Examination of Witnesses (Questions 14640
- 14659)
14640. First of all, they raise site-specific
points about a number of depots largely on the Great Western line
but a couple on the Great Eastern, and the interference that Crossrail
will have to those. As I understand the point, what EWS are seeking
is specific undertakings that specific work will be carried out
at those sites.
14641. As was explained last week, design work
is still continuing on individual sites to try to ensure, firstly,
that we minimise the impact on the operations at all; and, secondly,
that we ensure that existing occupiers can continue their operations
through as much of the construction period as possible. Mr Berryman
and Mr Morris, who is with Mr Berryman, the joint Managing Director
of Crossrail with particular responsibility for operations, can
give evidence in relation to each site, why we need it, what we
are doing there and the arrangements at the site.
14642. So far as specific undertakings are concerned
the general position, as was explained last week, is that as there
is design work still continuing it would be inappropriate to make
specific undertakings at this stage, because it may be that some
of the work in the Bill is not necessary in order to ensure that
freight operations can carry on. We are not prepared to give undertakings
for work that may prove to be unnecessary.
14643. There is one exception where we are prepared
to give an undertaking because we are absolutely confident that
the work is necessary, and that is in relation to the Acton Yard
Dive-under, subject to flows of traffic remaining at equivalent
levels.
14644. Sir, we have only very recently got approval
to give an undertaking on that. What I would suggest is that in
relation to that specific issue we discuss it with EWS over the
lunch adjournment.
14645. So far as the other sites are concerned,
the Promoter has been and continues to negotiate with EWS with
a view to minimising the land take both permanently and temporarily.
14646. The second aspect of what I describe
as "property issues" or EWS themselves describe as "property
issues" are strategic freight sites—another matter
that was raised last week when Mr Elvin was dealing with the case.
14647. Strategic freight sites are sites which
have been earmarked for freight but which have not as yet been
taken over by actual freight operators. There are two issues on
strategic freight sites. As far as compensation is concerned,
the first issue, the very nature of these sites is that EWS are
not the occupier of them at the present time and have no legal
interest in them in terms of land interest; and therefore it is
our case that it would be quite inappropriate to give them financial
compensation. I believe that EWS accepts that.
14648. The second issue is whether there should
be some general compensatory pool of alternative sites being brought
forward. Very briefly, sir, there are three sites in issue: Paddington
New Yard, where the strategic freight site will itself become
the new concrete batching plant so there is no loss of freight
sites; Bow Midland Yard East, which is being taken by the Olympics
and not for Crossrail works, so really has nothing to do with
Crossrail, the impact on that site; and Plumstead Yard which is
needed for work relating to the Plumstead portal. Sir, as far
as Plumstead is concerned, and Mr Berryman can give evidence on
this, it will continue to be used as a railway site, albeit not
a freight site. It is a site that has been unused and unclaimed
for a very long while and the claim which has now been made was
only made after the Crossrail safeguarding.
14649. So far as the general principle is concerned,
if we take a strategic freight site, such as Plumstead, should
we be returning the strategic freight site somewhere else? Just
in very brief outline, there is no requirement in either the agreement
that created strategic freight sites or the Railway Act that compensatory
land should be given. The Committee may be aware that when open
space is compulsorily purchased, it is a statutory requirement
that compensatory land be given, but that is not the same for
strategic freight sites, and our position is that there should
be no requirement to provide an alternative site while there are
a number of sites held by the British Rail Residuary Board which
are being marketed for freight and if EWS wishes to take other
freight sites, then it should do it through the normal market
mechanisms, so that is a brief outline on that.
14650. Capacity, which is one of EWS's main
points, was dealt with comprehensively last week and I do not
think there is any point my saying any more about it at this stage.
It is all going to be dealt with through the access option and
through the normal Network Rail processes and we have just heard
from Network Rail that that is what they want and, in our view,
that is the appropriate way forward.
14651. Regulation of the network—again
a matter explained last week by Mr Elvin and again being dealt
with through the access option, and we say that is the appropriate
way forward. Just to pick up a point on that which emerged also
from Mr Purchas's opening, it is anticipated that the access option
will be granted in sufficient time for amendments to be brought
forward in the House of Lords if any of the Petitioners here are
not happy with it, so the way this is to be dealt with is that
if Petitioners, through the Crossrail Bill, remain concerned about
access option issues after it has been considered by the ORR,
then they will have the opportunity to raise that in the House
of Lords Committee. I do, therefore, say that it would be both
premature and probably pointless to spend time on that at this
stage.
14652. One of the specific points about the
access option that is raised by EWS and which I do not think was
touched on in any detail last week is that they have arguments
relating to the access option and European Union Directives relating
to the railway network. Again, sir, we say that is a matter that
would be dealt with through the ORR mechanism and if EWS are still
not happy, they can bring it back in front of the House of Lords
Committee and ultimately it is probably a matter for the public
stages of this Bill rather than the private stages.
14653. Finally, sir, there are points about
compensation and the compensation mechanisms. Our basic position
was set out by Mr Elvin last week on Day 48, paragraph 13928,
somewhat inspiringly, which is that we will follow the industry
mechanisms and if there is anything which is not covered by the
industry mechanisms that arise on Crossrail, we will follow the
principles of the industry mechanisms, so, rather like compensation
for normal land interests, we say that this Committee should not
be changing the national structures which have been set up through
the public acts and so forth.
14654. Sir, that is, I hope, a brief overview
of the main points that EWS are going to raise. As I say, in respect
of Acton Yard, it may be possible to at least make the majority
of that issue go away.
14655. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you
very much. Mr George?
14656. Mr George: That was a most helpful
introduction. Sir, I am Charles George. I hope that the Committee
has a bundle of the exhibits to which we are going to refer.
14657. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Yes, we will
take them as A168 please.
14658. Mr George: For the time being,
the only one that I want to refer the Committee to is EWS40 which
is the final exhibit which shows exactly what it is we are seeking
from the Committee. At a later stage we will be going through
it, but we are in an entirely different position from Network
Rail. As I understood it, today they were not seeking anything
specifically from the Committee, whereas we are seeking a number
of very highly specific matters from the Committee. As I say,
I do not ask the Committee at this stage to read it through, just
to note that it is there.
14659. If I then come back to the position of
EWS, they are the largest national rail freight operator and they
have significant concerns relating both to the construction and
the operational effects of Crossrail both on the Great Western
Line into Paddington and on the Great Eastern Line and some of
what we say complements the sort of matters which Mr Purchas was
referring to earlier this morning. In opening, I am not going
to summarise the evidence you are going to hear, but I just want
to headline six issues which we would ask the Select Committee
to have in mind when weighing our evidence with a view, so we
would hope, to amending the Bill or seeking undertakings from
the Promoter.
| 
