Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6880
- 6899)
6880. MS LIEVEN: Well, my Lords, there
has been correspondence between the parties and the statement
I just read out is agreed between the parties. I think it would
be inappropriate for me to comment further.
6881. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: I just
wanted to see it because I wanted to see whether it altered the
weight of anything we had relied upon, and that was all.
6882. MS LIEVEN: I completely understand
that, my Lord.
1 Para 6177 [Ms Lieven]
(LINEWD-DREC15-012); and Para 6193 [Ms Lieven] (LINEWD-DREC15-014)
The following Petition against the Bill was read:
The Petition of the London Borough of Bexley.
MR NEIL
CAMERON appeared on behalf of
the Petitioner.
Sharpe Pritchard appeared as Agent.
6883. MS LIEVEN: We now move on to the
Petition of the London Borough of Bexley. My Lords, Bexley are
now raising just one issue, that is, the argument that Crossrail
should extend from Abbey Wood further east to Ebbsfleet.2[1]
Now, my Lords, before I turn to the substance of the point, there
is, in my submission, no doubt that the issue goes outside the
principle of the Bill and it extends the railway beyond Abbey
Wood. Whether the Committee feel they should hear, and consider,
the matters that Mr Cameron wishes to put before you is something
that I am going to leave entirely to the Committee, so I will
just make a brief, factual opening as to why, if the Committee
do decide to hear this Petition, we say that no action should
be taken upon it.
6884. The Committee will remember that Abbey
Wood lies at the end of the south-eastern branch of Crossrail,
going beyond the Isle of Dogs, and Ebbsfleet and the stations
in between lie further to the east, and perhaps we could put up
our Exhibit 1 just to show that.[2]3
This is the rail map of the existing services, and Mr Berryman
will explain the existing services to you later, but just so that
you can see how the rail network works, Abbey Wood lies here (indicating)
and the services at the moment on the North Kent Line run east
of Abbey Wood, so they go from London Bridge in Central London
down to Abbey Wood and then they run east, including to Northfleet
and then further on to the east, and Ebbsfleet would be a new
station very close to Northfleet, and there is a concatenation
of new development in that area. That is just to put the factual
context of where we are.
6885. If we can go back to the first exhibit,
the Bill scheme involves rebuilding Abbey Wood Station from two
platforms to four platforms so that people coming from the east
on the services we have just looked at on the North Kent Line
can very easily interchange at Abbey Wood by getting off their
London Bridge services and simply walking across the platform
to get on to a Crossrail service, and it is worth noting that,
because this is the terminus of Crossrail, there will, certainly
in the peak period, usually be a train sitting there waiting for
them, so under the hybrid Bill scheme we have a very easy interchange
at Abbey Wood.[3]4
6886. Now, just to give your Lordships a little
of the history, it is right to say that the Crossrail scheme,
as envisaged in 2002, did involve Crossrail going all the way
to Ebbsfleet and that there would be four trains an hour running
beyond Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet. However, as the scheme was worked
up post-2002, it became apparent that there were severe operational
difficulties in running trains to Ebbsfleet because of the interaction
with the North Kent Line and there was a very severe risk that
those operational difficulties would disrupt the Crossrail services.
Now, I am not going to try and explain that rather complicated
diagram we put up a few minutes ago, I am going to leave that
for Mr Berryman, but the conclusion was reached that the risks
to the overall operation of Crossrail by running to Ebbsfleet
were unacceptable and, in those circumstances, it was decided
to terminate Crossrail at Abbey Wood. We will show you later,
or Mr Cameron will, an extract from the Montague Report before
the hybrid Bill was submitted where the view was taken that the
risks were very high.
6887. CHAIRMAN: So that decision was
taken before the Bill went to Parliament?
The Petition of the London Borough of
Bexley
6888. MS LIEVEN: Before the Bill was
submitted, so the hybrid Bill scheme has always been that Abbey
Wood is the terminus. Alongside that work and as work has progressed
on the scheme, it has been shown that some, albeit not all, of
the operational difficulties could be overcome, and Mr Berryman
will explain how much could be overcome, by widening the tracks
between Abbey Wood and Ebbsfleet, and let us put up Exhibit 3.[4]5
Again, I am going to leave Mr Berryman to explain the detail of
this, but it would be possible to widen the tracks at various
critical points between Abbey Wood and Ebbsfleet which would overcome
a large proportion of the operational difficulties, and that is
known as `the four-tracking scheme'.
6889. However, that four-tracking scheme is
extremely expensive. The total outturn costs, and the outturn
costs are the costs that we have used in front of this Committee,
they are the costs that it would actually be to the Secretary
of State, they come out at something in the region of £500
million to take the four-tracking from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet
in order to reach an acceptable operational level, so it is very
expensive and it is also very complicated because one has to work
out a service pattern that fits in with all these rather complicated
existing arrangements. The position of the Secretary of State
is that Crossrail is already a very expensive and very complicated
scheme and we do not believe that it is justified at the present
time to add on this additional cost and additional complexity,
so, in those circumstances, we are firmly opposed at this stage
to any commitment to extend the railway to Ebbsfleet.
