Examination of Witnesses (Questions 15700
- 15719)
15700. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I think the
timetabling is going to come back and haunt us again and again.
I would ask you, we would like to see this response, Ms Lieven,
when they are ready and I accept that you want to keep coming
back to it and, if we can, we will reserve judgment until we have
seen that.
15701. Ms Lieven: Yes, and we are still,
I hope, aiming for a timetable of producing a letter to you by
Monday and setting it out.
(Mr Berryman) I can confirm
that that will be done by Monday.
15702. Mr Liddell-Grainger: The Committee
looks forward to seeing that.
The witness withdrew
15703. Ms Lieven: I will do a very, very
short closing, sir. Sir, there are just two really important points
coming out of Mr Straker's opening. Crossrail has not accepted
that Crossrail will make the position worse for freight. The crucial
point is the one I just took Mr Berryman to and there are two
crucial points as far as Hutchison is concerned. First of all,
as Mr Berryman said at least six times, so I hope Hutchison understand
this, we are not, even in theoretical terms, making the position
worse for the freight coming from the Haven ports because they
do not cross the Crossrail lines. It is as simple as that.
15704. So far as the worsening that Mr Watson
made reference to is concerned, that is completely theoretical
because the constraints that exist at Forest Gate at the moment
mean that we cannot get those extra paths in there, so when Crossrail
comes along, it is not making that any worse in real terms because
until somebody removes the blockage on the constraint that already
exists, Crossrail are saying that you cannot get 16 theoretical
paths rather than eight theoretical paths makes precisely no difference
in the real world. As Mr Berryman said, the solution is probably
Gospel Oak to Barking—although I do not want to pre-empt
other people's decisions—and that is being dealt with through
normal Department of Transport mechanisms.
15705. The other point to pick out from Mr Straker's
opening and his own witnesses' evidence is that we have considered
future growth. It is considered in the Timetable Working Group
report in detail. Mr Straker refers to E6. If you look at the
very small print at the bottom of E6, you will see that it was
written months before the Timetable Working Group reported. It
may be that the paragraph has not set out the whole story but,
having got the Timetable Working Group report, it is quite apparent
that we have considered and catered for future growth.
15706. I would like to make completely clear,
on Mr Harston's evidence, that we are not seeking exclusive rights
through the Access Option. Through the Access Option we are seeking
to be treated like any other train operator, through the independent
adjudication of a third party, the Office of the Rail Regulator.
15707. I have two points on the specifics of
Hutchison. There is no doubt that Hutchison, through its two planning
permissions, is going to create a very significant increase in
freight—as Mr Berryman described it, "a step change"—but
really the simple point is: Why should that be the responsibility
of Crossrail? As we have seen in their own evidence, the major
solution to that is Felixstowe to Nuneaton and that was taken
into account through the planning process. To put it very crudely,
Felixstowe to Nuneaton is really nothing to do with Crossrail
whatsoever. It is not only geographically divorced, it is practically
divorced. That is an upgrade that is required because of Hutchison's
step change, not because we are building a railway through London.
15708. Finally, on the facts of the case, we
just do not impact on their interest. One really does not need
to take it any further than that. Thank you very much, sir.
15709. Mr Straker: Sir, what has been
said, to be perfectly blunt about this, and what has been put
forward by Crossrail, is quite extraordinary. For it to be said
that Crossrail does not impact upon Haven Ports and does not affect
the trains which emerge from the Haven ports and carry the freight
which is so important, as my learned friend Ms Lieven has just
done, is frankly ludicrous. The evidence that you have before
this Committee shows a considerable volume of trains, cross-country
trains, which come and go through London and are impacted by the
fact that more trains are going to be run in London courtesy of
Crossrail. You will recollect the evidence given by Mr Garratt
this morning, in which one of his figures showed that effectively
half the material has to go through London at the moment.
