Examination of Witnesses (Questions 14660
- 14679)
14660. Sir, the first matter is excessive land-take.
The Committee will be familiar with two matters: first of all,
that land should only be taken compulsorily where there is a compelling
need in the public interest; and, secondly, the Committee will
be aware that in the Bill there are two distinct Schedules, Schedule
5 and Schedule 6, and that Schedule 5 deals with land for which
Crossrail has only a temporary need to use or occupy and Schedule
6 deals with land which is to be permanently acquired. The nub
of our complaint is that EWS have a number of freight yards lying
largely to the north of the Great Western Line, all of which appear
in Schedule 6 when we have not seen a jot of evidence that, so
far as the majority of them are concerned, there is any need for
permanent acquisition at all. Most of those sites should be in
Schedule 5, not Schedule 6. Furthermore, the only parts that should
be in Schedule 5 are those parts which Crossrail can prove to
the Committee that they need for the construction of Crossrail,
so that is our first point.
14661. The second point is the need for a close
examination of the effects of Crossrail on other commercial interests
and, in particular, the interests of rail freight carriers and
their clients and on the wider general public in terms of commercial
and environmental consequences. This is the same sort of point
that Tarmac were beginning to make last Thursday when they ran
out of time. We do not in any way challenge the importance of
the Crossrail project in terms of the economic and social well-being
of London, but it does appear to us that the interests, other
interests, have not properly been taken into account and mitigated
so far as possible.
14662. The third interest we raise is the need
for further timetabling work before the Select Committee reports
to the House. Here there is an overlap with the matters which
Mr Purchas was referring to and which he is going to be coming
back on, but what we are concerned about is that the Timetabling
Group should be reconvened. Some members of the Committee were
present last Tuesday when that report was put in to the Committee
and explained by Mr Watson and when I asked certain questions.
We do not understand why that committee has apparently been disbanded.
At any rate, its members have not been given the date for any
forthcoming meetings. There was a meeting in May when it was agreed
there would be a meeting in June, but that meeting was not held.
What we seek is an undertaking from the Promoter that that working
group will be reconvened to deal with a number of matters which
Mr Watson agreed were outstanding.
14663. The fourth matter which we seek is a
commitment from the Promoter in respect of the infrastructure
enhancements which were assumed in the timetabling work. We can
see no reason why there should not now be a commitment to those
works going far beyond just a commitment to the dive-under at
Acton, and we welcome the suggestion that there may be an undertaking
forthcoming on that matter, but it seems to us that if the Promoter
comes to Parliament seeking powers for various infrastructure
works and if the Promoter has the timetabling done and all the
modelling done on the basis of those works, then they ought to
commit to doing those works unless they can in due course satisfy,
we suggest, the Chairman of Ways and Means that those works are
no longer necessary. We see no reason to suppose that any of them
will not be necessary, but plainly there should be a reserve clause,
an ability to come back if any of them are found to be unnecessary,
but so far there has been no evidence that any of them are other
than absolutely necessary.
14664. The fifth matter is that we say that
full compensation should be paid to railway operating companies
for all losses incurred as a result of the construction of Crossrail,
and I will be calling a witness on that matter to explain our
concerns.
14665. Sixthly, we join with Network Rail in
saying that the railway clauses are in need of drastic amendment
and, for the most part, we say that they are unnecessary in any
event. Of course we have listened to everything that Mr Elvin
said last week which has been repeated by Ms Lieven this week,
but it seems to us that now is the time for the Select Committee
to grapple with that matter.
14666. The focus of our evidence is going to
be on the Great Western Line, whereas the evidence of Freightliner,
which the Committee will be hearing either later today or tomorrow,
will be focused on the Great Eastern Line, and I shall be calling
four witnesses. First, I will be calling Mr Graham Smith, who
is the Planning Director of EWS, and he is going to deal with
property and capacity matters and the railway clauses, and he
will be by far my longest witness. Secondly, I will be calling
Mr Nigel Oatway, and he is the Access Manager of EWS and he will
simply be dealing with the question of compensation during construction.
Thirdly, I will be calling Mr David Knapman who is a consultant
dealing with the role of rail freight in relation to the London
aggregates market. Lastly, I will be calling Professor David O'Keeffe
who will be dealing with the railway clauses from a European regulatory
perspective.
14667. Sir, unless at this stage the Committee
has any questions, I propose to go straight away to the evidence
of my first witness, Mr Smith.
Mr Graham Ernest Smith, sworn
Examined by Mr George
14668. Mr George: You are Graham Smith.
Is that right?
(Mr Smith) That is correct.
14669. Could you just tell the Committee what
your employment is.
(Mr Smith) I am the Planning
Director for English Welsh & Scottish Railway, a job I have
had for 10 years. I have been in the railway industry for 27 years,
23 of which I have been working in the rail freight industry.
