Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6700
- 6719)
6700. Kelvin Hopkins: I am quite staggered
by what we have heard this afternoon. I had made the assumption,
na-£ve though it may be, that all of this is sorted out before
and that every possible mind is concentrated on all the alternatives
and we come up with the best alternative. What you are suggesting
is that this has not been done and this may not be the best alternative.
(Mr Schabas) Correct.
6701. I know a bit about railways myself and
I know the Reading argument. Could we not even now say to Network
Rail, "It is your job to sort out the signalling at Reading"?
I know that Reading is a problem, but are you suggesting also
that the reason why the scheme does not go to Reading is because
of the cost of resignalling Reading?
(Mr Schabas) Reading is going to be resignalled.
The reason it does not go to Reading is because the Cross London
Rail Link team has so little understanding of railway operations
and the national rail network that they did not know that it was
going to be resignalled, so when they went to Network Rail and
said, "We want to run to Reading", Network Rail, which
is a different organisation, tried it on and said, "Okay,
fine, you can run to Reading, but you will have to pay to resignal
it and that will cost £150 million". "Well, then
we'll stop at Maidenhead". Of course Network Rail was just
kidding because they are going to do it anyway, but it is symptomatic
of the whole process, that they have not understood the big picture
and they have been in too much of a hurry, so they rushed the
Bill in terminating at Maidenhead and they found out later that
of course Network Rail has got to resignal Reading anyway and
once you are resignalling it, it does not make much difference
which you will be resignalling it for, so it is not the cost,
but just their own inability to understand the network.
6702. If one wants to build the best scheme
which is what the country needs, it may just be that it will cost
a bit more than an alternative scheme which is not what the country
needs. Reading is a major junction and a commuter town and Heathrow
Airport, as it would, is linked to CTRL—
(Mr Schabas) Except it does not. They say it
does, but it does not. It does in words and they hoped it would,
but it never will. It is another thing that does not work.
6703. But Canary Wharf clearly is an international
hub. All of these things have not been properly considered, in
your view?
(Mr Schabas) That is correct. You have the
same on the Shenfield branch where they have never addressed how
trains would interact with the freight, with the longer-distance
trains, possibly making services worse on both branches. There
are ways to find solutions to these problems, but they have only
belatedly become aware of them, so instead of seizing opportunities,
they are trying to overcome mistakes they have already locked
themselves into. There is one point on Reading which is worth
mentioning. Crossrail, I think, still have on their website something
called the `outline business case' from about two and a half years
ago which was what Montague reviewed. They had no branch to Maidenhead
either at that point and it went to Kingston-upon-Thames, the
Richmond branch, Kingston and Acton. Montague dropped that branch
because it cost a lot of money and brought no extra revenue. It
was a financial black hole. He added the Reading branch, or rather
the Maidenhead branch back in in his study as a kind of last-minute
thing and said, "Maybe you should put this one in instead
because it makes money", and indeed running to Reading should
make the business case better and would probably cost less money
and require less subsidy, but that is not something that they
have understood. They have always been in a hurry as engineers
to find something they could build. With some of these additions,
going up to King's Cross will pay for itself quite probably and
certainly the one to Reading pays for itself and you get extra
money. Those people pay real money. This is not something in the
case of the United States and most of Europe where, when you build
a railway, it loses money. In Britain, because it costs so much
to drive, sometimes you do something that makes money and the
Superlink argument was that it would cost 25 per cent more to
build to go to all these places, but the subsidy net would be
much, much less.
6704. There is a phrase that, "If one wanted
to get there, one would not start from here", but we are
where we are.
(Mr Schabas) That is true.
6705. Chairman: Would you accept that,
in the same way you have said that people have not fully examined
all the issues, you yourself are not the expert on revenues and
it is just an opinion that you are giving today?
(Mr Schabas) No, there is no one person who
is an expert, but I have looked at the business case and quite
a lot of numbers have now been released from Montague's analysis
of different branches.
6706. But you personally have not studied or
written that up to say that that should apply and, therefore,
it is your opinion that that could make a difference?
(Mr Schabas) That is correct, but the rail
industry is actually quite an open organisation once you are inside
it. We have passenger and revenue data from every station in the
country, I have it on my laptop here, and we have a lot of experience.
If you provide three services from Reading to central London,
we know what that will do to revenue from Reading, like we know
what it will do when you provide three services from Shenfield
to Tottenham Court Road.
6707. I understand that, but the case being
put by Mr Pugh-Smith is that all the options have not been fully
examined.
