Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8600
- 8619)
8600. Can I just draw attention to the fact
also that, in my submission, option C would be unlawful. It would
be a breach of European law to ask you to recommend that the principle
of an extension should be accepted by the House because there
has been no Environmental Impact Assessment for the Ebbsfleet
extension and, therefore, without it no such in principle approval
could be made. That would be in breach of the Environmental Impact
Assessments Directive and a breach of the Standing Orders of the
House because of the requirements for EIA within the Standing
Orders for Hybrid Bills.
8601. In my respectful submission, A to C, dressed
up in whatever way Mr Cameron seeks to dress them up, are not
options which are sensibly before the Committee and Mr Cameron
effectively invites the Committee to waste its time by thinking
about it, with respect to him.
8602. Option D, providing it is put in proper
terms, would be open to the Committee, although I would suggest
that if the Committee were going to make a recommendation, and
the Committee knows our position on there being a solution, on
the costs of the solution and on the benefits, that would best
be phrased in terms of the Instruction. If the Committee thinks
the recommendation ought to be made then it should make it in
terms of the Instruction, that is the simplest and most appropriate
way.
8603. So far as the all options, "bring
us forward first, or among the first", you heard from Mr
Berryman that there is not a proper justification for that. Again,
it goes against what the House has asked the Committee to report
on. It goes well beyond the principle of the Bill and it goes
well beyond the Instruction. In any event, there would be no justification
and Mr Hardie was not really able to explain to the Committee
what the justification was, other than the fact that he was representing
Bexley and Bexley had their own concerns, as to why Bexley should
be favoured above all others. You have heard from Mr Berryman
as to what the likely first phase of the scheme is, a depot is
needed and the depot is currently proposed at Romford, so the
north-east section is that which is likely to begin first. There
is no basis at the moment for either favouring Bexley over other
parts of the scheme or for regarding it as such a priority that
somehow some extra money then needs to be found for a new depot
at Slade Green to make up for the fact that there might not otherwise
be a depot ready for the south-eastern link. All of this comes
down to my submission that if the Committee considers that there
is a case for an extension to Ebbsfleet in due course then the
appropriate way of dealing with that is by using the terms of
Instruction No 3 and not in any other respect. Thank you, sir.
8604. Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you, Mr
Elvin. Mr Cameron?
8605. Mr Cameron: Sir, I am going to
deal with merits and procedure, but I note that Mr Elvin did not
respond on merits but on procedure.
8606. As far as merits are concerned, until
November 2004 the line to Ebbsfleet formed part of the proposal.
It was removed on grounds of adverse impact on service reliability.
Those problems are capable of being resolved, that is accepted
by the Promoter. The reason given for dropping the line from Abbey
Wood to Ebbsfleet no longer holds good. As Mr Berryman told you,
it could easily be done later. If it could easily be done later,
why should it not be done now?
8607. As far as the benefit cost ratio is concerned,
there is no dispute that the extension achieves a benefit cost
ratio of approximately 2:1 which is better than the scheme as
a whole and that, again, is not in dispute between the parties.
8608. The third point on the merits is regeneration
benefits. As an example Mr Donovan's evidence is striking, and
that is this: the business case of Crossrail produced in 2003
estimated that the number of jobs at Belvedere, Swanscombe/Ebbsfleet,
directly attributable to Crossrail by their weighting would be
19,250 jobs. Mr Anderson's letter now provides an estimate of
2,900 jobs east of Abbey Wood. The effect on Crossrail's own figures
of cutting the line at Abbey Wood is to lose the opportunity to
create 16,350 jobs, which is a significant impact on an area in
the South East with relatively high levels of deprivation. You
also have an indication, and I accept it is a broad indication
but based on Crossrail's own figures, of the differences in accessibility
that would arise if you cut the line at Abbey Wood. It was an
example relating to Belvedere. It is the note, as yet unnumbered,
which I asked Mr Berryman about. I do not go back over that again
save to point out that there is a significant difference in accessibility
if you extend the line to Ebbsfleet.
8609. Those are the merits which are not disputed.
The real issue, if it has such merits, is why not do it now? In
my submission, that is the real issue for the Committee.
8610. I turn to procedure. As far as option
A is concerned, Mr Elvin says that goes behind the Instruction
given to this Committee by the House of Commons. The advantage
of this option is that it would secure the extension in the Bill
where, in my submission, it should have been found in the first
place. There is a mechanism for achieving it, it is our option
A, and I drew attention in opening to the two remarks made by
Mr Liddell-Grainger when he was in the chair on Day 21. I remind
you of the references but do not read it out: 5460 and 5521. It
would be possible for this Committee to report back to the House
with a recommendation that the Bill be amended. It would, of course,
require consideration on the floor of the House and that would
be a matter for the House of Commons as a whole, but it is not
an impossibility.