I am also Chairman of the Rail Freight Operators' Association,
which is the association of all the UK rail freight operators,
and Director of the European Rail Freight Association and of the
Rail Freight Group. I am a member of the Freight Transport Association's
Rail Freight Council. Within EWS, I am responsible for the company's
relationship with the Department for Transport, Transport for
London, the Office of Rail Regulation, the strategic and contractual
relationship with Network Rail and leading the company's development
in mainland Europe.
14670. So far as the principle of the Bill is
concerned, that is supported by EWS. Is that right?
(Mr Smith) That is correct.
14671. If we could put up Exhibit EWS1, you
set out EWS's concerns and can you just summarise what are those
principal concerns.[12]
(Mr Smith) They fall into four
areas: property; capacity; regulation; and compensation. As far
as property is concerned, we have eight sites on the Great Western
Main Line, two on the Great Eastern Main Line, one on the North
Kent Line and two strategic freight sites, all of which are affected
by the Crossrail proposals. In particular, with strategic freight
sites, we have a right to call down these sites from the pool
of sites provided at privatisation.
14672. We will come back to that matter in a
moment, but that is dealing with Plumstead and Paddington West
Yard in particular, is it not?
(Mr Smith) Indeed.
14673. Then capacity?
(Mr Smith) We have deep
concerns about whether Crossrail will provide sufficient capacity.
We believe that on the Great Western, it is not yet proven that
existing and future rail freight services can be accommodated
once Crossrail services are introduced and on the Great Eastern
Main Line, Crossrail will cause to worsen an already difficult
situation, and we wish to deal with both of those issues. On regulation,
even if the property matters are resolved and even if the capacity
issues are resolved, we still feel that the railway powers in
the Bill provide a constant and permanent threat overhanging us,
our customers and everybody involved in the rail freight industry.
We desperately need stability and certainty to build rail freight,
and the railway powers in the Bill remove all of that certainty.
14674. Before we come to those four individual
points, and actually you are not going to be dealing with compensation,
but only with the first three, I think you have some general observations
about the role of rail freight.
(Mr Smith) Yes, starting
with EWS, we are the largest UK rail operator. We came into being
in 1996. We have invested over £600 million in the rail freight
industry since our existence and we, together with other rail
freight operators, have made rail freight a success story in transport
in the last 10 years. Although Crossrail is limited to the routes
between Maidenhead and Shenfield and also to Abbey Wood, we are
a national operator and we are extremely concerned that, given
the importance of these routes, the ripple effect of Crossrail
on freight services on the Great Western and the Great Eastern
will affect everything that we do elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The railway network is linked in many places, but no more importantly
than in London, and Crossrail services are clearly going to affect
how we operate those services throughout the United Kingdom.
14675. If we put up EWS2, what is the message
of EWS2?[13]
(Mr Smith) It reinforces the
point I have just made, that our services that operate on the
affected routes stretch far and wide throughout England and Wales,
the West Coast Main Line, the Midland Main Line from Leicestershire
and Kettering, the Great Western Main Line as far as to south
Wales and also draw attention to the aggregates trains that come
up from the Mendips and down from Leicestershire. All of these
will be affected by Crossrail's services because of their impact
on the Great Western and the Great Eastern Main Lines.
14676. On the right-hand margin, there is the
key. It is an indication, is it not, that the width of line reflects
the tonnage which is carried?
(Mr Smith) Yes, and, as
the Committee can see here, we do not anticipate a significant
effect on services between Norwich and Cromer, there being no
red line there, but just to point out that the thin lines represent
minimum tonnage and the thick lines represent the maximum volumes
that we are moving on key routes.
14677. If we put up EWS3, we see the position
in London itself.[14]
What have you shown on EWS3?
(Mr Smith) Those are all the
routes on which rail freight travels into and around London. London
is a major centre of consumption. It is also a major part of the
railway network necessary for through-services. This shows all
the sites which are affected by the Crossrail proposals and it
shows the routes on which we run freight trains which are also
affected by the Crossrail proposals.
14678. We are going to be coming back to the
sites in due course, but we can see the various sites with which
you are going to be concerned, Slough, Langley, Southern Yard
and so forth as the line goes into Paddington. Those are the particular
freight yards you are going to be coming back to?
(Mr Smith) They are.
14679. What about growth of rail freight?
(Mr Smith) I said earlier
that rail freight has been one of the success stories of the last
10 years in the UK. Rail freight has grown by 70% in that time
and we anticipate significantly more growth given government policy
and environmental concerns to transfer traffic from road to more
environmentally friendly modes, such as rail.
12 Committee Ref: A168, Summary of EWS's principal
concerns with the Bill (LINEWD-19605-001). Back
13
Committee Ref: A168, Current EWS freight flows into/through London,
with relevant terminal locations (LINEWD-19605-002). Back
14
Committee Ref: A168, EWS locations affected by Crossrail (LINEWD-19605-003). Back
| 