(Mr Schabas) That is right.
6708. Well, I am saying that what you are here
telling us is your opinion and you yourself have not actually
done any detailed study.
(Mr Schabas) That is right, absolutely.
6709. In the same vein, you have not dismissed
either that the route which has been chosen is the best route?
(Mr Schabas) Correct.
6710. You have given alternatives, but you have
not dismissed the route which has been chosen?
(Mr Schabas) That is right, and I have told
my friends in Mayfair that it may be that the right route is beside
the American Embassy, but I do not know.
6711. Mr Pugh-Smith: Sir, I think in
view of the time, I will spare you re-examination.
The witness withdrew
6712. Ms Lieven: Sir, having said so
determinedly that I was not going to call a witness and I was
not going to cross-examine on this, it is still our clear position
that these matters go to the principle of the Bill, but in the
light of the concerns raised by certain members of the Committee
and their obvious concern, which is not surprising given that
they have only heard Mr Schabas' evidence, that we have not considered
alternatives properly and this is not the best scheme, both of
which we hotly contest, if the Committee so wishes, I am more
than happy to call Mr Berryman, obviously after we have heard
Mr Winbourne and the Mayfair residents have completed their case,
in order to explain why, on those two key points, which is the
degree to which we have considered alternatives and why this plainly
is the best route in transport planning terms and that this is
the right scheme. It does go to the principle of the Bill and
it is, strictly speaking, irrelevant to this Committee, but I
am obviously not happy on behalf of the Promoters that any member
of the Committee should feel that we are promoting this Bill irresponsibly,
which is very plainly not the case and the best person to tell
you that is Mr Berryman.
6713. Chairman: That is very helpful
and I think it is probably necessary for Mr Berryman to come and
give evidence.
6714. Ms Lieven: Certainly, sir. As you
know, he is sitting behind me, so he does not have to come far!
6715. Chairman: Mr Pugh-Smith, do you
wish to call your final witness and then we will call Mr Berryman?
6716. Mr Pugh-Smith: Yes, sir. My final
witness is Mr Winbourne. Perhaps I could stress again, to save
time, that why we have called Mr Winbourne is to explain why the
issue of alternatives needs to be looked at holistically, given
the legal requirement under the Environmental Assessment Directive
and Regulations, but also in the context of dealing with the issue
of compensation on which Mr Winbourne is acknowledged as an expert.
Without further ado, if I may, I will call Mr Winbourne.
Mr Norman Jack Winbourne, sworn
Examined by Mr Pugh-Smith
6717. Mr Winbourne, could you introduce yourself
to the Committee?
(Mr Winbourne) My name is Norman Jack Winbourne.
I am a consultant of Winbourne Martin French Chartered Surveyors
in the City of London. In 1977 I took over the long-established
Mayfair practice of Martin French in Bond Street and my office
was then with Martin French in Bond Street, I stress. I appear
today before the Committee on behalf of the Residents' Society
of Mayfair and St James', `the Society' from now on. Since 1991
I have advised the Society and its predecessor, the Residents'
Association of Mayfair, RAM for short. However, my overall compulsory
purchase and compensation evidence is also entirely relevant from
an all-London viewpoint.
6718. In that regard, Mr Winbourne, for those
who do not have a copy of your CV in front of them, you will see
that from 1956 when you joined the LCC as a surveyor, continuing
your employment with the GLC, in that time and since you have
specialised in the selection of sites and buildings for public
works, the making of CPOs and payments of compensation claims.
You have also studied railway schemes and published some papers
on their expropriation attribute, especially the largely out-of-date
and confiscatory Victorian compensation regime.
(Mr Winbourne) That is correct, sir, exactly
50 years this month.
6719. Just in terms of routes, because this
is something Mr Berryman may touch upon, the Society in its previous
emanation, RAM, put forward an alternative alignment. Were you
party to those discussions?
(Mr Winbourne) Yes, I was. I do not want to
go into what Mr Schabas has done so well this afternoon because,
as far as I am concerned, he has done the job on that, except
that he has not stressed that since 1991 one of the routes through
central London is one which I proposed in outline, the Residents'
Association of Mayfair route. This was one for the other side
to evaluate. I do not have Mr Schabas' wealth of knowledge and
from the very first I had the advice of other people who were
civil engineers in their own right, originally Dennis Hunt and
then Dr Ronald West, who was at one time with British Rail and
was an acknowledged rail expert, and unhappily Dr West died suddenly
about 18 months ago and left a big hole in our position.
|
