| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Crossrail will not be ready in time for the Olympics, but its promise will help to secure the vital legacy for the East End. Transport is critical to the regeneration of the Thames Gateway. It would have been good if Crossrail had been built by 2012, but it
9 Jan 2008 : Column 905
National and London governments are to be congratulated on resolving the funding of Crossrail: this is a momentous step. It is good value for government. For their £5 billion, they get about £12 billion back in tax receipts and about a £30 billion contribution to UK GDP. Business is backing it with billions; businesses are even asking to be taxed. Why? Because it is good for London and they know that, ultimately, it will be good for business. The business community pressed for resolution of the funding for many years. It asked that it not be done in a final flurry. Unfortunately, the funding was indeed put together at the last minute, but a very able team was put on the case in the past few months. On the business contribution, some sectors will be hit harder than others by the supplementary business rate. I am thinking in particular of the retail community. Perhaps there is a case for an offset against the Crossrail levy for those occupiers who are already contributing to business improvement districts and the improvement of the public realm, especially before Crossrail is actually open.
Now that the project looks like becoming a reality, it is essential that it is governed and run in such a way as to maximise its chances of success. It needs to be managed on time and on budget. Major projects such as Terminal 5, Arsenal Emirates and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link have all been much more private sector in their governance than Crossrail is proposed to be. The fact that Crossrail is in the public sector will worry the business community. It will worry about political interference, scope creep and deadline disciplines. However, there is a good argument for Transport for London to own Crossrail, because of the complex interface with the London rail and Tube system. None the less, Transport for London needs to be absolutely confident that it has the internal structure, staff calibre and capacity to deal with those complex issues efficiently and effectively.
The heads of terms have been well designed, with clear allocation of risk and clear trigger points for when government—either national or London—can step in. I welcome the proposal to put business non-executive directors on the Crossrail board, and note the advertisements in the FT today for those roles. That should help to deliver both independence and project management expertise and disciplines. If the project is to be delivered on time and on budget, I urge those directors to resist interference with the scope once the project has passed through both Houses of Parliament.
In conclusion, is the Crossrail project perfect? No. The Crossrail team has done a good job of refining the scope and of managing the project through the legislative process to date. Any substantial alternative to Crossrail, however, will set us back five years. What is more, that alternative will be imperfect in five years’ time. We have to make the best decision that we can now with the information that we have available.
9 Jan 2008 : Column 906
My appeal to noble Lords, if you will excuse the puns, is: let us not derail the project with excessive scrutiny but exercise the proper fine tuning of the engine. I am delighted that Crossrail has cross-party support. It is desperately needed. It is needed now. Full steam ahead.
7.15 pm
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I very much welcome the Crossrail project. It is certainly good for London, as my noble friend said, and it is good for the surrounding area served. I do not think that that means that we should not scrutinise it, as the noble Baroness just suggested. We need to scrutinise it professionally and properly but not waste too much time on it. We need to get the right result at the end.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, I have concerns about the link between Heathrow and Canary Wharf. It is quite ridiculous that the only way that you will be able to get from one to the other is by an all-stations service, but what is more important is that the infrastructure is not being built to enable that to happen later. I can see why it may not want to be done now. It is fine for the Government to say, “Yeah, we advertised. We have financed the Crossrail project and it means that you can get from Canary Wharf to Heathrow in the twinkling of an eye, but actually, you will have to change trains at Paddington and go down three escalators and round several bends”. That is a bit sad. I do not know whether my noble friend can look at that again.
As other noble Lords have said, there is also the question of what will happen during construction. We can talk about that in future, but it is essential that the existing surface lines are kept open.
Obviously, I am going to talk about rail freight and the effect of Crossrail. I will speak at the same time to my Motion on the Order Paper, which I emphasise is not a wrecking Motion at all. I look on it as an insurance scheme, just to make sure—I shall come on to explain why—that the Select Committee, if your Lordships agree that the Bill should go to a Select Committee, looks at the issues set out on the Order Paper.
