Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20500
- 20519)
20500. Even at £83 million it still gives
rise to a huge saving, a saving of about £95 million, on
the old Depot Strategy, does it not? That is money in-hand as
a result of the new Depot Strategy?
(Mr Berryman) It is not actually money in-hand,
regrettably.
20501. It is money which no longer has to be
spent?
(Mr Berryman) Yes. I think it is worth just
mentioning that there is tremendous pressure on this project to
bring costs down. You will be aware that it is going to be a very,
very expensive project even on the best and most optimistic forecasts.
We do not quite work that we have saved £100 million here
so we can spend it somewhere else. We base it on the idea that
£100 million saved is £100 million saved.
20502. Just a second, Mr Berryman. I suspect
that is cheating. Your £100 million saved was taking into
account that you were spending £73 million at North Pole.
That had already been taken into account in the savings; so it
is not a question of taking away your saving; it is just that
your saving will be £10 million less than you had hoped for?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, but if
we can do this for £43 million, say, by relocating EWS somewhere
else, then the saving will be £150 million, will it not?
The fact I am trying to get at is, saving made in one location
cannot be expended in another location gratuitously; but it is
still important to us to keep the costs down.
20503. AP3 was formulated, was it not, as a
balanced, revised Depot Strategy by which you displaced EWS entirely
from its land and the money was spent on North Pole in lieu? That
was the very basis of AP3.
(Mr Berryman) The very basis
of AP3 was that the depot would not be at Romford; it would be
at Old Oak Common.
20504. And there would be North Pole?
(Mr Berryman) Yes. Certainly
we were looking, and we are still looking, as you know, at the
possibility of relocating your plan to North Pole. All we are
saying at this stage is, there may be and probably are cheaper
and just as effective solutions to the relocation which do not
involve spending £83 million.
20505. Just two final questions. First, am I
right that nowhere in the Environmental Statement or the documentation
supporting AP3 is there any caveat to the fact that North Pole
is simply an option, and that it is still under consideration?
(Mr Berryman) No, there
is no such caveat.
20506. No such caveat. Therefore, you will not
be surprised that EWS assumed that if they could swallow losing
Old Oak Common that they were going to get North Pole. That, I
think, you can well understand, which is why they feel rather
aggrieved now?
(Mr Berryman) Indeed.
20507. So far as saving costs is concerned,
that is only one aspect of the matter, is it not? The other aspect
of the matter is overall fairness and the interest of the freight
and the charter passenger business of EWS. That has to be taken
into account, does it not, as well as every penny that Crossrail
can save?
(Mr Berryman) Absolutely.
If you took it to the extreme you could do nothing and save the
whole £83 million, but that clearly is impossible. We need
to provide and make adequate provision for those businesses to
carry on, that is what we are here for and that is what this hearing
is about.
20508. You probably understand why EWS would
like some certainty—the knowledge that they have either
got Old Oak Common, which they have got a very long lease on at
the present time; or they have got North Pole. Whereas the undertaking
which you have put forward makes it wholly unclear for the future
where they are going to be, is that not right?
(Mr Berryman) I would not
put it as strongly as "wholly unclear"; but it is certainly
a lower degree of certainty that they would have if they were
going to move to North Pole, yes.
20509. As to where they are going to be putting
the charter passenger fleet, where that will be, what those alternatives
sites are and so forth, there is no documentation at all on that
matter, is there?
(Mr Berryman) No.
20510. Nor is there anything in any Environmental
Statement dealing with the environmental implications of any alternative
location for EWS's various facilities, some of them involving
freight, some involving large numbers of passenger trains?
(Mr Berryman) That is true,
but the intention I think would be to use existing facilities
for the storage of those passenger trains.
20511. Wherever you put them it will have some
environmental impact, and that is a matter which has not thus
far been assessed, has it?
(Mr Berryman) I do not think
it is quite right to say that, is it, because if we put them on
an existing railway siding or complex which is already in use
and is being used for that purpose, albeit on a smaller scale,
then it does not require an environmental assessment, does it?
20512. Let us take it by stages. First of all,
you are unable to tell the Committee, and you have not yet told
EWS, where their passenger trains are planned to go. That is right,
is it not?
(Mr Berryman) That is right,
yes.
20513. Therefore, it has so far been wholly
impossible to carry out any assessment as to whether, if they
go somewhere else, it does have an environmental impact or it
does not have an environmental impact because first you have got
to locate the site, have you not?
(Mr Berryman) That is right. As your clients
are aware, there are a number of sites around London which have
the potential to be used as stabling, which are already used to
some extent for stabling, which could be expanded. It would be
our first port of call to use one of those.
20514. What the Committee knows is that they
have got a thorough Environmental Statement which assesses the
impact of moving all EWS's activities to North Pole and concludes
that that is an environmentally acceptable solution. Is that right?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is true.
20515. Mr George: I am very grateful.
Re-examined by Mr Elvin
20516. Mr Elvin: Mr Berryman, bearing
in mind what you said earlier with regard to the possibility of
producing an addendum Environmental Statement, what is your view
as to whether this issue should be determined by whether or not
the Environmental Assessment has put North Pole simply as an option?
(Mr Berryman) I think you
have given the answer in the question.
20517. You are not supposed to say things like
that!
(Mr Berryman) If you produce
a supplementary Environmental Statement these matters can easily
be dealt with. They are not substantial matters. They are things
which can be dealt with quite easily.
20518. Can I come back to a couple of points
so we have the facts right. This point about whether DfT should
have known about the rating for the North Pole and Eurostar facility,
it is right, is it not, that the Eurostar facility does not come
to the Department until Eurostar has vacated later this year?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that
is my understanding.
20519. It is not in departmental operation?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, it is
only when they vacate it and move round to the other side of London.
| 
