cent full for the World Travel Market; and 70 per cent full for the Caravan Show. Those shows are shows that are independent stand-alone in the venue. What this document does not take into account are multiple tenancies. To put it into context, in between June 2005 and July 2006 we processed, just through our marshalling yard, somewhere in the region of 40,000 vehicles. 10 per cent of those will be artics; 50 per cent will be transits; and the rest made up of cars and 12.5 tonne trucks; and a significant amount of those will use that area.

15862. Can we look at the position as you put it forward in the permanent scenario. Can we put up ExCel 10, please. This is a drawing produced by you?

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

15863. It says "post-DLR realignment", but that is post-Crossrail?

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

15864. It is the DLR that impacts directly on you. What that shows is a significant amount of remaining articulated echelon parking, does it not?

(Mr Melrose) It shows an amount; but I would also suggest that shows a significant amount of loss of parking.

15865. We can see that if we go from ExCel 10 to ExCel 8 and focus in on the pink area to the left. It takes some pretty good eyesight. That is the echelon parking as it exists at the moment according to your plan?

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

15866. That is a comparison between those two. Can we look at the situation post-ExCel 2. First of all, you have made something of a complaint that we proposed a solution, both I think in meetings and then a plan, that failed to take into account ExCel 2 Can I put up exhibit 6 but in the minutes bundle, the 17304 bundle, page 6. This is a minute of a meeting of 26 June this year. It is right, is it not, that we have a minute with representatives of ExCel?

(Mr Melrose) Correct

15867. You yourself were not at that meeting?

(Mr Melrose) Correct.

15868. It is right, is it not, that we had previous meetings with ExCel in September and December of 2005?

(Mr Melrose) Yes, that is right.

15869. The proposals for parking solutions came out after those September and December meetings?

(Mr Melrose) I have not seen any solutions after those meetings.

15870. Can we look at the bottom of this page, paragraph 3, "ExCel's Phase Two development. J Baggs [who is the Crossrail representative managing this] noted that at the scoping meetings in September and December 2005, with Paul May and Steve Melrose, ExCel had not drawn attention to their Phase Two development and as such the Mott MacDonald studies had not taken these plans into account. PD [Philip Dowson, who is the Chief Finance Officer of ExCel] -----

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

15871. ----- said this was not surprising, since the development proposals had moved rapidly since late last year. ExCel had outline planning permission to extend the exhibition centre which would run out on 1^st November ..." At the meeting in late September 2005, I think it is clear from this minute, you yourselves were not pointing us to the ExCel 2 development or suggesting there was any issue with it?

(Mr Melrose) There was no solution or recommendation by Crossrail to use the east car park; so I would not understand why that would come up. We were scoping out the lorry park. In those meetings we had made it perfectly clear that the lorry park was critical, and all of our discussions focussed on that end of the building.

15872. Can we just focus on the situation post-ExCel 2, please. If ExCel 2 is built, what is the total number of car parking spaces that will be provided by the ExCel Centre, both in the under-croft and immediate adjoining surface level car parks?

(Mr Melrose) Probably in the region of 5,000 spaces.

15873. How many of those will be surface level, adjoining the centre?

(Mr Melrose) Very few.

15874. How many?

(Mr Melrose) Probably about 200.

15875. I think the closest we have got to the situation is likely to be ExCel 9, which is one of your plans?

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

15876. The blue is ExCel Phase 2, and there will continue to be, it would appear from this plan, surface level car parking over here? We have surface level car parking here. There is some issue that you might want to put a casino here?

(Mr Melrose) There will be a further build-out; there will be a Phase 3 development of ExCel that will include further hotels, casinos and other regeneration that would take up those areas of land ------

15877. ----- where you will decide for your own interests to lose surface level car parking?

(Mr Melrose) For the interests of the whole estate, yes.

15878. So far as the impact of the Crossrail is concerned, the arrival of Crossrail at Custom House will very significantly improve ExCel's accessibility by public transport, will it not?

(Mr Melrose) It will certainly complement the good service we get from DLR.

15879. I will take that as a yes. The effect of that very significant improvement is that there will be potential for a significantly increased modal share by public transport, as opposed to car drivers?

(Mr Melrose) I am not sure that is the case. I think that certainly since we have opened the venue we statistically have worked very closely with DLR and we can show that we have stayed at a very static 70 per cent/30 per cent car parking split, DLR split; obviously the higher 70 per cent in favour of DLR public transport. Certainly in terms of domestic shows, it is slightly less than that but it fairly static.

15880. Can I ask to have circulated a letter written on behalf of ExCel by a Mr Bob Parker, who is a Division Director of Peter Brett Associates, who is writing to the London Borough of Newham on your behalf in respect of the ExCel Phase 2 development. This is P114. If I read the first paragraph just to set the context of this letter. It is the second page I am interested in. It is written to the Transport Planner at the London Borough of Newham and it says: "Excel Phase 2 - Transport and Highways Support: ExCel is proposing to implement a second phase of the exhibition centre and will accordingly be submitting a Reserved Matters Application in early autumn 2006". Then it sets out various facts about that application. It is a letter seeking Newham's agreement as to what work has to be done on Reserved Matters. If we look at the second page and the first full paragraph: "It is also anticipated that in the future the implementation of the Crossrail Scheme plus other schemes to upgrade the DLR will further increase the accessibility of the site by public transport and allow an even higher public transport mode share to be achieved. The original projections anticipated that 50% of people were likely to travel to and from ExCel by car. In practice for most shows about 70% of people have travelled by public transport and the target with Crossrail is to increase this proportion to around 80%." What your own transport planners are saying to the local planning authority is the consequence of Crossrail is a modal shift of about ten per cent of your visitors?

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

 

15881. It is very crude, but if one assumes that what you are saying to Newham for the benefit of your Reserve Matters Planning Permission is correct, a modal shift of about ten per cent would free up the need for about 500 car parking spaces? Ten per cent of 5,000 in very crude terms?

(Mr Melrose) I am not sure how you get 500 spaces. If we take our visitor footfall, which is 1.5 million, and we are saying 20 per cent of those come in by car, which is 20,000 [sic], 25,000 [sic], whatever, if we are looking at a car split of 2.2 passengers per car that may be significantly less.

15882. That is fine. Free up about 200 car parking spaces, yes?

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

15883. The consequence of that is as a result of Crossrail you would need that much less car parking space and, in order to make up for the loss of 16 artic HGV spaces, you would designate a part, only a part, of your surface level car parking to artics instead? You would have to re-jig your car parking a bit but you would have that space, would you not?

(Mr Melrose) No, I do not see us having that space, because our car parking is going to go under the venue

15884. We agreed a few minutes ago, Mr Melrose ----- I completely accept there will be a significant amount of under-croft car parking but on your own plans it is clear that there will continue to be a proportion of surface level car parking on the Phase 2 scheme to the east of the ExCel Centre. You may in the future chose to sell it for some other use -----

(Mr Melrose) But that would compromise our future plans.