It is not appropriate for me to divide the House on that, because I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group, and this is a procedural Motion, which could lead to difficulties, but it is a very important Motion and I hope that my noble friend will look on it with favour.
The problem for me is that we do not know exactly what will be the effect of Crossrail on freight, because the timetable is not finished. I do not know for how many years people have been trying to write a timetable to add freight in 10 years’ time—the official government forecast for freight in 10 years’ time, which the industry has developed. It has not yet been fully integrated with what Crossrail wants and with what the other passenger operators want. It has been done by different people over the years. TfL had one view; Crossrail had another; government had a third view.
9 Jan 2008 : Column 907
One of the problems that the freight industry found when petitioning to the Commons was that no one could agree the basis on which they were going to have a discussion. If you are going to spend hours or days saying, “This is my timetable, and this is the result. That is your timetable and that is the result”, that is very time-consuming and extremely wasteful. It is very depressing that the timetable is not yet finished when the Select Committee will probably start its hearings sometime in late February. I hope that my noble friend will say that it will be finished and that we will have information on the effect of future growth of freight when the Crossrail project opens, so that we can see what fits and what does not. Then we can decide collectively what to do about that.
My noble friend said that Crossrail will increase the capacity on the surface lines, but that is not yet demonstrated because the timetable is not finished. I hope that it will be, because, if it is not, there will be problems and we will then have to look at the solutions. What are the solutions? There are three easy solutions on the Great Western and the Great Eastern. The first is to have fewer Crossrail trains. The second is to provide a diversion, which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has mentioned, certainly for Great Eastern trains. The third is to build more infrastructure. Again, I hope that the Government will give assurances on this at the Select Committee or somewhere else.
The noble Lords, Lord Hanningfield and Lord Bradshaw, mentioned aggregate traffic. On the east side, the biggest container port, Felixstowe, which has permission for expansion to be even bigger, is our major import port for containers. I know that the Government are very keen on this and that our new trade Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Birmingham, keeps on talking about the importance of good trade links. But freight will not be able to go by rail because the diversion rail route will not be finished and Crossrail will block the Shenfield route. We will need to have some good assurances from the Government that these diversion works will be done.
I said that the House of Commons Select Committee suffered from having a lack of credible timetable information. I should like to draw the attention of the House to one or two of the issues that came out in its report, which probably support my argument that this Motion is necessary. I shall give only two quotes, so that we do not spend too much time on this matter. Under “Register of Undertakings and Assurances”, paragraph 36, the committee states that the Crossrail Bill is complicated and that:
“The public needs to have a clear understanding of the impact of the Bill, how each area will be affected by it and what action will be taken by the Promoter to mitigate any impact. We look to the Committee in the House of Lords to ensure that further clarity is achieved before the Bill reaches Royal Assent”.
I do not think that we could argue with that.
The second quote is under “Freight”. It is of course the last chapter and is the only one that refers to freight, but I am used to that. Paragraph 141 states:
“The Committee is persuaded that the freight industry faces an increasing challenge ... The Committee was concerned about the uncertainty regarding the Access Option”,
9 Jan 2008 : Column 908
which I shall come to. It continues:
“We look to the Committee in the House of Lords to ensure that Access Option and any other remaining issues relating to the freight industry are adequately evaluated”.
As I have said, the Motion is an insurance policy. I am sure that the committee, under normal circumstances, would do this anyway. That is its job. However, if it chooses not to, there is nothing that the House can do about it. That is why this Motion is important.
My noble friend also commended the work of the Select Committee on how many petitioners had their petitions resolved without having to petition themselves. Clearly, that is the best way to do it. I have been involved in a few of these hybrid Bills previously. For that, it is necessary—I shall make no further comment—for both sides to be prepared to negotiate and there has to be proper information on which they can negotiate and get a clear decision.
