Examination of Witnesses (Questions 12960
- 12979)
12960. My final point is the one I gave you
warning of. I am a proud defender of local democracy, and it seems
to me that this is quite an unusual situation where so many councils
have got together in such a unanimous way. I think that is a very
important point, and there is a balance of interest between you,
the professionals, and that local democratic view, and I understand
that. However, I am concerned that it may be rejected quite so
sharply as you seem to have rejected that unanimity. It bears
massive weight with me. Does it make you change your mind at all?
Does it make you stop and think in any sense whatsoever?
(Mr Berryman) It certainly does. I think, if
we appear to be putting the argument forcefully now, this is because
we are in the process of promoting a Bill and we have spent a
lot of time thinking about these issues and considering what we
should do. The Secretary of State is the Promoter of the Bill,
not me; it is my job to give him advice on what I think is possible
or not possible, and I think there are probably Members on the
Committee who are far more competent than I to comment on the
relationship there.
12961. Kelvin Hopkins: It seems to me
that the problem with Reading is that it is a stopping train,
it is slow and it would not appeal to people coming from Reading,
if it was going to Reading.
(Mr Berryman) It is always going to be slower
than the fast line services or the non-stopping services.
12962. If, for example, Crossrail trains were
made semi-fast trains to Reading, Twyford, Slough to Paddington,
cutting out ten stops on the way would transform its appeal in
terms of timing, I would have thought, and would overcome almost
all the problems that we have been talking about. Is that not
a logical solution?
(Mr Berryman) What you will be doing, in fact,
is substituting our diesel service with an electric service. The
diesel service needs to keep the same times. So it would about
the same time. The difference would be that the diesel trains
would go into Crossrail tunnels instead of going into Paddington
high level. So in terms of journey time to Paddington it would
not make any difference to what we are proposing now. We would
still expect the diesel service which would be coming from Reading
to Paddington not to pick up too many passengers, in the situation
where the railway is open. We still think that the Intercity service
will be much more attractive.
12963. At the moment you have got the Intercity
at one level and then you have got the semi-fast and then you
have got the stoppers.
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
12964. Instead of replacing the stopping trains,
why not replace the semi-fast trains, making it much more appealing
for people on the stoppers who wanted to get through central London
and change at Ealing Broadway or even if they connected to Paddington?
(Mr Berryman) You would have to make the stoppers
and the semi-fast go down Crossrail because the fast and Heathrow
Express trains already fully occupy the main lines, so you could
not put more trains on the main lines. Moreover, to make the crossing
movement from the main lines to the other side of the network
to get into the Crossrail tunnels would require additional flyovers
and that sort of thing. The works would be quite complex to do
it in the way you describe. What you could do is replace the residual
diesel service that we have been talking about which stops at
Reading, Twyford, Maidenhead, Slough, Hayes and Harlington and
Ealing Broadway with an electric train which would then go down
into the tunnels. What I do not think you could do is put fast
line trains to go into Crossrail tunnels.
12965. Kelvin Hopkins: We will come back
to it at some point. I think I know what I mean but I do not know
enough of the detail.
12966. Sir Peter Soulsby: We will have
an opportunity to come back to it.
(Mr Berryman) Indeed.
12967. Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you very
much, Mr Berryman.
The witness withdrew
12968. Sir Peter Soulsby: Unless there
is anything you want to say by way of summary?
12969. Mr Deller: Very briefly, if I
might. Thank you for your time this morning. You have heard our
concerns about congestion on this particular piece of railway,
the principles of slow, stopping services and the impact of Crossrail
on our existing fast and semi-fast services. You have heard about
the importance of Reading as a railway hub in the view of councils
as far as the western service is concerned.
12970. At the end of the day, what we believe
is being promoted is a London metro service—a London service.
We are here to look after the interests of the Thames Valley railway
and Thames Valley residents' access to London and all points in
London. Clearly, it is about securing a balance, in our view,
between these conflicting demands. We do not believe that the
balance, at the moment, is right.
12971. It is interesting what Mr Hopkins' approach
to drawing that balance was. There will have to be compromises.