15885. If you choose to sell the land for some other use or develop it for some other use, that is not really Crossrail's problem, is it?

(Mr Melrose) I do not see why as a venue our operation, our business, should be compromised in the future as to how we wish to develop the site, when actually we have a system that works at this moment that supports our business.

15886. MS LIEVEN: Thank you, Mr Melrose.

15887. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I am going to suspect the Committee for five minutes.

After a short break

15888. MS LIEVEN: I am sorry, sir. Could I have a moment for Mr Berryman to be brought back?

15889. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Yes, that is no problem. Mr Melrose, I am going to let you know your evidence is A 178. It is a single sheet, just to remind you. I am sorry I should have done it before, apologies.

15890. MR NEWCOMBE: I should have reminded the Committee. I am grateful.

15891. MS LIEVEN: It is all right, Mr Berryman is back.

15892. MR NEWCOMBE: Mr Melrose, a couple of points which arise, please. Firstly, you were taken to the minutes of the meeting of 26 June and the proposition being put to you was essentially, "Why did not you tell us about Phase 2 at an earlier stage?" Do you recall that?

(Mr Melrose) I do.

15893. Could we have up, please, the MacDonald report, Promoter's page 011. Can we close in, please, on the first complete paragraph in the right‑hand column. I am going to read to you there a short extract, Mr Melrose. It refers there to the ExCel having parking for 4,000 cars, do you see that?

(Mr Melrose) I do.

15894. It refers to other matters within the ExCel complex including several hotels, that is on the third line. Do you have that?

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

15895. The parking areas are identified as ranging in size from small vans and cars to the largest of lorries?

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

15896. Then the sentence to which I want to direct your attention: "Mott MacDonald identifies significant development is underway through the site in accordance with the urban development framework. This includes construction of new residential dwellings, et cetera". Do you see that?

(Mr Melrose) Yes, I do.

15897. What do you understand Mott MacDonald had in mind as regards the development proposals of ExCel at the time they were writing their report?

(Mr Melrose) The long‑term development of the ExCel site which includes all the residential units, the hotels, and references the Phase 2 development is all detailed in the urban framework plan.

15898. Thank you. Can we then, please, have Promoter's exhibit, this is in the 17 304 A sequence. In the plans of diagrams, 003, please. Just look at the rather Linda Barker lime green area there. Do you see that?

(Mr Melrose) Yes.

15899. That is what, as we understand it, Crossrail is now proposing as some form of a solution. Is that a solution which Mott MacDonald identified?

(Mr Melrose) No, it is not.

15900. Thank you. Now just sticking with that plan, in so far as we can use this one to save changing too much. If we need to go to another one, please say so and take us to the relevant exhibit, but I think we could probably do it on this. A number of questions were put to you, the gist of the argument of which was: "Okay, there is lots of carparking around at the moment. Crossrail is going to come along, throw lots of oofle over the site and you are going to be able to turn some existing carparking spaces into parking for articulated vehicles" and the like. Do you recall those questions?

(Mr Melrose) I do.

15901. Where are those additional carparking places at the moment, please, Mr Melrose?

(Mr Melrose) On this drawing?

15902. Yes.

(Mr Melrose) From when I understood the question, it is to the right of this roundabout area.

15903. Okay. Now you also referred to some under-croft parking, just confirm so nobody is under any illusion about where we find that. Where is this under-croft parking?

(Mr Melrose) The under-croft parking, which we have just opened as a commitment to our Phase 2 development, sits underneath the ExCel building venue, as you see it, and that provides 1,600 spaces and that is to compensate for the spaces that are lost when we build Phase 2.

15904. There are additional phases of the development, outline planning permission and there are negotiations yet to be had with the London Borough of Newham, but let us move on from the proposition, the basis, the matrix of Ms Lieven's questions to the future situation. What is happening in terms of development as regards the ExCel site?

(Mr Melrose) Certainly, as we have discussed with Phase 2, we then have a number of considerations for the further east end of the site in terms of a casino, as I have said, hotels et cetera, a number of opportunities to support the business. These are services that are critical again to attracting major shows. One of the key difficulties that ExCel had when it opened was the lack of hotels on site. As the venue gets bigger, we host more events, the density of the site becomes more populated, so we are going to need more services to support these events.

15905. Given the importance, which we understand is common ground, of the ExCel centre, would you help us with this, please: what do you regard as being the advantage or disadvantage of sterilising future development proposals for the purposes of remedying the adverse impact of Crossrail? Could you draw that balance for us, please?

(Mr Melrose) I think if we put in context what we are trying to achieve strategically as a venue, London is in a position where it has a 21^st-century venue. Its ability to attract major events from all over the world, bringing in conferences, key events, consumer events, all of our services - and if you want the expression "back of house" - are pushed to the north, so the visitor experience, the arrival experience is all about what people see, what they feel. That is a passion that we at ExCel hold true. If then we are talking about a blighting of one end, the east end, of the site we are going to potentially put a marshalling yard at what is the front door to ExCel and potentially blight one end of it.

15906. So far my re‑examination has been directed to on-site matters, but we know again, as a matter of common ground, there are places off-site where alternative parking can be located. I am going to ask you a couple of questions about that. Firstly, Ms Lieven was suggesting to you a combination of looking around and seeing at any given time, when you are breaking down show A and putting up show B, just going around doing a tour of the local area, finding what parking is available and using that on a hand-to-mouth basis and setting up an ad hoc communication service, which no doubt will bring deep joy to the shareholders of Vodafone, using mobile phones. Do you recall that line of questioning?

(Mr Melrose) I do.

15907. Clearly, those are matters which probably could be done. Help us with this: given what ExCel is, its importance, its 21^st-century status and practicality, what do you say about that? Is that a sensible solution or not?

(Mr Melrose) I think it is unrealistic. What we are trying to achieve is a system of working that operates efficiently, that delivers key services that can attract major events and to keep moving services and re-deploying them I think would be an absolute nightmare, certainly for repeat shows when one year a truck marshalling yard happens to be at the east end of ExCel, and then the next year we move it to the west end, and then maybe the year after that we move it to the south side. I think for consistency and continuity, that would bring disruption certainly to the local area in terms of these trucks driving around trying to find where we are parking one year to the next.

15908. I want you to imagine you work now for Ford. Coming to the motor show you have got a large area of floor space which you have taken. It is an important international showcase for your goods. What is going to be your reaction if you are told, "Please, will your driver turn up here. We will then give them a piece of paper as to where to go in the local area and we will call him by mobile phone if he has got one"? What view would you form as Ford?

(Mr Melrose) I cannot see that happening. I think there would be complete frustration on the part of the supplier in terms of asking to change the process. You have to remember when we talked before, we talked about one company. They employ significantly a number of different contractors so they have to manage this piece of information out to all their suppliers. We are just complicating the whole process for them rather than simplifying it.