To conclude on the assurances given by the Government and the Commons Select Committee, there was only one assurance affecting freight, which I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned—the Acton Yard dive-under. Surprise, surprise, it was left out of the list of assurances published by the Select Committee. I have complained that the one assurance for freight is left out, which is why I have a question. We have to be careful that every stone is in place and that no stone is left unturned, and everything else.
Clauses 22 to 45, which other noble Lords have mentioned, are my other main concern. My noble friend said that they are reserve powers, but reserve powers can be used. Of course, we will talk about this in Committee, but these issues are critical to many petitioners and it is important that they are also in this Motion. As other noble Lords have said, this goes to the heart of the railway structure and the normal railway processes that Ministers have said will be used by Crossrail in the development of its option agreement and other things. This goes back to Section 4 of the Railways Act, which says that fairness, transparency and certainty are what the private and public sector operators want, and that it is part of the duties of the Secretary of State and the ORR.
Section 4(5)(b) of the Act puts an obligation on these organisations not to make it unduly difficult to invest in the railway, which is important for passengers as well as freight. Ministers also state regularly that they want to encourage rail freight. Paragraph 9.5 of the railways White Paper states that,
- “the Government has made it clear that it will ensure that policies and regulations do not put unnecessary obstacles in the way of future freight growth and that, in specifying passenger services, the needs of the rail freight industry are considered”.
I am not sure that that is happening with Crossrail now. When companies want to invest in railway terminals, passenger trains, freight trains, locomotives or whatever, they expect to operate them and hope to make some money on them.
The Crossrail option application is very interesting. Hutchison Ports (UK), which I have already mentioned, is preparing a similar option application to run freight trains from Felixstowe. As part of its planning application it has committed to
9 Jan 2008 : Column 909
That is a normal industry process. The problem is that the promoters of Crossrail do not appear to accept that. If there is not enough capacity for the trains that Crossrail, Great Eastern or Great Western want, they do not plan to increase the investment in capacity or to reduce the number of trains. They want other people’s services to be cut. That is what the powers under Clauses 22 to 45 say.
That is also in the option agreement. If the Government do not like the regulator’s determination of the option agreement, they will direct the regulator to “steal” capacity from existing users of the networks so that Crossrail can have it. Will the Government give Hutchison Ports the same powers for what it wants? The last time I asked the answer was “no”. But it is just as important because the UK economy depends on efficient ports, just as Crossrail is important for London.
We do not talk often about the effect on other passenger services, because the franchises probably will be changed by the time Crossrail opens. I do not expect to see many of the passenger operators complaining, but people who live in Bristol, Ipswich, Reading, Cardiff or wherever could find their passenger services cut because there is primary legislation which allows Crossrail to increase the number of stopping trains from Maidenhead to Paddington any time during the day or night. That is a total interference with industry processes. This Motion is designed to make sure that the committee looks into these things. It is very serious to give powers to remove other operators’ capacities that are so fundamental and have such potentially serious consequences for the rest of the UK.
Finally, and I am sorry for taking up some of your Lordships’ time, we have to reflect on the role of the Government in all this. I understand why my noble friend the Minister said that the Government are the promoters of the scheme, and that is fine, but I think that we have two Governments in this place. We have the Government who are the promoters of Crossrail, believing the project to be so important that they can expropriate by primary legislation any capacity they need on existing lines and appear to ignore the future growth forecasts for other parts of the passenger and freight network, and we have the other half of the Government in the form of the Department for Transport, which seeks to ensure that the passenger franchises operate in a cost-effective manner by getting lots of passengers on to their trains and thus take them off the roads. In a rather naïve way, I would expect the franchising department in the Department for Transport to petition against this Bill in the Select Committee. Of course that will not happen, but what is the difference between the Department for Transport’s franchising department and a private freight operator or other operator? I believe that each
9 Jan 2008 : Column 910
I am disappointed in the detail that we have so far. There are questions on capacity and construction programmes to which some two and a half years after this Bill went into the Commons we still do not have the answers. I look forward to my noble friend’s response, but I warn him that there are going to be some long and interesting debates in the future stages.
