Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8400 - 8419)

  8400. Mr Elvin: Mr Hardie, since the debate here is a narrow one I am not going to deal with a lot of your detail. May I just say this with regard to your revised costs to Abbey Wood: we think you have underestimated the costs of the new station, but, frankly, since the result is broadly the same I am not going to trouble you with it. You have also confused some figures which are net present value figures with capital costs, but again the broad picture is not disputed. I am not going to spend time going through that in detail; I am sure the Committee will not want me to. Can I just ask you this: what is happening on the North Kent line with the Abbey Wood proposals, if we look—and I am taking these figures from page 79 of volume 1 of the Environmental Statement, table 4.4—there will be massive journey saving times in any event for people transferring from the North Kent line at Abbey Wood.[47] Will there not?

  (Mr Hardie) Yes.

  8401. Can I give you the figures? Abbey Wood to the Isle of Dogs will go from 30 minutes to 9 minutes—a saving of 21 minutes. If you take Abbey Wood to Paddington it goes from 59 minutes to 27 minutes—a saving of 32 minutes. I have added together to the second figures the items one and two. One takes you from Abbey Wood to the Isle of Dogs and—
  (Mr Hardie) Yes, 59 to 27. Yes.

  8402. So with both those journeys from Abbey Wood you are halving, roughly speaking, the journey time.
  (Mr Hardie) Yes, I agree.

  8403. Unless your prognostications of doom and gloom of having to wait for half-an-hour for a Crossrail train are correct at Abbey Wood—
  (Mr Hardie) I did not say half-an-hour's wait for a Crossrail train.

  8404. No?
  (Mr Hardie) No.

  8405. Half-an-hour at Belvedere?
  (Mr Hardie) What I said was that if you are forced to change trains at Abbey Wood, you might, if you want to get to Belvedere, then have to wait 35 minutes for the train.

  8406. Clearly, those coming in from the North Kent line and wanting to go fast into the centre or West End of London will find their service massively improved regardless of the fact that you have to change at Abbey Wood.
  (Mr Hardie) I would agree that there would be an improvement but I would also say that the improvement is not as good as it could be.

  8407. You can say that about lots of things. Can we just examine a few other issues. You have asked the Committee to pursue certain options, and I will make submissions about them in the light of my instructions—I am not going to cross-examine you about each and every item. Can I ask you this: your Option C and, to a lesser extent, your Option B, effectively, requests the Committee to ask Parliament to direct the immediate bringing forward of a TWA Order. Your Option C asks Parliament to deem an approval in principle in accordance with Section 9. Ebbsfleet has never been subject to Environmental Impact Assessment, has it? It is not part of the scheme and, therefore, was not subject to EIA with the scheme.
  (Mr Hardie) That is true.

  8408. What is the length of track from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet?
  (Mr Hardie) It is about 15 to 20 kilometres.

  8409. It passes through residential areas, does it?
  (Mr Hardie) Yes.

  8410. We have seen some of those on the plans. If the Committee were to go down that line (and I am not saying that is consistent with the Instruction—I am going to leave that to my closing submissions) you are asking the Committee to make a recommendation that the House of Commons reconsider its Instruction and its decision in principle. That is right, is it? Then, if they agree with that, it has to be recommitted to Select Committee to consider whether or not to amend the Bill. Yes? If the Committee so recommends, an additional provision then has to be produced and debated, and that then has to be subjected to Environmental Impact Assessment.
  (Mr Hardie) Yes.

  8411. You are going to be adding significantly to the delay in getting Royal Assent to the Bill. Are you not?
  (Mr Hardie) That is probably true, but I think the important thing is that without somehow taking forward the extension to Ebbsfleet it is unclear how what is, effectively, a strong potential part of the project would be taken forward. I must admit I find it difficult to address the technicalities of how this might be done, and I would have to ask Mr Cameron to help me answer this.

  8412. Sir Peter Soulsby: Mr Elvin, do not spend too much time at this stage; I think we are more interested in the merits of the proposal, at this stage. I think it is sufficient for the Committee to know there are some options and that there are likely to be problems associated with that.

  8413. Mr Elvin: Very well, sir. I am quite happy to do that.

  8414. Mr Cameron: I should make plain that poor Mr Hardie was lumbered with those options in his evidence so that they were presented to the Committee straight away, but they are probably best dealt with by submission.

  8415. Mr Elvin: I think that is Mr Cameron saying he wrote that and he does not want to be cross-examined!

  8416. Sir Peter Soulsby: I think we are all agreed. Let us move on to the merits of the case, Mr Elvin.

  8417. Mr Elvin: I am grateful. Can we then just look at the question of whether it can go as the first phase of Crossrail. You are effectively saying to the Committee you should recommend that this should take priority to every other element of the scheme, including the necessary increase in capacity to offset the problems with the London Underground through central London and going to the City of London. You are saying, effectively, it should take priority even over that. Are you not?
  (Mr Hardie) I do not think I am saying that it should be the first section, but certainly—

  8418. Within the first section, I think you said.
  (Mr Hardie) Yes, I think there is a strong case for doing so.

  8419. There is no depot in the South East link, is there? No Crossrail depot.
  (Mr Hardie) No, but there is Slade Green.


47   Crossrail Environmental Statement Volume 1, Table 4.4-Illustrative Journey Times and Time Savings with Crossrail, http://billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD-ES06-009). Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007