Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8300
- 8319)
8300. The basic position is explained in the
Environmental Statement at page 126, paragraphs 6.3.44 and 6.3.45.[3]
Firstly, it is dealing with the corridor generally, and then you
will see the benefits that it was thought a south-east link would
provide, including the link into the North Kent Line. At 6.3.45,
you will see: "CLRLL considered the option of operating the
Crossrail service from Abbey Wood only, rather than projecting
a proportion of the service to start at Ebbsfleet. CLRLL concluded
that by sharing tracks with other rail services on the North Kent
Line between Abbey Wood and Ebbsfleet, there was an unacceptable
risk of disruption to Crossrail's high frequency service pattern.
As a result, Abbey Wood rather than Ebbsfleet was selected as
the starting point for all Crossrail services in the corridor."
That is a reason which Mr Berryman will expand on and explain
to the Committee in due course.
8301. There is also an issue with electrification,
because the North Kent Line and the section from Ebbsfleet involves
not the use of an overhead 25 kilovolt electric system but a third
rail at 750 volts. For reasons set out on page 129 of the main
Environmental Statement, it is explained that the third rail system
has not been established railway practice for many years and the
preference is not to use it.[4]
Therefore, stopping at Abbey Wood has avoided the need for trains
which have dual capability and taking their power from the third
rail and from overhead electrification. Abbey Wood has allowed
simplification on that score as well.
8302. The issue then arises as to the position
before the Committee. The Ebbsfleet issue was subject to an inspection,
as was the possibility of extension to Reading. If we could look
at Instruction No 3, page 002 of the Promoter's exhibits.[5]
Of course the interpretation of the Instruction is a matter ultimately
for the Committee, but we would say the House of Commons' Instruction
to the Committee as to how it should proceed, particularly when
Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet is very clear, is: "...if it thinks
it appropriate to do so, hear the Petitioner and the Member in
charge of the Bill on that issue for the purpose of reporting
to the House whether there appears to be a case for such extension
being the subject of an application for an order under the Transport
and Works Act 1992." The Committee is not asked to consider
anything more than that, nor is it asked whether the Bill should
be amended or whether the Instruction should be amended.
8303. Bexley have come up with a number of suggestions,
to which no doubt Mr Cameron will take the Committee in due course,
none of which appear to us at first blush, and, indeed, at second
consideration, to fall within the terms of the Instruction. That,
of course, is a matter for members of the Committee, interpreting
the Instruction, but it did seem to us that the Instruction was
particularly clear on the point. To the extent, therefore, that
Bexley is asking the Committee to do something other than report
to the House whether there is a case for an extension under the
Transport and Works Act Order, it seems to us, respectfully, that
it falls outside the Instruction. It is only if it falls within
that simple definition, that it falls within the remit of consideration
by the Committee.
8304. I will pass over to Mr Cameron.
8305. Sir Peter Soulsby: Mr Cameron,
I would invite you to address the Committee.
8306. Mr Cameron: Thank you, sir. As
Mr Elvin has already explained, there are two main points that
Bexley would wish to put before the Committee: the extension to
Ebbsfleet and the adverse transport consequences at Abbey Wood.
It is Bexley's case that those adverse consequences will be particularly
severe if the line is not extended to Ebbsfleet, so the two points
are related.
8307. Sir, can I turn first to the extension
to Ebbsfleet. I make it clear, sir, that Bexley Council's aim
is to secure an extension from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet. The line
to Ebbsfleet was included in the scheme promoted in Crossrail's
July 2003 business case and appraised in the Crossrail Review,
the Montague Report. The line to Ebbsfleet continued to be put
forward in the consultation which took place in September 2004
and the decision to drop the route to Ebbsfleet and terminate
the service at Abbey Wood was made in 2004. I anticipate a potential
dispute on two issues: whether such an extension is desirable—and
it may be there is less dispute on that than on the second—and,
if it is desirable, how best to grant powers to authorise it.
8308. Bexley are very mindful of the Instructions
that have been given to this Committee and Mr Elvin has already
referred to them. Rather than dealing with merits first, I would
like to deal with procedure first, so that you know exactly what
it is we are asking you to consider, and then I am going to say
something about the merits.
8309. In the second reading debate of 19 July
2005, as you will be well aware, the Instruction given to the
Committee was: "...that, in applying the practice of the
House, the Select Committee treat the principle of the Bill as
including: the termini of the railway transport system for which
the Bill provides..." The Bill provides for a terminus at
Abbey Wood, which is partly, as Mr Elvin has explained in Greenwich
and partly in Bexley. You have already been referred to the additional
Instruction for 12 January 2006 and I do not read it out again.
8310. Bexley wish to put four options before
the Committee. I would like to circulate Mr Hardie's evidence,
because we have set out the four options in the evidence, so that
you can see what it is we are asking you to consider.[6]
8311. Sir, if you would turn to page 3 of Mr
Hardie's exhibits, you will find our options set out: Options,
A, B, C and D.[7]
As far as Option A is concerned, the purpose is to seek to secure
the inclusion of the extension to Ebbsfleet in the Bill. It is
in many ways the simplest option, because the arguments in favour
of promoting Crossrail through the Hybrid Bill procedure would
support the merits of this option. Sir, on behalf of Bexley, I
acknowledge the obstacles in the way of the Committee in achieving
this option, but I would like to refer to a remark made by Mr
Liddell-Grainger when he was in the Chair on Day 21, 28 March
2006, and in particular to paragraphs 5460 and 5521. In paragraph
5460, Mr Liddell-Grainger drew attention to the fact that there
was a facility for the Committee to make a special report requesting
the House to reconsider the issue of whether a certain station
should be a terminus. In 5521 he referred to such a request as
seeking a dispensation. There is a mechanism to achieve Option
A and that would have the merits of including the extension to
Ebbsfleet in the Bill, but I accept that it would involve some
delay because it would have to go back to the floor of the House
and then be re-committed to this Committee if the House of Commons
accepted a recommendation from the Committee.