15909. You have now heard Crossrail's case put to you in cross‑examination. I am going to repeat to you a question I put to you in chief. We know there are sites available with the ExCel area, where alternative provision can be made. We know that as a matter of law and practice it is an obligation (?) on Crossrail to bring forward an additional provision. Are you now in any better position to understand why such an additional provision should not be brought forward having now heard the case put to you?

(Mr Melrose) No.

15910. MR NEWCOMBE: Sir, thank you very much indeed, that concludes my re‑examination and that is the case on behalf of the Petitioners subject to my closing.

15911. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Thank you very much.

15912. MS LIEVEN: I will call Mr Anderson very quickly. I am not going to call Mr Berryman in the light of the way the matter has gone. There is no need to explain why we need to have scope either in temporary or permanent terms.

 

MR DAVID ANDERSON, Recalled

Examined by MS LIEVEN

15913. MS LIEVEN: Mr Anderson, you are well known to the Committee so I am not going to introduce you. The only matter I want you to deal with in evidence is the benefits to the ExCel centre from the Crossrail project.

(Mr Anderson) Yes, as we have already heard, there will be new direct services to Custom House Station adjacent to the site from a range of destinations across London, west of London, central London, Canary Wharf and also in the Kent area. I think we mentioned in opening there will be a significant change in the accessibility of Custom House following the construction of Crossrail. To give a couple of examples of that, if you are looking at west London, accessing the site, we would be looking at a reduction of journey times of about 50 minutes down to less than half an hour. Similarly, looking at journeys from the north Kent area to Custom House, again we see a similar pattern, a journey of 50 minutes reduced to about 30 minutes. It is that effect, that change in accessibility that is likely to lead a change in the pattern of mode share to the site, leading to the shift away from car access to public transport use that we just heard about.

15914. MS LIEVEN: Thank you. I am so sorry, I said it was the only matter but there is one other matter that we ought to clarify. Can we put up 003, the proposal on carparking areas. Mr Newcombe in re‑examination of Mr Melrose went to this lime green area and suggested that was Crossrail's proposed alternative parking area. Is that correct?

(Mr Anderson) No, I think we mentioned in opening that the undertaking suggests that we will be looking for other areas away from the site and I think we will be mentioning in discussions with the LDA to identify those.

15915. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr Newcombe?

Cross-examined by Mr Newcombe

15916. MR NEWCOMBE: Mr Anderson, good afternoon. We have not met before, as far as I am aware. As I understand it, you are a planner and a member of the Institute of Highways and Transportation. Have I understood that correctly?

(Mr Anderson) I am afraid not.

15917. Can you explain to me, please, what your area of expertise is?

(Mr Anderson) My background is in transport planning. I am mostly responsible for the environmental assessment of projects. I am a fellow of the Institute of Civil Engineers.

15918. Thank you very much. When did you most recently visit the ExCel site for the purposes of this Petition?

(Mr Anderson) I could not give you an exact date.

15919. When did you visit the site?

(Mr Anderson) I visited the site on several occasions since I joined Crossrail.

15920. When?

(Mr Anderson) I could not give you an exact date. Some months ago.

15921. Have you read the Mott MacDonald report?

(Mr Anderson) I have read parts of it.

15922. When did you first read those parts? Last night?

(Mr Anderson) No, it was not last night. Some weeks ago.

15923. I may be somewhat hampered in asking questions of you on the Mott MacDonald report if you have only read parts of it, but let us see what progress we can make. All the references I am now giving you, Mr Fry, until I tell you differently, will be the pages in the Mott MacDonald report. 003 to start with, please. This is the executive summary of the report. Mr Anderson, do you see on the right‑hand column a section headed "alternative sites"?

(Mr Anderson) Yes.

15924. And we see the exercise which was carried out here was a preliminary survey. Do you see those words?

(Mr Anderson) Yes.

15925. All right, so far as I am aware there is no evidence before the Committee of anything other than a preliminary survey on behalf of the Promoters. Have I understood that correctly?

(Mr Anderson) I believe so.

15926. Thank you. If you go down to traffic assessment, it says: "It is possible but not confirmed that ExCel holds events that create different levels of lorry and parking demand to those observed on the site during the World Travel Market Exhibition". Do you see that?

(Mr Anderson) Yes.

15927. You have no reason to disagree with that, have you?

(Mr Anderson) No.

15928. The last sentence identifies Mott MacDonald's keynote, executive summary conclusion: "Mitigation would have to be achieved by using areas of land that are not currently identified for car or lorry parking". Do you see that?

(Mr Anderson) Yes, I do.

15929. Do you take a different view?

(Mr Anderson) Can I just be clear, are we talking about the temporary situation here or permanent situation?

15930. I am hampered because this is a report prepared on behalf of those who instruct you. You are the only witness, so I rather assumed you would be able to help me. If you do not know, then simply say, "I do not know".

(Mr Anderson) I think on the basis of what I have said about the prediction in the potential growth for accessing the site by car and the permanent situation, I think we have got to review that sentence.

15931. Sorry, you want to review it. Did you say that?

(Mr Anderson) Clearly, I have identified there are improvements in accessibility arising from the Crossrail project and that will lead to a situation where fewer people can travel by car and that could result in areas that are currently used for carparking as being identified as potential uses to this situation.

15932. I see. To that extent you disagree with your own consultants' report and the highest you put it at is it could result and you want to review it. Again, have I understood that correctly?

(Mr Anderson) Yes, I think that is the position.

15933. Thank you. Could we then have, please, O10. This is the site. Does this form part of the report you have read or not, Mr Anderson?

(Mr Anderson) I could not say I have read every word in detail on this.

15934. Let's see whether we can jog your memory. In the left-hand column, the final paragraph, it starts, "The ExCel Centre...". Do you see that?

(Mr Anderson) Yes.

15935. "The ExCel Centre has been a key contributor to the commencement of regeneration of the area..." et cetera. Do you have any reason to disagree with that?

(Mr Anderson) No.

15936. The ExCel Centre is of material and huge importance in the regeneration and redevelopment of this area, is it not?

(Mr Anderson) It is an important part of the regeneration, yes.

15937. Can we go on please to page 054 which is in section 8. The first paragraph in the right-hand column immediately following the bullet point and the first sentence, "A common element of the possible mitigation described above is the need", and you will understand that I deliberately stress the word "need", "the need to utilise other areas of land within our outside the ExCel site to provide alternative parking for lorries and/or cars". Again can I take it that you agree with that?

(Mr Anderson) Yes.

15938. Let me move on to the conclusions which is page 062. I can take this quickly. I have already looked at the temporary loss situation with my own witness, Mr Melrose, and I do not need to reconsider it with you. You will understand, Mr Anderson, I am deliberately exercising a self-denying ordinance as the Committee now, I am sure, understand the areas in dispute and I am being selective in the points I am putting to you. If you look at 12.3, your consultants' conclusion was that the loss of the land in the permanent situation, ie, post the slewing of the DLR, is an impact for which no mitigation has been identified.

(Mr Anderson) Correct.

15939. That remains the position save insofar as we go off site, does it not?

(Mr Anderson) All I would say is I think that impact needs to be viewed in the context of the benefits which I alluded to earlier.