At the end of day, more people will travel on the railway than
there is capacity for which is why in the longer term we do not
think four tracks is sufficient, six tracks will be required,
it is just a matter of when and ultimately Reading Station improvements
will happen. We have to deal with what is likely to happen in
the next ten to 15 years. We are very concerned about some of
the towns that I have mentioned, and we have had mentioned in
the evidence of my presentation. We have not talked at all today
in detail about branches, for example, the Henley branch, and
how they impact in all of this. If we do not get that balance
right between London and its internal interest and the wider regional
interests at Thames Valley, then our economy will potentially
suffer, our residents will suffer and in that sense perhaps London
will suffer. We are asking the Select Committee to take account
of all these considerations and arguments to ensure that the balance
is correctly drawn because and we do not believe it is at the
moment.
12972. Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you very
much indeed. For the time being, that concludes the consideration
of that Petition, but as you will recognise it will be returned
to at a later date. We now have the East England Regional Assembly
and Mr Nelson. Can I check, on behalf of Jean Lambert MEP and
others, it is just a warning, Francis, I said earlier on that
we will be suspending before 12 so it may well be that it will
be early afternoon before we get to your Petition.
12973. Ms Lieven: Sir, can I mention
one thing which I did mention yesterday to your clerk which is
that we do have a time constraint this afternoon on the evidence
on people with reduced mobility because one of our witnesses on
it is disabled and simply has to leave by a little before five
o'clock. If I can put that marker down now as an absolute time
constraint that we need to bear in mind.
12974. Sir Peter Soulsby: We will try
to find some way of making sure that is accommodated appropriately.
In which case, Mr Nelson.
The Petition of the East of England Regional
Assembly.
Mr Graham Nelson appeared as Agent.
12975. Mr Nelson: Thank you very much
and good morning. My name is Graham Nelson, and I am acting as
an agent for the East of England Regional Assembly in relation
to the petition against the Crossrail Bill. Can I inquire on a
couple of procedural issues? In the course of making this brief
presentation, which I think will last about 15 minutes or so,
I just want to refer to Crossrail's response to EERA's Petition,
which is one of the documents that you have available, and two
other documents. The first one we heard about a moment ago, which
is the report of the Crossrail Timetable Working Group Report
and also mentioned yesterday by the Department of Transport relating
to funding from the Productivity Transport Innovation Fund. I
brought sufficient copies of both of those documents with me today
to be circulated, but on the basis of the discussion which took
place earlier and the fact that you will, I suspect, be debating
both of those in much more detail, it would be much better to
have qualified people to debate them next week. I am more than
happy for those not to be circulated if you think that helps.
12976. Sir Peter Soulsby: I think most
of our members now have both of those papers in front of them.
As that is the case, we will number them at this stage. The Crossrail
Timetable Working Group Report will be document A145 and the letter
from the Department for Transport dated 27 June will be A146.
12977. Mr Nelson: Thank you very much.
By way of general introduction, can I outline some of the background
to EERA's Petition, how matters have changed and update the Committee
on how we would like the matters raised in our Petition to be
taken forward. I will try and structure this into three very brief
sections. Firstly, the background to EERA's Petition, secondly,
to address the matters of principle raised in EERA's Petition,
which strongly relate to the matters debated this morning, and
further to raise some matters of detailed operation, which we
will be talking about in more detail next week.
12978. By way of background, East of England
Regional Assembly is a voluntary association comprising 54 county,
unitary district and borough councils in the East of England and
a wide selection of stakeholders. Geographically, it covers the
counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire,
Norfolk and Suffolk. It is designated as the regional planning
body for the East of England for purposes of the Planning and
compensation Act.
12979. As the Regional Planning body, EERA prepared
a draft Regional Spatial Strategy, which we know as the East of
England plan, and we submitted that to the Secretary of State
in December 2004. This sets out a long-term strategic spatial
plan for the region covering a period of up to 2021. It includes
proposals for housing, the economy, and the environment and incorporates
the Regional Transport Strategy. The Plan sets out proposals for
a very significant level of housing and employment growth across
the region, responding to the Government's Sustainable Communities
Plan.
| 