8312. As far as Option B is concerned, which
is on page 4, this option follows a precedent set in the Channel
Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 where a similar provision was inserted,
and that provision led to Stratford Station being brought forward
under the Transport and Works Act 1992 procedure.[8]
8313. The effect of that amendment would be
to require the proposal to be put before each House of Parliament
on a motion moved by the Minister of the Crown. That is a requirement
of section 9, subsection 4 of the Transport and Works Act. Once
the resolution had been passed, a Transport and Works Act Order
could not include a provision inconsistent with the proposal approved
by such a resolution. There is a disadvantage with this option,
because the proposal would have to come back to Parliament, but
there is an advantage in that the proposal, once approved by Parliament,
could limit the scope of the Transport and Works Act Order and
then limit any substantial dispute on issues such as stations
and selected termini. So a disadvantage but a number of advantages
because the scope can be set. That might be particularly advantageous
when considering the terminus in Kent which could otherwise bog
down the Transport and Works Act procedures.
8314. Option C is a variation on Option B.[9]
Option C is designed to have the advantage of Option B without
having to come back to Parliament. It would allow Parliament to
approve the principle now. In order to achieve this objective,
I acknowledge that it would be appropriate for the Promoter to
have produced the plans and the Environmental Statement to support
a Transport and Works Act Order before the Bill receives its consideration
and third reading, because what Parliament would in effect be
doing would be approving the principle of an extension to Ebbsfleet
so that when a Transport and Works Act Order came forward the
principle was established.
8315. As far as Option D is concerned, which
is on page 6, the effect of that option would be to rely on the
Secretary of State's goodwill in responding to any recommendation
that the Committee might make.[10]
8316. If I could ask you to turn over to page
7, we are asking for a further request to be met.[11]
That request would apply whichever option you selected or in the
event that no option was selected. Bexley are there asking you
to follow the approach taken by the House of Commons Select Committee
on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill. That Committee requires
that the Waterloo spur should be constructed before the Rail Link
itself was open to traffic and we ask you to require that the
south-eastern branch—we hope to Ebbsfleet, but that depends
on whether you accept our arguments—is constructed before
Crossrail is open to traffic and that it is served by Crossrail
when it is first opened for traffic.
8317. As far as Bexley preferences are concerned—and
I apologise that it is not as neat as A, B, C, D—our first
preference is for A (included in the Bill); our next preference
is for C (a modification of the approach taken in the Channel
Tunnel Rail link); then B (which is precedented by the Channel
Tunnel Rail Link); and then D. Bexley's least favourite option
is D, but it would nonetheless be an important step towards achieving
an extension to Ebbsfleet.
8318. Having dealt with procedure, sir, can
I go to the merits. As I have already said, the Ebbsfleet line
was included in the proposals until November 2004. We are not
suggesting an extension which has not already been considered—not
only by the Promoter but in the Montague Review. The extension
would have served an area of North Bexley and North Kent which
is in need of regeneration and which forms part of the Thames
Gateway. It would have brought significant regeneration benefits.
Sir, as Mr Elvin has already told you, the reason given by the
Promoter for dropping the proposals was that, by sharing tracks
with other services on the North Kent Line, there was an unacceptable
risk of disruption to Crossrail's high-frequency service pattern.
That is the reason given.
8319. A solution to the problem has been identified
by CLRL; namely to widen part of the route, and that is the section
between Slade Green and Dartford. If you turn on, sir, in Mr Hardie's
bundle of exhibits to page 25, there is a letter there from the
Department for Transport in which you can see that a passage has
been highlighted: "The capacity bottleneck that currently
exists between Slade Green and Dartford precludes future extension
of Crossrail services and CLRL has advised that this section should
be widened to four tracks in order to achieve a reliable service."[12]
So there is a solution to the problem identified.
3 Crossrail Environmental Statement, p126, paras 6.3.44
and 6.3.45, http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD-ES08-020). Back
4
Crossrail Environmental Statement, p129, Alternative Electrification
System, http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD-ES08-023). Back
5
Crossrail Ref: P80, House of Commons, Votes and Proceedings,
12 January 2006 (BEXYLB-32004B-002). Back
6
Committee Ref: A88, London Borough of Bexley-Exhibits of Chris
Hardie. Back
7
Committee Ref: A88, Options for Select Committee (1) Option A
(BEXYLB-32005A-003). Back
8
Committee Ref: A88, Options for Select Committee (2) Option B
(BEXYLB-32005A-004). Back
9
Committee Ref: A88, Options for Select Committee (3) Option C
(BEXYLB-32005A-005). Back
10
Committee Ref: A88, Options for Select Committee (4) Option D
(BEXYLB-32005A-006). Back
11
Committee Ref: A88, Actions to Consider (5) All Options (BEXYLB-32005A-007). Back
12
Committee Ref: A88, CLRL Solution to Unreliability (1) (BEXYLB-32005A-025). Back
|