15940. But if you look at the benefits, if am Mr Bugatti and I want to bring my new Veyron on the site for the purposes of displaying it because everybody goes, "Ooh, aah!", I am not going to be able to put that on the roof-rack of a Crossrail train, am I?

(Mr Anderson) No.

15941. In other words, Crossrail will assist with people getting to it, the visitors, the public, but it does not directly address the key problem of getting the exhibitions set up and broken up, does it?

(Mr Anderson) I agree that it would be an indirect effect if land currently used for the visitor car park became available. It would be an indirect effect.

15942. I am now going to go back to that section of the Promoters' exhibits which includes the meeting notes and could we go please to the meeting note of 26 June, page 006 to start with. How many of these meetings did you attend, Mr Anderson?

(Mr Anderson) I do not believe I was at any of them.

15943. May I ask why, therefore, you are giving evidence on this when to date, as far as I can see, you have played no material part in the discussions on this particular Petition which is one of detail? Why are you giving the evidence?

(Mr Anderson) I was asked to give evidence on the benefits of Crossrail serving Custom House, which I have done.

15944. I see, so you were asked to give evidence on the benefits of Crossrail, but it follows, I assume, on your own admission, that you are not particularly with the details of this site, are you?

(Mr Anderson) That would depend on what you describe as "details". I am familiar with the site and the permanent effects of Crossrail.

15945. But you have not had the opportunity in a meeting to have it explained to you precisely how this site works in terms of setting up and breaking up exhibitions, have you?

(Mr Anderson) I have not had that first hand from ExCel, no.

15946. Could we go on to page 008. I will not reprise the matters which have already been discussed. We know that there are four sites potentially offering alternative off-site provision and if you look at the paragraph towards the bottom of the page, "J Baggs said that there should be an alternative site..." et cetera. Do you see that?

(Mr Anderson) Yes.

15947. That is the one which identifies the possibility of an additional provision, does it not?

(Mr Anderson) Yes, it does.

15948. But it then goes on to set out that that is not presently something which Crossrail is prepared to contemplate.

(Mr Anderson) Correct. I think Mr Baggs was here setting out what the process would be if there was an additional provision.

15949. I can entirely understand that policy matters are matters for civil servants and the Government and not for Ms Lieven and Mr Mould. Wearing your transport planner hat, can we just see whether we can reach a measure of agreement. There are available sites which could be prayed in aid to compensate for the land-take, are there not, off-site? They are set out in this report?

(Mr Anderson) Yes.

15950. It ought to be possible, take it from me, as a matter of law please, and if I am wrong, I will be corrected, to provide the certainty which the Petitioners seek for their important facility, and we have agreed about the importance, by additional provision and, therefore, there is a balance to be drawn, is there not?

(Mr Anderson) If that is a matter of law.

15951. Insofar as you are a transport planner, are you able to advance for this Committee any cogent reason why in transport planning terms there is a disadvantage in the additional provision to give the certainty which is sought by these Petitioners? In transport planning terms, is there any reason at all why an additional provision should not be promoted?

(Mr Anderson) Because I think when you are exercising that judgment, you need to take into account the benefits as well which I have spoken about and on that basis I would not consider that an additional provision on those grounds would be necessary.

15952. Well, let's test this. If an additional provision is promoted, the benefits are not going to alter one jot or tittle, are they?

(Mr Anderson) No, the benefits would be there.

15953. It, therefore, follows, does it not, that you are not able to advance any reason, so far as lies within your area of expertise, why an additional provision should not be promoted, are you?

(Mr Anderson) Well, there could be an adverse impact on others of course from acquiring the land.

15954. Yes, but you are not in a position to give us any information on that, are you?

(Mr Anderson) No, I am not.

15955. Going to the foot of that page, do you see there is a reference to "MH"? If I have understood the notes correctly, these are your, Crossrail's notes of the meeting which we had not seen before we were sent them yesterday. That is a Mr Max Henn, is it not?

(Mr Anderson) I believe so, yes.

15956. Who is Mr Henn?

(Mr Anderson) He is a Crossrail employee.

15957. According to the bit at the beginning, he is the Senior Design Manager, Surface Rail East, so presumably he knows about railway lines, parallel bits of steel. Is that correct?

(Mr Anderson) Yes.

15958. Mr Henn noted three options for solving the parking issue, the parking losses. Do you see that?

(Mr Anderson) Yes.

15959. Can we go over the page to the bullet point right at the top of 009. One of the things which, as at 26 June of this year, less than a month ago, Mr Henn identified was a "reworking of the railway layout to accommodate ExCel's minimum parking requirement". Do you see that?

(Mr Anderson) I do, yes.

15960. I have gone through the exhibits you have produced with some care and I can find no evidence whatsoever of that review having taken place. Are you able to assist the Committee?

(Mr Anderson) Not on that point, I am afraid.

15961. But we can agree, can we not, that clearly as at 26 June, Mr Henn was still considering that these matters which you say are set in concrete - forgive me, no pun intended - were still susceptible to review, were they not, even the alignment of the railway lines?

(Mr Anderson) I think the point has been made there by Mr Henn himself.

15962. So although Crossrail advance this on the basis of, "We are where we are and it is too late to change", we can see that one of your own experts is clearly envisaging, it is perfectly practical, and he would not say it otherwise, a review of even where the railway lines were, was he not?

(Mr Anderson) I was not at the meeting, so I am not quite sure what was behind that statement, but it is possible that the area taken could, subject to detailed design, be slightly less than what has been indicated. I am sure there will still be a need to take some of that land.

15963. MR NEWCOMBE: Mr Anderson, I am very grateful. You have very fairly identified the limits to which you were able to assist me and you have been very patient with me even though my questions have necessarily taken you beyond the areas you were prepared for, so I am very grateful. I have no further cross-examination.

15964. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Ms Lieven?

15965. MS LIEVEN: I have no re-examination, sir.

 

The witness withdrew

15966. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Do you want to wind up.

15967. MS LIEVEN: Sir, there is just one point. Mr Newcombe's last question about that minute from Mr Henn and whether or not it is possible to move the tracks to minimise the land-take, that is a matter for Mr Berryman and not Mr Anderson. It is no criticism of Mr Newcombe. I was not going to call Mr Berryman, I did not think that point would be taken, but I think, in the light of that question, we probably need Mr Berryman to reassure the Committee, or I can reassure the Committee, but it is probably better if it comes from the engineer, that the permanent land-take we think there is virtually no scope to change. The temporary, we will do everything we can at detailed design.

15968. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Ms Lieven, it is up to you to call the witnesses.

15969. MS LIEVEN: I will call Mr Berryman, sir.

 

MR KEITH BERRYMAN, recalled

Examined by MS LIEVEN

15970. MS LIEVEN: Mr Berryman, could you just explain to those representing ExCel who you are and why you are giving evidence?

(Mr Berryman) I am the Managing Director of CLRL which is the company set up by the Government and Transport for London to take this project forward.