15710. Likewise, it is extraordinary that it
is said now by Crossrail that Crossrail does not make matters
worse when they have themselves called a witness who said expressly
to this Committee that it makes matters worse—see the transcript,
day 12, page 48, paragraph 13718, and subsequently, in cross-examination
by my learned friend Mr George, who has absolutely expressed they
make matters worse.
15711. That being the position and it being
ludicrous to suggest that Crossrail does not affect trains which
run across London at the moment, it should next be noted that
the position as far as Crossrail is concerned has been made perfectly
explicit. I showed you that slide in conjunction with Mr Berryman
a moment or two ago which reveals that they have looked at the
position now for freight. If you have an opportunity hereafter,
you may care to glance at the transcript of today's proceedings
and the questions and answers of Mr Berryman, when, time and time
again he put it in terms of "now we have considered the freight".
You will think it important, no doubt, that, when I asked Mr Berryman
whether or not Crossrail were prepared to undertake, bearing in
mind the nationally important position of the Haven ports, that
they would not affect the capacity which had been agreed to by
the Secretaries of State in the relevant decisions, he declined
effectively to do so, saying, "Well, I just said the position
is what it is."
15712. The whole system here, in my respectful
submission, and bearing in mind the timetabling work which is
to come, seems something, if I may respectfully say so, of a shambles.
The situation as far as the timetabling work is concerned is that
a great deal, plainly has to be done. The timetable affects and
bears upon the capacity, and that work still has to be done, and
yet you are presented today with evidence which seeks to respond
to serious points made by the largest port operators in this country
by saying, "Well, my wife is woken up at 2.30 in the morning
and therefore we cannot sensibly deal with your plans and aspirations
for Felixstowe and Harwich." This is a ridiculous way, frankly,
to proceed.
15713. What, therefore, is the position that
I would invite you to—the Chairman, correctly, if I may
respectfully say so, having observed once or twice in the course
of the morning: "What is it that you want us, the Committee,
to do?" We want from this process, if I may describe it in
that way, first, that the Timetable Working Group should be properly
done and should involve Hutchison Ports (UK). Secondly, we want
the ability of Hutchison Ports to access the railway in accordance
with the decisions which have been made in the national interest
to be recognised and provided for. We want the Bill to be amended
so that the position is one whereby people cannot, when they have
made proper arrangements to enter on to the railway, be forced
off at the behest of Crossrail. We would wish, also, if there
is a timetable which is properly prepared so as to secure that
the freight can be carried, that commitments can be made to it.
15714. If the position is one whereby no undertaking
is going to be given that the freight can be carried from the
Haven ports, notwithstanding its national importance, then, sir,
the answer is obvious. What ought to occur is this simple exercise:
you ought to say that there ought to be works carried out elsewhere
on the network—it happens to be Felixstowe to Nuneaton—which
relieve that capacity and therefore put Crossrail in precisely
the same position as Hutchison Ports were put; namely, "You
are bringing forward this effect on the capacity of the system,
therefore you should bear that consequence."
15715. Sir, in simple terms, Crossrail are here
saying, "We have a present rail network and we want to take
the benefit of being able to go onto that network. Going onto
that network is going to displace others, but we do not wish to
take that burden, despite the fact that everybody else in the
real world has to take that burden." I simply ask that that
matter be corrected and that the burden cast upon the network
by Crossrail should be borne by Crossrail.
15716. That is the tenor of the remark which
I wish to make. Unless I am reminded of anything, that is all
that I would wish to observe to you, sir.
15717. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you,
Mr Straker.
The Petition of Maersk Co Ltd.
Mr Charles George QC appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.
Bircham Dyson Bell appeared as Agent.
15718. Mr George, good morning.
15719. Mr George: Good morning, sir.
It is a pleasure to be back. The Petition of Maersk parallels
evidence and arguments that other petitioners have already made
to the Committee but does so from a different perspective, that
of one of the largest shipping companies in the world were somewhat
taken aback that the project has advanced thus far without apparent
appreciation of the potential impact on rail freight and its role
in the national economy.
|
