Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7140 - 7159)

  7140. MS LIEVEN: It has certainly changed, my Lord, yes. The opening date is now assumed to be 2017.

  7141. CHAIRMAN: But that is only to Abbey Wood?

  7142. MS LIEVEN: Yes, my Lord, but when this was drawn up Ebbsfleet was part of the scheme and the opening date assumed was 2013.

  7143. CHAIRMAN: All the way to Ebbsfleet?

  7144. MS LIEVEN: All the way to Ebbsfleet.

  7145. CHAIRMAN: So it would have to be changed to reflect the current opening date but only as far as Abbey Wood.

  7146. MS LIEVEN: Yes. If this particular table was redone it would change in a number of respects. One would be opening date and two would be the different scheme, i.e. only going to Abbey Wood.

  7147. CHAIRMAN: And it would assume, would it not, that you brought forward a Transport and Works Act Order immediately for an extension to Ebbsfleet?

  7148. MS LIEVEN: That would depend on how the table was done but, on the face of it, if we did this table again, there would be two: one just stopping at Abbey Wood and there would have to be another, assuming that the first part of the main part of Crossrail stopped at Abbey Wood in 2017, and then some assumption was made as to when, through the TWA process, an extension to Ebbsfleet would be opened.

  7149. CHAIRMAN: It certainly would not be 2017?

  7150. MS LIEVEN: No, it would not, my Lord, on any analysis. That is right.

  7151. CHAIRMAN: So these figures do not help us on the situation that would arise if the Option 1 proposition put forward by Bexley were to be adopted by the Select Committee?

  7152. MS LIEVEN: They certainly do not give us that answer, my Lord, no.

  7153. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

  7154. MR CAMERON: They do not give a precise answer because they do relate to 2013, but what they do give is an indication of the increase in employment that Crossrail themselves anticipated when working out their own Business Case as a result of the introduction of the railway. They go that far and, of course, my Lord, Option 1 does not require the Committee to endorse a Transport and Works Act Order itself but to facilitate it.

  7155. CHAIRMAN: I fully understand that, Mr Cameron, but we would need to have some basic material upon the basis of which we put that suggestion to Parliament, and we have not got it.

  7156. MR CAMERON: My Lord, in my submission you have got sufficient material to indicate that there would be significant regeneration benefit, though I acknowledge and accept that the precise number of jobs cannot be quantified.

  7157. CHAIRMAN: No. The difficulty is this, that the figures you have given us are out of date; they are not attuned to the proposition that there will be a Transport and Works Order following this Bill and, if so, when. That is right, is it not?

  7158. MR CAMERON: That is right but, having said that, they do give an indication of the significant benefit that would be derived from extending Crossrail at whatever time it was extended, because one of the factors taken into account in calculating the number of jobs is enhanced accessibility and we have provided the Committee with an indication of the effect of enhanced accessibility. We made a comparison between Crossrail stopping at Abbey Wood and Crossrail going on, and this is just an example, to Belvedere, and that is one of the most significant factors taken into account in calculating the likely additional jobs.

  7159. CHAIRMAN: But do we not know that already? That there would be multiple advantages if it went through to Ebbsfleet.



 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008