15971. So far as the issue of the land-take is concerned, let's deal first with the temporary land-take for worksites. To what degree may there be scope, as design continues, to take less land at this location?

(Mr Berryman) Of course you will appreciate we are a very long way from letting contracts yet for this work. The method which the contractor chooses to use, the kind of plant he chooses to use and the method of work he chooses to use will to some extent determine the amount of land that he will take. What we will do is bear down very heavily on them during the negotiation stage when we are letting the contract to make sure that they do take a reasonable minimum amount of land and that as much as possible of the lorry park is left for the temporary use. However, I feel bound to remind everyone that we have already said that, as far as the temporary situation is concerned, we are prepared to use all reasonable endeavours to find alternative sites off-site to accommodate the parking.

15972. Can we put up 003. So far as the permanent land-take is concerned, the thin, purple sliver, to what degree is there any scope to take less land permanently?

(Mr Berryman) Obviously, as detailed design goes on, one of the things we will do, as is done in any form of design, is to try and make sure we take the minimum amount of land and there may be a little bit of scope to reduce that somewhat, but certainly not enough to make it go away, so there is always going to be a narrow strip of land along there which we will need to take for the purpose of realigning the DLR. To explain why that is, as I think members of the Committee will know, we intend to take over the North London Line in this location, but just at that point is where our tunnel portal is, where the track descends into the ground, and the tracks have to be splayed so that they can get into two tunnels, so we need to take a bit more land than is there now. We are talking a matter of single metres, I think, in that case.

15973. In relation to the amount of land that is being taken, as the Managing Director of Crossrail, in your view, is there sufficient justification to seek an additional provision to CPO the other land off-site for the replacement of that?

(Mr Berryman) I do not think so. I think the point to be made is that all the other land in the area which is a potential car parking site belongs to somebody. It is all development land. As has been said already, the ExCel scheme has been a major contributor to the redevelopment of this area and the regeneration. The coming of Crossrail will be an additional regeneration and it is not appropriate to be taking someone else's land which is development land for the purposes of repaying ExCel with their development land, particularly bearing in mind the very small size of this site. If we were to provide an equivalent area of land for the ExCel company, the site would be a very small site and it would not be big enough to be usable on its own account and, for that reason, I do not think it could be justified.

15974. Thank you very much, Mr Berryman.

15975. MR NEWCOMBE: Sir, much as it would be perfectly delightful to talk to Mr Berryman, I am satisfied that the Committee has a sufficient grasp of the issues between us. We do not agree, but no purpose would be served by cross-examination.

 

The witness withdrew

15976. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Ms Lieven?

15977. MS LIEVEN: First of all, sir, and most importantly, this is a case where it is really important to keep things in perspective. I ask the Committee to compare ExCel's exhibit OO8 with ExCel's exhibit 0010 as far as permanent land-take is concerned and then to compare that impact with the benefit of Crossrail to ExCel. Let's just take a breath and see this in context. Having taken that perspective, one should then see the rather forensic criticism of Mr Anderson in cross-examination about his knowledge of the Mott MacDonald Report. Can I deal first with temporary, then with permanent and then with compensation.

15978. Temporary - we have given an undertaking that we will work with ExCel to find off-site alternatives. We have given an undertaking that we will work at the detailed design stage to minimise the duration and area of the temporary land-take. Everybody agrees that there are sites available off-site and that is proven if by nothing more than the 11,000 spaces that ExCel manage to find off-site when they need them for the Motor Show or want them for the Motor Show. We cannot designate the site now because this is an area where things change quite rapidly, but there is no issue that a site can be found and there is no issue that we will work with ExCel to find a site. Therefore, in my submission, there is no issue; temporary is just not a problem.

15979. So far as permanent is concerned, we are talking here about the loss of a maximum of 16 HGV spaces - compare ExCel 8 with ExCel 10. Even then, it is clear from the photographs in the bundle that they are by no means always used for articulated lorries that have to park in this way. Often the area seems to be used for Transits which can park ultimately in the undercroft of ExCel 1 or 2, but let us accept that at some very busy times there will be a loss of surface car parking here for up to 16 artics. That has to be taken against the background of the major improvement, massive improvement really to public transport accessibility to ExCel from Crossrail which means that a very large number of existing ExCel space, something between 200 and 400 existing spaces, will be freed up because of, as ExCel's own transport expert says, something like a 10 per cent shift in modal share. Some of those spaces would undoubtedly be in the undercroft and not appropriate for artics, but there will, even under ExCel 2, be surface-level car parking that could perfectly well be used by articulated lorries instead of the sliver that is going to be lost. The only case that Mr Melrose puts against that is, well, they would like to keep the freedom to use those areas for other development.

15980. Ultimately, sir, what this comes down to is ExCel asking us to CPO somebody else's land, a n other's land which also has development potential in order to keep ExCel's development potential. In my submission, the ultimate problem is that whoever the unlucky loser on the AP was would have a very strong case to come along and say, "That's simply unjustified given the minimal impact on ExCel and the massive benefit to ExCel from Crossrail". Therefore, in my submission, there is just no justification in this case to go around CPOing somebody else's land.

15981. If I can then turn to compensation, there are three reasons why it would be wholly inappropriate to depart from the Compensation Code here. First of all, there is the one which we always say, that they are seeking a departure from the Compensation Code and to depart in individual cases or even on an individual project from the Code would be unfair in principle to all the other people around the country who get CPOed who do not have that benefit, so there is a really strong case in equity for not making exceptions here and there and leaving the matter to Parliament on a national public basis to decide what fair compensation provisions are. That is number two.

15982. Number two is if this Committee or indeed Parliament made promoters of infrastructure projects responsible for business losses, then, I would submit very strongly, you would stop any infrastructure projects in the UK dead because it would simply be impossible to finance them.

15983. Thirdly, the policy behind the Code, because one can trot out this Code and ultimately the Code might be terribly unfair and completely wrong, but it is important to understand the policy behind the Code in this case and it is made crystal clear by ExCel's case. ExCel will get a massive benefit from Crossrail and that will be directly reflected in the profitability of their business because so many more people will be able to get to it easily. Crossrail does not get a cut of that massive increase in profitability, that is a matter for ExCel. They get that benefit, that is for them. There is a swing and a roundabout. There is a small disbenefit here from taking land for which they will get compensation, but that has to be seen in the context of the benefit that they get from the infrastructure improvements. Therefore, in my submission, actually this is a case perhaps not surprisingly where the Compensation Code is completely fair, so, in my submission, the Committee should have no hesitation in dismissing the compensation argument. Thank you very much, sir.

15984. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr Newcombe?

15985. MR NEWCOMBE: Sir, thank you. In the light of the helpful crystallisation of the issues and the substantial amount of agreement between the Promoters on the one hand and your Petitioners on the other, I hope I can take this reasonably shortly. I am conscious that is forever the claim of counsel, but if I go on a little longer, I hope for some indulgence. Perhaps I could have up please, by way of an aide-memoire A177, I think, which is our position statement. I do not intend to read this, but it may be helpful if we have the structure of it in front of us.