7.31 pm
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am delighted that the rules of the House are sufficiently flexible to allow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to make those points despite the expertise and interest which he has. I have not addressed the argument about freight access and other points he mentioned, but he has raised some very important issues.
I join others in welcoming the Bill but, as many have said, it is long overdue. I recollect a meeting held, I think, 20 years ago with the then chairman of Crossrail, Sir Christopher Benson, when he was struggling from a small office just off Victoria Street to try to get the show on the road. It seems to be a recurring feature of major infrastructure projects in this country that they take decades for even the most desirable and much needed developments to move from concept to completion. I mention the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, which took from 1987 to 2007 to complete—20 years for something that had been planned to follow on immediately after the building of the Channel Tunnel. I shall refer to the CTRL again in a moment.
However, here we are today with the Crossrail Bill. Crossrail has been in contemplation since the early 1980s and is due to open in 2017. I only hope that the Bill does not have to spend as long in the Select Committee of this House as it did in another place. I know the feeling when one has a long involvement in such a project. An honourable Member of another place who, having spent all those years in its Select Committee, said that he felt compelled to volunteer to serve on the Standing Committee as well, and had to be restrained.
I want to concentrate the rest of my contribution on what is not in the Bill; namely, the financing arrangements. I am encouraged to do this because both the Minister and my noble friend on the Front Bench had something to say about them. I am extremely grateful to the staff of our Library, who have made available to me some of the documentation of what appears to be a hugely complex package, many of the details of which still have to be worked out; the Minister frankly conceded that. Indeed, I was told when being briefed by Crossrail yesterday that the lawyers are still hard at work putting the detailed flesh on to the heads of terms, and especially on important agreements such as the agreement between the Department for Transport and the Mayor of London’s office, and the agreement between both of those bodies and CLRL, which stands for Cross London Rail Links Ltd, the prospective nominated undertaker.
9 Jan 2008 : Column 911
Referring again to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, there is one remarkable contrast. Ministers have been pleased to cite the CTRL as a precedent for this Bill, but in one respect it was anything but. In the case of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the finance package was agreed before the Bill actually got into Parliament at all. With Crossrail, the Bill was introduced nearly four years ago, while the Minister, Ruth Kelly, did not announce the heads of terms until 26 November last year, less than two months ago. She did so in a Written Statement which starts, if I may say so, on an unhappy note:
The librarians have told me that no paper copy was deposited in the Library either at the other end or in this House. Where it is deposited is on the department’s website, so the staff have been able to run it off and make copies for me—it is a formidable document. But I find it slightly off-putting when a Minister can put something in a Written Statement when in fact it is not going to happen. Maybe the librarians and I are both wrong, in which case I will apologise, but that is what I was told.
The substance of the package shows that not only is it complex, but it is also clear that to take effect, further legislation will have to go through Parliament. In other words, the Bill before us, although very substantial, is actually only part of the story.
The finance is envisaged as coming from a variety of sources. As the Minister told us at the beginning of the debate, the cost at 2016 prices is estimated at £16 billion. Of that, the Department for Transport grants will be £5 billion, but the department is also going to,
- “be responsible for procuring contributions from the City Corporation and BAA”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/11/07; col. 4WS.]
I should like to look briefly at those, bearing in mind that it is the Department for Transport which is to be responsible for procuring their contributions. Last October, the City Corporation offered £200 million from its own resources, which by any standards is a very substantial sum. Furthermore, the corporation has agreed to lead—here I quote from a briefing note I have received—
- “an exercise which aims to raise a further £150 million in private contributions from the financial City”.
The first question I have to ask the Minister is: how far has the City got in raising that £150 million? It has already given £200 million of its own resources; has it been successful in raising this further sum from other sources?
I understand that the BAA contribution is linked to the extension out to Heathrow, the Heathrow spur; I do not want to add to what has already been said about that. The question about that contribution is: what is it actually going to be? Has it yet been quantified and agreed, and can one now assume that it is firmly on the table, as it were?
9 Jan 2008 : Column 912
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |