Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16400
- 16410)
16400. We ask nothing else, but it is important
if the Committee is at the end of the day to reach conclusions
which will promote overall efficiency on the rail network and
just perhaps I should make it clear, Tarmac do not come to the
Committee with any sense of negative approach with regard to Crossrail
and I told you in opening that we think that it is an excellent
project in its conception and has the potential for very, very
significant benefits and we have made that clear, so we are not
going to be, if I can put it this way, the knocking club, but
on the other hand there are significant interests here, not just
Tarmac's commercial interests, but significant float interests
here which if they are not secured in a way something like the
one I have rather crudely described, will put the Committee in
a position which it will be making recommendations with regard
to the passing of a Bill which, so far from ultimately assisting
the reputation of the railways as a provider of an efficient service,
will actually harm it. Thank you.
16401. Chairman: Mr Elvin, did you want
to add anything?
16402. Mr Elvin: I have got three points.
What Mr Kingston and Tarmac singularly failed to explain to the
Committee that if all these things are done ordinarily what he
fails to acknowledge is that they are ordinarily done in the negotiation
of the Access Option, which Mr Garratt agreed with me is done
between the person seeking access to the rail, Network Rail. Operational
viability is then worked out, put to the regulator and if the
regulator is satisfied, there is that industry consultation. That
is a transparent and public exercise. What Mr Kingston cannot
explain to this Committee is why the Committee should have to
insist that this exercise is done outside the normal industry
standard. We have got Mr Twigg's letter of 29 June. The way we
wish to take Crossrail forward is to promote an Access Option
which will be dealt with, it is expected, during the passage of
the Bill. It may not be dealt with by this Committee but it may
be dealt with by the Lord's Committee. It depends on the time
limits but it is expected to be known in the life time of the
Bill passage. In my respectful submission, it makes absolute nonsense
to make the Committee and Crossrail to go through hoops which
it has to go through in any event as part of the normal industry
regulation. What Tarmac are, in effect, asking the Committee to
do is to impose a further requirement on Crossrail to do the exercise
before the regulator and Network Rail.
16403. What we have done so far is to show the
Committee that we take the matter seriously and there is a matter
for considerable optimism in that we form with TWG which has reported
so far as work has been done. A significant amount of work has
been done and you have seen that clearly there is scope for optimism
and that capacity exists. The position, therefore, in my respectful
submission, on the Bill powers is that we are seeking the Access
Options as our primary means. I have already explained to the
Committee why a project that Mr Smith for EWS could not bring
himself to say is a major project. Why Parliament should not have
some degree of security that what he is approving it has been
told it will provide, it will be provided. We have that fallback
position. It is not intended that fallback position will have
to be justified in due course because of the Access option and
I will return to that when I do my closing tomorrow. You have
got that in Mr Twigg's letter of 20 June and information papers
H3 and H4. We could not make it clearer, in my respectful submission.
16404. Just before I deal with the last point,
the Committee probably has not had a huge amount of time to absorb
the letter that was sent to Mr Liddell-Grainger on the Committee's
request on the timetabling next steps because it might help the
Committee if I show them.[71]
This is the evidence which we have to show to go towards operational
viability and you will see within those we have to show timetable
robustness, does the timetable meet the rules of the plan, section
running times, headway margins, et cetera and infrastructure loading.
Can the infrastructure physically accommodate the load requirement?
The very two types of issue that the Committee have had time and
time again by the freight industry are matters which go towards
operational viability and, therefore, are part of the exercise
for Network Rail and the ORR. I hope that shows the Committee
that these are not just empty words, these are issues which are
being addressed and will have to be addressed. As I said, Mr Kingston
does not explain why they should be plucked out of that normal
process and done in a premature way at this stage when we have
already demonstrated that there is significant work done on the
work in hand.