15986. The matters of agreement massively exceed the area of dispute. There is no dispute between the parties as to the international importance of the ExCel facility, nor, as I understand it, is there any dispute as to the compass, the desirability or the importance of ExCel continuing to develop in order to meet markets. Mr Melrose, I said this very slightly critically of him, used an adjective which is not always helpful of "21^st Century" to describe that. What we have to bear in mind is that these types of world showcase, and I do use the words "world showcase" advisedly, for trade involve matters of perception as well as actuality, and a facility which does not have the flexibility to continue to develop is moribund without more. Again there appears to be no dispute as to that.

15987. There is no dispute as to the physical extent potentially in terms of temporary land-take nor permanent. Of necessity in a project such as this, the precise extent, timescale, duration and location of the construction sites will be detailed in due course and it is not susceptible for identification at this stage. I make no complaint, it goes with the project, but the overall ambit of it and order of magnitude is identified. There is no debate but that there are sites available in the area where the effects, which are accepted, will be adverse, merely a debate as to how adverse, which can be prayed in aid and used. Indeed the mitigation which the Promoters encourage and endorse to you is predicated on the use of such matters. Indeed they are offering reasonable purpose to assist in identifying and using those. It follows that the only debate is as to whether or not the Promoters should effectively be asked in polite terms to put up or shut up through a mechanism they themselves have identified in their minutes of 26 June, you will recall, and there is no debate but that the additional provision route is available here. There are sites to which it could be applied and it is no part of today's proceedings that we need to identify those. The provision is, therefore, there and, as I understand it, in other areas there are additional provisions already being contemplated.

15988. In those circumstances, it is instructive to look at Mr Anderson who was the primary witness on behalf of the Promoters. In answer to my question, the only reason he was able to advance in any sensible transportation planning terms as to why an additional provision should not be promoted to give the additional certainty which the Petitioners say is commercially required, he first of all referred to the Crossrail benefits and then when I asked him, "Well, they are not going to change, are they, whether you have an additional provision or not?", he very fairly accepted that they would not.

15989. It therefore follows that the promoters own expert in these matters, looking at it in terms of transportation of access, was himself unable to give the Committee any reason why an additional provision should not be promoted. It is highly understandable that Crossrail say to you that those are adverse impacts and nonetheless they are not very big and by a little bit of squidging here and a little bit of squodging there the problem can be dealt with. There are two fallacies to that.

15990. Firstly, squidging and squodging so far as it exists as a technical term is not the sort of thing that one wants for a 21^st Century centre for the reason that Mr Melrose identified. Certainly calling lorries forward by mobile phones and saying to the driver, "Can you please go down, if you turn left to the third on the right, you can park outside Mrs Jones until we call you forward". That is no way to run an international exhibition centre and the additional fallacies, in the way that Ms Lieven put it to Mr Melrose, were to identify. Starting from the existing situation to go around and look at where they are existing as yet under developed areas used for car parking, you can say, "If you save these, Crossrail will bring in more people by rail and therefore you can save". That is fallacious for two reasons. One is that Crossrail has produced no evidence to the persons of this petition to identify that those savings are going to crystallise in relation to this particular exhibition centre. Even more importantly, identified earlier is a matter of agreement that the development proposals, the continuing development through phase two and, or indeed consented through subsequent phases are an essential an integral part of the ExCel, it cannot stand still. Therefore, it follows that these sites are substantially already bespoke. In those circumstances, Sir, I entirely take Ms Lieven's point that an additional provision is a polite way of talking around the fact that it would require the giving of powers to the promoters to acquire, under the threat of compulsion, land belonging to others . There is no use being mealy-mouthed about it, that is what we are asking for.

15991. What we are asking the Committee to do, with respect, is to draw that balance. We say that if the ExCel centre is of sufficient importance to warrant that, and again the promoters own highways transportation witness himself was unable to identify any good reason in drawing precisely that balance as to why an additional provision should not be promoted. In those circumstances, Sir, we invite the Committee to debate and rule in the terms set out in the position statement which I will not go through, it is subject to identifying two matters. You will recall that if we look at 1.3, paragraph 1.31, the promoters have not produced nor have any submissions made as to why they should be granted the right permanently to require land which they themselves have accepted that they are only going to require temporarily and this is not the case where the Committee has to deliberate, there simply is no case on behalf of the promoters to justify those powers. Those elements fall.

15992. As regards the 500 meters point in paragraph 1.4(1.42), that point was covered by Ms Lieven in cross-examination of Mr Melrose and you will recall the way in which he identified that 500 meters as a planning figure, planning in the sense of a useful yardstick. Of necessity it cannot be a precise figure but that is an indicator of the degree of proximity which we say would be appropriate. I turn then to the question of compensation provision, Sir, and I can deal with that briefly and you will recall it is A178. I say the following things about that. Firstly, it is not in dispute that there are precedents for such site specific or petitioner specific departures from the compensation code. They have to be justified and they have to be applied with caution and discretion but there are precedents for them, that is not the matter in dispute, it is between the promoters on the one hand and the petitioners. Secondly, the arguments which Ms Lieven advanced in cases of the compensation code therefore would be grossly unfair to depart from.

15993. As the Committee will be aware as is common in these things, and I make no criticism of the promoters here, it is common in almost every works bill or transport and works act order I have encountered. The promoters themselves are here bringing provisions to alter in various ways the application of the compensation code so they themselves have put the first breech. What we are talking about is an additional provision here. They are, themselves, modifying in exactly the same way. The position here also is that effectively in those circumstances we are saying that which is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander but I stress, Sir, we only raise this point with the Committee on the basis that we accept entirely that the onus is on us to justify it here, this is a departure from everything, whereas, in the rest of our case, we say the onus is on the promoters to justify that which they require. They have not and therefore they need to demonstrate why they put in an additional provision or else promote one.

15994. In respect of the compensation provision, I entirely accept that the onus is on us in my submission. The evidence produced by Mr Melrose is sufficient to overcome that threshold or hurdle. Even with the Committee against me on that, the relevance of the compensation point and the fact that the compensation code, as is well known, has shortcomings within it in the sense that there are limitations on its ability to compensate for business loss reinforcing the earlier points which I was making because if one adds that into the equation of the functioning of ExCel in my submission, the fact that the compensation code has difficulty there reinforces the requirement, underpins the case for the promoters bringing forward an additional provision because that in itself would avoid most of the problem which we, the petitioners, have.

15995. Sir, unless I am reminded of any other points by those who instruct me which I need to draw to your attention now, those are the submissions I would wish to make. Essentially, I will return to where Mr George dealt with the Maersk petition. The promoters simply have not justified the powers they seek here unless and until they carry out the exercise we have sought to encourage them to do, promote and come forward with additional provisions. Those are my submissions unless there is anything else I can assist the Committee with.

