Examination of Witnesses (Questions 15400
- 15419)
15400. Ms Lieven: Thank you very much,
sir, and I am sorry to have said the same thing over.
15401. Mr Liddell-Grainger: It is on
the record again. Mr Honey?
15402. Mr Honey: Sir, there are essentially
three points to make which I will take in turn as briefly as I
can. The first is that the starting point has to be a recognition
that the Bill powers, as far as railways are concerned, are strong.
The Promoters have described them in their Information Paper H4
as "broad" and Mr Elvin, in opening to the Committee
on Day 48, described the powers as giving to the Promoters "overriding
rights to secure the level of service sought".[30]
Now, it is clear that the Promoters accept that the appropriate
route to secure their access rights is through the Access Option,
and in fact the Bill powers have been described as "no more
than a backstop" by the Promoters. Ms Lieven has said again
today that the Promoters intend these matters to be dealt with
through the Access Option and has described that as the appropriate
way forward. That was both yesterday and today.
15403. The result is that there will ultimately
be no need for the Bill powers. The Promoters accept that, when
a certain point in time is reached, those Bill powers will be
cut back and moderated. The QPA's case is that we have already
reached that point where there is no justification for the strong
powers that are included in the Bill. The Promoters have said
they are looking for a sufficient degree of comfort that they
will have enough access to capacity, but, in my submission, if
you accept the Promoters' case, there is sufficient comfort already
at this stage.
15404. The first point is that if the Promoters
are right in the timetabling work that has been done and there
is enough physical capacity to accommodate the required levels
of freight, whilst the Quarry Products Association does not accept
that that is right, but if, as the Promoters contend, there is
enough capacity, then the Promoters have nothing to fear in that
respect.
15405. Secondly, there is no reason to doubt
that ultimately an Access Option will be agreed and certainly
no evidence to that effect has been given by the Promoters, and
we heard from Network Rail yesterday that the Access Option is
to be produced in the near future and the Promoters clearly anticipate
that the Access Option will be the outcome.
15406. Thirdly, when we turn to the ORR, there
is no suggestion at all that there is anything which is going
to go awry when the Access Option reaches the Office of the Rail
Regulator, so comfort can be taken from that point as well.
15407. Therefore, we say first that, if Crossrail
are right, they have nothing to fear in terms of capacity and
certainly nothing which would justify the retention of these draconian
powers left in the Bill when they are described by the Promoters
as "no more than a backstop".
15408. The second point, sir, is that in any
event the normal regulation process should apply here. The position
of the ORR was described by Mr Elvin on Day 48 as being the independent
statutory body with the role of overseeing the fair and efficient
allocation of capacity and acting as an impartial referee in addressing
competing claims. Sir, we agree with that. In the normal course
of events, any other operator would have their claims to access
balanced by the ORR against other important access needs, but
here the Promoters are saying that, unless they get what they
want through the Access Option, they will use the Bill powers
to secure it. What that means in practice is that there will be
no balancing exercise and Crossrail will get everything that they
want one way or another and that will be at the expense of other
rail users. Therefore, in my submission, it is worthless to say
that they are submitting to the normal industry processes, whereas
in fact they are reserving their position, as they have made clear
to this Committee, that if the Access Option does not deliver,
they will seek to use the Bill powers.
15409. It is, in my submission, clear that,
no matter what the Timetable Working Group has taken into account,
the Promoters' position is that they will only seek to preserve
the current levels of capacity available for aggregates and other
rail freight, and that is clear through the Information Papers
which have been put forward to this Committee, and we have seen
E6, paragraphs 3.3 and 3.5, and it is also repeated in the Information
Paper H1, paragraph 1.2.[31]
[32]
15410. The issue that Mr McLaughlin raised of
future growth was to put before the Committee evidence that, absent
any constraints and in particular those presented here by Crossrail,
the growth would be substantially greater than that which has
been taken into account by the Timetable Working Group. There
is a distinction to be drawn between the growth of aggregates,
about which Mr McLaughlin was giving evidence, and freight growth
which has been taken into account by the Timetable Working Group
to an extent and that is because freight operators only look at
a certain time horizon, whereas those who are in the work of aggregates
are looking beyond, say, a ten-year time horizon that the freight
operators are. The Timetable Working Group has not taken into
account, on Mr McLaughlin's evidence, a sufficient level of growth
in aggregates. The reality is that the likely level of growth
in aggregates demand, a proportion of which would be transported
by rail at 2015 and beyond, is very significant and has not been
factored into the equation. The levels of growth, the unspecified
levels which, we are told, is no more than organic growth which
can be taken on the Great Western Main Line, according to the
Timetable Working Group, they are not specified anywhere and we
simply cannot tell whether they are good enough, and indeed Mr
McLaughlin has told you that he suspects that they are not for
all the reasons that he gave.