8611. As far as option B is concerned, Mr Elvin
submits that goes further than the Instruction. In my submission
it does not. It is well precedented and the wording is taken directly
from the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act with appropriate amendments
to reflect the fact that it is Crossrail and not Channel Tunnel
Rail Link. It would not require environmental assessment now,
what it would do is give a fair wind to a Transport and Works
Act order should it come forward with the disadvantage that it
would have to be subject to resolution before both Houses of Parliament,
not be on the Instruction precedented for a Hybrid Bill.
8612. As far as option C is concerned, Mr Elvin
submits that this would be unlawful because of a failure to comply
with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. I was careful
in opening to point out that option C would have advantages over
option B because Parliament could establish the principle of an
extension from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet without having to come
back for resolutions before both Houses. What I hope I made plain
in opening, but if I did not I will make plain now, is that any
concerns about environment assessment could be overcome by carrying
out an environmental assessment, including the preparation for
an environmental statement, and that could be put before the House
before the Bill receives its consideration at third reading. That
would overcome that problem. In terms of delay, Mr Berryman told
you that it would take six to seven months, so the delay is not
going to be great if you have to come back in the autumn anyway.
I make plain that it is not just the preparation of the environmental
statement, it is the environmental assessment which also includes
consultation. In terms of delay, yes, there would be some delay
but it is a price worth paying. That is how you would overcome
Mr Elvin's concerns about it being unlawful.
8613. As far as option D is concerned, I do
not disagree with Mr Elvin that it may be appropriate to frame
this in the terms of Instruction No 3 if you were to make this
recommendation, and that reads, the Committee may: "if it
thinks 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." As you know, this is our least favoured
option but if you are persuaded on the merits then this, I would
submit, is the least that could be done to achieve this extension.
8614. Sir, I am going to suggest one further
variation to that for you to consider. You could go further than
merely to report that there is a case for such an extension because
if you reported that nothing may happen. You could also indicate
in your report that the Secretary of State should take steps to
secure that an application be made within 12 months of Royal Assent.
That would give some teeth to that recommendation. The 12 month
period is not a figment of my imagination, it is the period which
Mr Berryman has given in evidence as the time that it would take
to prepare such an application because they have done a lot of
the work already. 12 months from Royal Assent would give them
more than enough time because they would have those 12 months
plus any time from when this Committee reported to when the Bill
went through the other House. Sir, that is option D with teeth,
which I give you as a further alternative.
8615. As far as should the South East branch
be within phase one, the concern that Bexley have is that they
have already had much of the benefit from Crossrail taken away
from them as a result of the decision made in November 2004 and
they do not want to lose the rest of it. That is why, sir, they
make the request that this area of London which suffers from greater
deprivation than many other areas that will be served by Crossrail,
not all, should not lose that benefit. That is why that request
is made notwithstanding the difficulties pointed out by Mr Berryman.
8616. Sir, in conclusion, Bexley's case on the
merits has not been refuted in any way. If you accept the case
on merits the natural consequence is that something should be
done about it. We have tried to put forward a number of options
so that we do not just come to this Committee and say, "We
have a good case, please do something about it", we are trying
to be practical and helpful in saying, "This is what you
can do about it". All options are available and I would ask
you and your colleagues, sir, to consider them in the slightly
confusing order A, C, B D and then what I probably inelegantly
described as D with teeth, a variation on D.
8617. Those are my submissions, sir.
8618. Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you very
much indeed, Mr Cameron. I would just like to make two comments
before we close the public session. Obviously it would be inappropriate
of me, or indeed any other Member of the Committee, to make any
comment on the merits of the Petition, but it might be helpful
to say something about the procedural issues we have just had
presented to us.
8619. Mr Cameron reminded us earlier of the
comment Mr Liddell-Grainger had made at an earlier meeting about
the facilities the Committee has to make a special report, and
I just wanted to take this opportunity to reassure counsel and
Petitioners that, of course, the Committee has very carefully
studied our Instructions from the House and are well aware of
the constraints imposed upon us. We have, of course, also studied
the debate that led to those Instructions being given to us and,
in doing so, have looked at what the House understood to be the
meaning of that Instruction. It is perhaps worth reminding all
present that the Secretary of State, in introducing the matter
to the House, did say that the Committee will bear in mind that
the one thing that would kill the Bill would be amendments that
hugely add to its expense or so change it that the whole of its
economics change. He also said that that does not preclude the
Select Committee from considering possible variations, and if
it heard representations relating to related other matters it
would not be precluded from saying so to the House.
|