15996. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Not at this stage. Mr Newcombe, thank you very much indeed. Mr George, would you like to deal with Mendip. I am recessing at half past four. I leave it in your capable hands.

15997. MR GEORGE: Petition 157, Mendip Rail. Mendip Rail is a company jointly owned by aggregate companies Hanson Quarry Products Europe and Foster Yeoman, whose petitions you are going to hear in the Autumn, having been deferred from yesterday. Mendip Rail is an unusual railway company, in that, whilst it owns and maintains its own trains and wagons which transport aggregates on the rail network, particularly on the Great Western but to a lesser extent also on the Great Eastern Lines, it is not a licensed freight train operator. It is in a unique position: it has its own trains, but it contracts with one of the freight operators to provide the train crews for their trains. At the present time, the contracted operator is EWS, but the position could change in the future.

15998. Mendip Rail does not have any property interests in the various goods yards threatened by the Crossrail proposal, with the exception of Plumstead, which I shall come to in a moment, although its activities depend on there being secure access to goods yards on the Great Western Line and in particular to West Drayton and Acton Goods Yard and Colnbrook. They are also about to take an interest in the Plumstead Goods Yard and are concerned that if that strategic site is lost another should be made available in its vicinity.

15999. I should make it plain that Mendip Rail have always known of the threat of Crossrail to the Plumstead site but they have not known the extent of the threat, and it seems that the extent of the threat still remains uncertain. We will come later to look at what Mr Berryman said on that matter on Tuesday evening of Day 51.

16000. Most of the matters which were raised by EWS applied equally to the Mendip Rail Petition and therefore we can take those matters extremely quickly. Sir, we are heartened at Mendip Rail by the statements which the Committee made yesterday morning, and I refer particularly to Day 52, paragraph 15258, that the Committee was concerned to know exactly where we were going on timetabling and were seeking a response. That is a great encouragement to Mendip Rail. They simply desire to put it on record that they may wish to comment on whatever is forthcoming and that it is very important that the further work takes into account AP3, which concerns, as we understand it, the alteration of the depot sites. That is a very important matter to the whole question of timetabling and it would be wholly artificial if AP3 - albeit that it is not yet formally before the Committee - were to be ignored by those who we hope are going to be working very hard on some timetabling over the coming weeks.

16001. Sir, there is one specific point which Mendip Rail is going to be raising in relation to compensation. Because they are not actually operating trains on the line - as I have already explained, they are being driven by others - they do not have the benefit of the railway procedures to ensure compensation for disruptions and so forth. On the other hand, for reasons which will be explained by Mr Taylor, they anticipate that they will suffer considerable losses in the form of additional costs during the construction period and they do seek a specific compensation provision to cover those losses.

16002. Sir, with that said by way of background, I will proceed straight away to call Mr Taylor. There is a bundle of exhibits. You will be delighted, I fancy, to find that it is such a slender bundle, and I am told you will want to give it a number.

16003. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Petition Mendip Rail, 157, will be A179.

16004. MR GEORGE: Sir, we shall need to make a reference to the EWS exhibit at one point, document A145, if arrangements could be made to put that up on the screen.

 

MR ALAN TAYLOR, Sworn

Examined by MR GEORGE

16005. MR GEORGE: Are you Alan Taylor?

(Mr Taylor) I am.

16006. Are you the managing director of Mendip Rail Ltd?

(Mr Taylor) Yes.

16007. How long have you held that position?

(Mr Taylor) Eleven years.

16008. For how many years have you worked in the rail industry?

(Mr Taylor) Thirty-seven years.

16009. For how many years as a rail manager in the quarrying industry?

(Mr Taylor) Twenty-six years.

16010. I think you are a member of the Institute of Quarrying.

(Mr Taylor) That is correct.

16011. Can you very quickly explain your responsibilities within Mendip Rail.

(Mr Taylor) Yes, it is the negotiations of rail haulage contracts, the purchase of rail rolling stock, maintenance contracts and the day-to-day management of Mendip Rail, tying in with all the various bodies such as the Rail Regulator when we do get involved with the Railway Inspectorate.

16012. Would you explain the position about operating trends.

(Mr Taylor) Yes. Mendip Rail, as you say, is not a licensed operating company. We manage the trains on behalf of, primarily, Foster Yeoman and Hanson. We are based on a fixed timetable. We weekly alter that timetable and run trains mainly to the South East and the South of England. At the moment EWS is the main haulage contractor that we work with.

16013. I think it is right that you get EWS to haul, in your trains, aggregates from the Mendips up the Great Western Line, and some of them go to the east and all the way out along the line into East Anglia.

(Mr Taylor) That is correct.

16014. In addition, you also haul aggregates from places like Dagenham, which come up the Barking Line and through the areas we have been concerned with, the Stratford/Gospel Oak section of the Great Eastern, and up on to various routes around London which we have been talking about earlier on in the hearing.

(Mr Taylor) That is correct, yes,.

16015. Could we put up your exhibit 1, please. Would you explain graph one for the Committee.

(Mr Taylor) Graph one highlights that Mendip Rail moves roughly over six million tonnes a year. Of that, 74 per cent will be affected either on the Great Western Main Line or the Great Eastern by the Crossrail development.

16016. You are not suggesting that will all be wiped out, but bluey-purpley colour is the area which is potentially affected because it goes on these lines.

(Mr Taylor) Correct.

16017. Then graph two.

(Mr Taylor) Graph two highlights that, at the two Mendip Quarries, the 3.6 million tonnes that comes up through Reading and on to the Great Western Main Line (70 per cent) will be affected by Crossrail. So 5.19 tonnes is the total out of the Mendips and 70 per cent will be affected by Crossrail.

16018. Graph three, please.

(Mr Taylor) This is the other tonnage that you related to it which comes from Dagenham, South Wales, the Midlands, into the London area. As you will see, 98 per cent of that tonnage will be affected again by Crossrail.

16019. Therefore you regard the operations you carry out as very much potentially affected by Crossrail.

(Mr Taylor) Correct.

16020. If we could put up, please, Exhibit 2.

(Mr Taylor) This highlights really the influence of Acton on our operations and it highlights the diversity of all the lines coming across the country. We will see that the ones with the orange dots are where we load material, so it is not just limited to the Mendip Quarries. It includes south Wales, it includes Avonmouth, and then, over on the east, Marks Tey, Parkeston, Dagenham and the Isle of Grain in Kent. You have loading areas around the outside of that and running the trains into the centre all through Acton. The yellow line, for example, represents, from the Mendips, 3.6 million tonnes, and you can see the diverse terminals it serves, down into Kent and up into East Anglia.

16021. Let us turn to the specific topics. So far as the matters of capacity and timetabling are concerned, those have been dealt with by other witnesses. First of all, do you support what they have said?

(Mr Taylor) I do.

16022. Secondly, do you seek the same relief by way of undertaking as they sought, and by that I mean EWS and Freightliner?

(Mr Taylor) I do, yes, because all they are doing is replicating my demands.

16023. Is it right to say that it would be helpful for you to add anything on those matters because everything has been said?

