Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8580
- 8599)
8580. Option C would have to be done now.[100]
Option D would not have to be done now but if we bear in mind
that six or seven months—and I appreciate that this may
not have been considered by you before—if this Committee
made this recommendation under Option D that the Secretary of
State established powers, in effect the Secretary of State would
procure somebody else to make an application for the Transport
and Works Act Order because the Secretary of State is unlikely
to apply for it himself—
(Mr Berryman) He could not really
apply to himself, I do not suppose.
8581. Let us leave aside whether he could or
he could not because that is not a question for us to debate now.
But if they made that recommendation it would take six or seven
months for an Environmental Statement, you say?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, at least that, I would say.
Remember that there are a lot of other things that need to be
done as well—land referencing and so on and so forth, and
some further design work because what we have at the moment is
a sufficiently high level to allow for a Safeguarding Direction
to be made, but it is an insufficiently high level to allow the
additional works to be properly assessed. So there is a sequence
of things which would need to be done.
8582. We have a timing for the Environmental
Statement and I appreciate that it is only indicative. Is there
any reason why such an application could not be brought forward
within a specified period following Royal Assent—say 12
months?
(Mr Berryman) There is no technical reason.
Of course you would not get the order then because once you have
brought the documentation forward there would no doubt be a public
inquiry and the TWA process, as you know, I think, can be quite
time consuming.
8583. It was the making the application that
I was concerned with.
(Mr Berryman) There would certainly be nothing
to prevent an application being made in that period, yes. Nothing
I can see at the moment, anyway.
8584. In Mr Anderson's letter, A91, Mr Anderson
says in his last sentence that one of the factors taken into account
when assessing the number of additional jobs and homes that would
be facilitated not only improved accessibility, but a second point,
the anticipation of the future extension of Crossrail services
to Ebbsfleet. Unless the Promoter is able to give some indication
as to when that is likely to happen what is the basis for that
anticipation?
(Mr Berryman) I think the fact that a Safeguarding
Direction, if made, would be an indication of intention to do
the work—although I agree not binding—and the fact
that passive provision is being made in the works then being built
to allow that are all factors that would point in that direction.
8585. No doubt the benefits to be derived from
anticipation, which Mr Anderson had taken into account, would
be greatly enhanced if a firm date was set, whether by including
provision in the Bill or by indicating that an application for
a Transport and Works Act order would be brought forward by the
Secretary of State who had procured somebody else to make one,
within a specified period either from now or from Royal Assent?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, I expect it would; that
is human nature.
8586. You gave some further evidence on costs
but I think that the position is shared between us, is it not,
that the benefit to cost ratio is approximately 2:1 whether or
not you include those additional costs?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, it is.
8587. And as far as the other element of your
evidence was concerned, Mr Hardie's slide 7 of all options and
phases...[101]
(Mr Berryman) We could not give
that kind of undertaking; that would be too constraining on the
construction commissioning process.
8588. At present you are anticipating and you
said it is unlikely that Crossrail would be brought forward in
one go; wherever the first section is it needs to have access
to a depot—and you refer to Slade Green.
(Mr Berryman) As a negative, that Slade Green
would not be suitable.
8589. But you then indicated the northeast branch
was likely to come first. Are you able to give any indication
as to how soon the southeast branch might follow after the central
section, Paddington to Liverpool Street or Whitechapel?
(Mr Berryman) No, I would not. I think that
would depend on the way that the funding was released for the
scheme as a whole. It is not really a matter of engineering or
design; it is a question of how quickly the government wished
to proceed on the scheme.
8590. As you are quite understandably not able
to give any indication or assurance, as far as Bexley is concerned
they do not know when, if at all, the southeast branch will be
brought into operation; that is their position, is it not?
(Mr Berryman) I think that is the position
but I think that that is exactly identical to every other local
authority on the route because the sequence of opening and commissioning
the railway is not decided. We have a likely scenario in mind.
It could be that this happens; it could be that this is the first
bit to be brought into commission. I think it is unlikely but
it is possible. But we certainly cannot give an undertaking to
do that at this stage because that would be tying the hands of
the builders and the contractors to an extent which just would
not be acceptable.
8591. Mr Cameron: Thank you, those are
all my questions.
8592. Sir Peter Soulsby: Mr Elvin?
8593. Mr Elvin: Sir, I have no re-examination.
The witness withdrew
8594. Mr Elvin: Sir, I am in your hands
over this. I am quite happy to call Mr Anderson if you want any
clarification, but I was not proposing to. I am quite happy to
accept that the figures in his letter can be broadly compared
with the other figures that you have seen, but I am quite happy
to call him if you would like them explained.
8595. Sir Peter Soulsby: I do not think
that the Committee does need to hear from Mr Anderson this afternoon.
I think we have understood the points that have been put to us
and have understood the interpretation of the figures we have
heard.
8596. Mr Elvin: Can I just correct a
question I put this morning? I said that the 2,900 was 12 per
cent but it is actually 14.5 per cent of the benefit that you
get with the Ebbsfleet extension. That was me trying to do it
on the hoof, which is a bad idea.
8597. Sir Peter Soulsby: In that case,
Mr Elvin, would you like to make your closing submission.
8598. Mr Elvin: Thank you very much,
sir. Sir, since, as you have just heard, the Ebbsfleet extension
was removed only in 2004 it is apparent and indeed accepted that
there would, of course, be benefits beyond Abbey Wood if there
were an extension of Crossrail to Ebbsfleet. However, there are
benefits in any event, as Mr Donovan accepted, and Mr Berryman
has just explained to you, and, as I have said, Mr Anderson's
figures show that you would still have some 14.5 per cent of the
employment generated even without Crossrail going to Ebbsfleet,
simply by having the high quality interchange at Abbey Wood, and
you have heard about the simplicity and the ease of that. However,
sir, as you will be aware from the mood of the debate in the House
of Commons on 12 January made clear—and indeed the terms
of the Instruction—it is important that this scheme is a
manageable one, and you have heard a number of matters which add
to the complexity if the scheme were to be extended at this stage.
Mr Berryman has explained that to you and indeed it is a matter
which was referred to in the debate specifically by the Secretary
of State, and I will give you the Hansard reference—it is
Hansard for 12 January, columns 451 to 453—and indeed it
was an issue that had cross-party concern, that the scheme should
be manageable and deliverable. Sir, I say this about what Mr Cameron
proposes. Dress it up as he might his Options A to C are asking
the Committee to go against the in principle approval of the Bill
at the second reading. If there is one thing which is firmly entrenched
in the practice of this House with regard to Hybrid Bills it is
that the principle of the Bill is fixed in the second reading
and is not open for debate before this Committee. What the House
of Commons did do—and I explained this in opening—is
to ask the Committee to consider whether or not a recommendation
should be made with regard to bringing an extension to the termini
both at Ebbsfleet and Reading, by virtue of a TWA order, and they
asked you to do nothing other than that, and with respect Mr Cameron
is inviting you to go beyond this in several respects. A violates
the principle of the second reading, however you dress that up,
and in my submission, there is no power in the Committee, given
the instructions and the practice of the House on Hybrid Bills
to ask the House effectively to re-debate the second reading,
because that is what A requires you to recommend.
8599. So far as B and C are concerned, they
also go much further than the Instruction, they ask you to tie
down the Secretary of State or to recommend, because the Instruction
is simple in its terms and it is simply asking for one of two
things: should there be a recommendation to bring forward an extension
order in due course or should there not be?
100 Committee Ref: A88, Option C for Select Committee
(BEXYLB-32005A-005). Back
101
Committee Ref: A88, Actions to Consider (5) All Options (BEXYLB-32005A-007). Back
| 