15411. The result of this is that no reliance
can be placed by the aggregates industry on even existing levels
of the use of the railway continuing, and certainly they can have
no confidence that in the future existing access rights will not
be cut back below where they are at the moment. The effect this
will have on the aggregates businesses is that their businesses
will be similarly cut back and there will be a knock-on effect
of development in London, particularly at a time when the regeneration
of areas, such as east London and the Thames Gateway, will be
under way at 2015 and beyond.
15412. Sir, you have heard an important point
from Mr McLaughlin which was that even the mere presence of these
Bill powers will have an effect on the business-planning of aggregates
businesses. The threat of their use will force aggregates businesses
to look for alternative means of supply. We have heard evidence
from EWS, for example, that they will not seek to invest to the
same degree in their infrastructure if they cannot have faith
and the same thing, but more so, applies to the aggregates businesses.
When faced with this uncertainty, they will look for alternative
routes. There is no guarantee as well, no matter what is said
at the moment, about the extent of Crossrail's current intentions
as to capacity and the extent to which they will run the services
will ultimately persist if these powers come forward, so for all
of those reasons we say it is necessary for the balance ultimately
to be struck by the regulator in this case and that, therefore,
the railway powers in the Bill should be moderated now in order
to allow that balance to be struck by the rail regulator.
15413. Thirdly, and just briefly, sir, we say
that the Promoters' position on capacity and timetabling and all
the evidence has been premised—
15414. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I am afraid
we have to suspend.
The Committee suspended from 3.37 pm to
3.58 pm for a division in the House
15415. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Honey?
15416. Mr Honey: Thank you, Sir. I was
coming towards the end of the second point to say that the proper
approach in this case is not simply to give Crossrail all capacity
that it asks for but to have the balance struck by the rail regulators.
Aggregate businesses will suffer, they will be forced off the
railway if Crossrail presses ahead in the manner that they are
seeking to do and a balance ought to be struck which protects
aggregate businesses just as much as Crossrail. For that reason,
the railway powers in the Bill should be moderated in any event.
The third point was that the infrastructure improvements which
are proposed by Crossrail as the basis for the timetabling exercise
and their position on capacity must be carried out. They rely
on those infrastructure enhancements as part of their case to
show that there will be no problem but without at least a commitment
to carry out those works, the aggregate industry cannot rely on
having any level of capacity available to it at all. In conclusion,
the Quarry Products Association's case is that it is not right
to give the promoters draconian railway powers when it cannot
be shown that they are necessary. On the promoters own case sufficient
comfort exists already and in those circumstances Crossrail should
not be empowered to force other users off the railway but should
be required to follow the normal industry regulatory processes
and in addition to commit to providing the infrastructure improvements
they are relying on within their case. In terms of what we are
seeking from the Committee, we would support the amendments to
the railway powers in the Bill that have been put forward by EWS
and also support them in the undertaking which they are seeking
that the infrastructure improvements be carried out. That is the
QPA's position.
15417. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Honey,
I am sorry that we had to cut you off in the middle. As you can
see there was a slight mess in the House, the House has now collapsed,
there is no more business. Thank you for your patience and I am
sorry we cut you off. Thank you. Mr Pout?
The Petition of the London Thames Gateway Forum
Mr Richard Pout appeared as Agent.
15418. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Pout,
if you could do it before 4.30 p.m, we would obliged. If you do
not then you will have to come back at 6.00 p.m. It is totally
up to you.
15419. Mr Pout: I am well familiar with
your problems because this time last week I was giving evidence
literally next door to Mrs Dunwoody's Committee and exactly the
same thing happened.
30 Crossrail Information Paper H4-Railway Powers in
the Crossrail Bill, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk Back
31
Committee Ref: A171, Crossrail Information Paper E6-Freight Operations,
billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk (LINEWD-20005-015). Back
32
Crossrail Information Paper H1-Timetabling and Growth, billdocuments.crossrail.co.uk Back
|