(Mr Taylor) I think it has, yes.

16024. Just one matter though, do you anticipate any circumstance in which aggregate flows coming from the Mendips are going to remain at existing levels, or do you anticipate them growing by 2015?

(Mr Taylor) They will grow, and they have grown over the years; but I think there is one clear point with aggregates: take this time last year, we did not know that the Olympics was going to happen and I think that is very much the way the aggregates happen, that something occurs and the demand goes up and down. That is really what we are adjusting to, this up and down demand. This is why I have only referred to 2006 in all my exhibits this year, because it is a very fluctuating market. I believe it will grow because of the demise of aggregates, particularly in the Thames Valley.

16025. Secondly, so far as the railway clauses and the Access Option are concerned, a considerable amount of evidence has been given. Do you again support that evidence?

(Mr Taylor) I do, yes.

16026. Do you want to add anything on those matters?

(Mr Taylor) Not at this stage. I think it is for EWS and Freightliner, as my haulier, who are responsible for those; but I think it is important that we keep the access and it is understood and clear on the relief lines (on the Great Western particularly) at all times. I will leave it to others to get the right answer on that. It is essential.

16027. There are just three sites I want to refer to. The first site I want to refer to is West Drayton. I ask if there could be put up on the overhead the Promoters Plain English Heads of Terms about West Drayton. This is a document supplied to the rail companies last week. First of all, when we are dealing with West Drayton I think we have to draw a distinction, do we not, between the West Drayton site, where Lafarge operate, and the site known as West Drayton East, with Hanson?

(Mr Taylor) That is correct, yes

16028. Let us start with the main site at West Drayton where Lafarge operate. Do you supply them?

(Mr Taylor) We do.

16029. We there see what the Promoters are saying, and they say it willingly distinguishes EWS but the Promoter is promoting an additional provision whose effect would be to protect the existing Lafarge interest on the site, and it has prepared a draft undertaking giving effect to this. Pausing there, provided that happens and Lafarge are able to continue there and able to receive your trains, would you be content?

(Mr Taylor) I would, yes

16030. Then it goes on further to say that the Promoter is also promoting a revised depot strategy. That is a matter which is entirely going to depend on whatever we see when AP3 comes out, is it not?

(Mr Taylor) Yes.

16031. And therefore is not really a matter for the present - save if EWS can stay there I imagine you would be delighted?

(Mr Taylor) Exactly, yes.

16032. There are two related matters. Could we please have up on the screen the document which was EWS16, and that is in the EWS bundle of documents A145. This is a list of Bill capacity enhancements which EWS and Freightliner were seeking. If we go to the bottom of the first page where West Drayton is seen, we can see a reference to certain works which are planned there. In the third column they are described as Works 3/9, 3/10 and 3/10A, and they are all matters which are in the Bill and have been environmentally assessed. How important are those works?

(Mr Taylor) As I understand it, they are critical for the working in that area for the timetable to work and for access to our sites and the Colmbrook Branch and the area to make the freight trains blend in with the other trains.

16033. Can you imagine any circumstances in which it would not be essential to have those works before the first Crossrail train ran on the line?

(Mr Taylor) No, I could not

16034. Could we please scroll down to the next page and the top item and could we blow up the top section, West Drayton, dealing with Works 3/10 and 3/10A-B?

(Mr Taylor) Again, I think it is like the previous sheet, it does apply to the working of the trains in that area and the access to our sites in that area and the free running of the trains operating onto and off the Colmbrook branch.

16035. So far as Colmbrook is concerned, it has its access, does it not, from West Drayton?

(Mr Taylor) It does, yes.

16036. Do your trains serve Colmbrook?

(Mr Taylor) Yes, we do

16037. Are those Works we have just been looking at, 3/9 and 3/10, important also for access to Colmbrook?

(Mr Taylor) As I understand it, yes

16038. No more on that matter. Could we then go back to the Promoters Heads of Terms for Acton. This is what the Promoter has agreed: first of all, to form a working group. I think you are involved in that working group, are you not?

(Mr Taylor) I am, yes.

16039. That says that those will be people who will give due notice of proposed changes and will be consulted on matters such as track layout, programming and possession planning. Is that something which is very important and which you want written down in a document?

(Mr Taylor) It is essential, yes.

16040. As I say, that is being worked on and you have just laid down a market that it is critically important?

(Mr Taylor) It is, yes.

16041. So far as the third matter is concerned, to work with the rail served tenants to reconfigure the site and so forth, and to permit construction of the dive-under and the existing rail served activity, we understand that to be part of AP3 and, therefore, it is premature at this stage; but how important is it to Mendip Rail that you are still able to have access to that site and to the existing tenants there to take your aggregate?

(Mr Taylor) As was shown by my diagram earlier on, I think it is essential for the operation of our trains through the yard and also to the sites that we have got at Acton, which are my two customers; and we must have continuous supply to them.

16042. Could we go back to what we had up there. There is a reference there to the "dive-under", how important is that?

(Mr Taylor) Again, I think it is essential.

16043. There was talk about the up relief-line at Acton on Tuesday evening. Do you remember that?

(Mr Taylor) I do.

16044. I think at the present you do not send any trains directly north of Acton; they all go into Acton and you split up your trains there. Is that right?

(Mr Taylor) That is correct.

16045. The time might come when you no longer had a contractual relationship with EWS, so what is your view about this up relief-line?

(Mr Taylor) I think there was a comment made by Mr Durham yesterday which I think is essential. If EWS have got full control of the yard that would affect competition and us using different train operators through the site. Also, in the case of any disruption, you have got an alternative line there which is controlled by Network Rail, I imagine.

16046. The last matter here is Plumstead, which is one of the strategic sites in which you are about to acquire an interest. We do not need an exhibit. When Mr Berryman gave evidence, Day 51A at paragraph 15050, he said that was going to look at the question as to whether it was possible to maintain a freight site at Plumstead. How important is it that there should be a freight site at Plumstead?

(Mr Taylor) It is very important because the South East of London is developing, and certainly we have been looking for the last two or three years at putting a depot in that area.

16047. The Thames Gateway area, which is one of the focuses of the Government's planning, has a substantial area south of the river, does it not, just east of Plumstead?

(Mr Taylor) Yes, and they are very limited strategic freight sites in that part of the world. Graham Smith made a comment about "must have rail access"; but any site must have road access as well, planning permissions and also areas to stock materials.

16048. Can we put up on the screen your exhibit MRL3, dealing with compensation. Could we please zoom in on it. I explained that you are seeking a special compensation. Can you please explain the two circumstances during construction which are likely to lead to loss which will be uncompensated unless you have a special provision?

(Mr Taylor) Yes, one will be extended journeys for trains, so we will have to purchase more wagons and locomotives to run our existing business.

16049. MR GEORGE: Why will there be extended journeys to trains?

16050. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: I suspend the sitting until Tuesday, ten o'clock. There is a division in the House.

 

The Committee adjourned until Tuesday 18 July at 10am