6890. In terms of the benefits side of the equation,
and it is just worth explaining the level of agreement because
it may save the Committee a bit of time if you do hear these matters,
we accept that there would be benefits in going to Ebbsfleet,
and there is no issue about that. The line would go through areas
of fairly high social deprivation and there would undoubtedly
be regeneration benefits. Bexley are likely in the course of the
morning to present evidence to you on the cost:benefit ratio for
going to Ebbsfleet, weighing up the costs and the regeneration
benefits. Now, although we do not accept all the detail of Bexley's
figures, we do accept the principle that there will be a positive
cost:benefit ratio and that it will be roughly commensurate with
that for the scheme as a whole, so we are not going to argue in
front of you about the level of what is called the `BCR', the
benefit:cost ratio.
6891. However, one important point to emphasise
in opening is that, because of the very easy cross-platform interchange
at Abbey Wood and because of the service to Abbey Wood, there
will be considerable benefits to the people living between Abbey
Wood and Ebbsfleet from the Crossrail proposal in any event, so
this is not an all-or-nothing situation; there will be many benefits
in any event from the hybrid Bill scheme.
6892. Just before I finish, I should emphasise
as well that there is nothing in the hybrid Bill scheme that stops
some future extension to Ebbsfleet. First of all, in terms of
the trains, the trains will have passive provision for dual voltage,
and I do not want to get into the complexities of this because
it is all agreed, but it will be possible for them to be upgraded
in the future so that they can run to Ebbsfleet without any significant
additional cost, so that is not an issue. The Secretary of State,
as your Lordships will be aware, has safeguarded the two tracks
to Ebbsfleet and the four-tracking solution, which I briefly explained
to your Lordships, is currently being consulted upon for safeguarding
purposes, so the safeguarding direction, which would ensure in
effect that nobody could build something on the route that would
make it much more difficult to four-track to Ebbsfleet in the
future, that is being consulted upon at the present time, so there
is nothing in the Bill that stops some further extension if that
should be considered to be a sensible, economic and operational
thing to do in the future, but we are clear that it is not a sensible
thing to do at this stage.
6893. My Lords, that is all I was going to say
in opening, unless there is anything I can help the Committee
with now.
6894. CHAIRMAN: Mr Cameron, you realise
that we have very limited powers in this respect. What is it that
you want us to do?
6895. MR CAMERON: My Lord, I do not know
whether you and your colleagues have a copy of the exhibits which
Bexley have put in.
6896. CHAIRMAN: I have a copy of your
case.
6897. MR CAMERON: If your Lordship would
go to pages 3 and 4, we have set out two options. Option 1 is
our preferred option and Option 2 is an alternative if the Committee
does not accept Option 1, so, in answer to your Lordship's question
of what are we asking you to do, we are asking you to amend the
Bill in the terms set out on page 3.[5]6
The purpose of that, my Lord, is to facilitate, so far as is possible
and practicable at this stage, the future extension to Ebbsfleet,
so we are not asking that there be any firm commitment to go to
Ebbsfleet, although that is what Bexley would like, and we are
not asking that any money be expended. What we are asking is that
the provision be made so that, if a future Order is promoted under
the Transport and Works Act, it is treated as if it were a scheme
of national significance.
6898. Can I just explain to the Committee that
the amendment that we are proposing follows the wording that was
adopted in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, and what happened
in those proceedings was that various Petitioners wished to support
an international station at Stratford, which was not included
in the Bill. Before the Select Committee in the House of Commons,
the case was argued and what the Committee reported was in the
broad terms set out as our Option 2 and we have taken the words
from the Committee's Report on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill,
apart from the reference to replacement procedure because that
was not an issue at that time.[6]7
Then, following that report, at the consideration stage an amendment
was introduced to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill in the terms
set out at our Option 1 and at the time that that amendment was
introduced, although the precise words were not used, the House
of Commons took the view that that would not extend the scope
of the Bill and, therefore, it was possible for that amendment
to be introduced at the consideration stage. It is a rather long-winded
answer to my Lordship's question, but that is what we are asking
the Committee to do, and we are asking the Committee to do that
on the basis of a precedent set by the Channel Tunnel Rail Link
Bill.
6899. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, I am not entirely
clear about this. My recollection is that Lord Bassam at second
reading said that the Government was considering safeguarding
as far as Ebbsfleet, but you say they have already safeguarded
two tracks.
1 2 Crossrail Ref: P49, Crossrail Line 1-Southeastern
Route (LINEWD-OPN1-017) Back
2
3 Crossrail Ref: P49, North Kent Lines-Current Service Pattern
(BEXYLB-44_04-001) Back
3
4 Crossrail Ref: P49, Crossrail Line 1-Southeastern Route (LINEWD-OPN1-017) Back
4
5 Crossrail Ref: P49, North Kent Lines-Proposed Service Pattern
if Crossrail is extended to Ebbsfleet (BEXYLB-44_04-003) Back
5
6 Committee Ref: A35, Option 1-Recommend TWA Order plus amendment
which designates scheme as scheme of national significance (BEXYLB-44_05A-003) Back
6
7 Committee Ref: A35, Option 2-Recommend TWA Order, with no amendments
to the Bill (BEXYLB-44_05A-004) Back
|