16405. On environmental assessments, the point
goes nowhere for reasons I explored with Mr Dixon. The judgment
has been reached and it is a judgment which exists today, whether
there is likely to be significant effect. The nine months point
does not go anywhere, we have put in a number of supplementary
environmental statements to the Committee. The Committee has not
yet seen the final one because the final set of additional provisions
will have another environmental assessment in due course. It is
a continuing process which runs throughout the Bill as matters
change and, if a different position had materialised as a result
of the transport working group, then no doubt a different position
would have materialised so far as environmental assessment is
concerned, you would have had another document. The position is
this, the judgment has been exercised based now on the transport
group working group that there is unlikely to be a significant
effect. That is based on the reasons that the group made clear.
If Parliament takes a different view, then no doubt Parliament
will tell us to produce another Environmental Statement, but for
the reasons I have indicated, we do not consider that to be necessary.
Thank you, Sir.
16406. Mr Kingston: I will not abuse
the time having made a closing submission a few moments ago and
if I demonstrate over much enthusiasm you will stop me, I am sure.
Let me deal with the point. I have not demonstrated why this process
should be abstracted from the normal industry regulation. You,
I respectfully submit, will want to ask yourselves how many rail
regulator Access Options have been negotiated against a background
of a requirement on the regulator hovering in with the Bill here,
if Crossrail do not like the result the powers already in the
Bill to effectively override the regulator. Mr Elvin will tell
you now that Crossrail will bid by the outcome of the rail regulator
process, will not keep any reserve powers available and will effectively
therefore drop the draconian fallback that is preserved. He might
be in a stronger position to poke his finger at me and say, "Why
did you want this Committee to interfere in what is essentially
an industry process?", but the whole process with Network
Rail and the regulator takes place against a background effectively
of the powers held. If we do not like this we can do something
about it as long as the Committee can be persuaded to preserve
those powers. That is why in this situation, with these powers
available within the Bill, the Committee should involve itself
and should do and say what was said by Ms Lieven in response to
Mr Liddell-Grainger, produce the necessary timetabling information
and then the Committee can be satisfied. Mr Elvin says it is nonsense.
We heard that the Promoters and, in effect, the Committee should
have to go through these hoops when there are normal industry
regulation procedures available. Please, will you ask yourselves
when you are deliberating what is normal about this situation
and the powers I have referred to.
16407. The second point with regard to Environmental
Impact assessments, within less than 90 seconds of each other
Mr Elvin tells you that there has been a reasonable informed judgment
with regard to rail freight impacts and tells you there is scope
for optimism that the capacity exists. This is not, is it, with
respect, a situation in which we should be effectively spinning
the wheel and hoping that the ball falls into the right compartment.
The Committee, I respectfully submit, is entitled to and should
expect that the Promoters produce the information that demonstrates
not that there is optimism for the capacity that exists but that
the capacity does exist and there will not therefore be the impact
on rail freight which has been identified by Mr Garratt and through
Mr Dixon in terms of process. Without that I say with great respect,
the Committee will not perform the essential supervisory function
with regard to the development and the powers.
16408. The final point is Mr Elvin says, "Well
we have set up a timetable working group and the timetable working
group, in the enthusiasm for reading yesterday's exciting paper,
will be subsided by the Crossrail reference group.
16409. The Crossrail reference group, it said,
will take forward this process, but it will always be taking it
forward against a background of deficient assessment because of
the failure to approach the capacity exercise in the way that
would be usual and would be effective with regard to optimising
the timetable. As far as the Timetable Working Group is concerned,
superficially one might say, "That is what the report says",
but there is evidence before the Committee that that exercise
is deficient. The Committee ought, we submit, to be careful not
to allow this Bill to pass without the Promoters demonstrating
that the impacts we have referred to are going to be addressed.
I will not repeat what I said earlier, sir, we have set out our
position, unless there is anything else you would like me to deal
with?
16410. Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed. That concludes today's hearing. Thanks to the stenographers
who are working late again. We shall resume in this room at 10
o'clock tomorrow morning.
71 Crossrail Ref: P108, Extract of correspondence
from CLRL to the Committee, Issues for Systems modelling to prove
operational viability (SCN-20060718-003). Back
|
