Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7380
- 7399)
7380. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: When
I looked at Option 1, I was looking at it in its entirety and
I had trouble with that because you were asking us to make a recommendation
where I did not feel, and I suspect some of my colleagues did
not feel, that we had enough current evidence before us to enable
us to make that recommendation, and it was a strong recommendation,
as you freely admit. Now, you are saying, "Well, okay, I
am prepared, if you like, to amend my own proposition", if
you will pardon me reverting to my old trade union parlance, "and
delete the first three lines and my new proposal for Option 1
starts at, `As an amendment to clause 57'", if I understand
you correctly, or you would not like to do it, but, in getting
some recommendation, you would be prepared to see that as a fallback
position?
7381. MR CAMERON: As put by Mr Lewis
to me just now, it would be better than nothing!
7382. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: It
is the half a track.
7383. MR CAMERON: But the wording of
the option was "and", so there were two elements to
it, and I know I am sounding like a lawyer, but I am one. Of the
two elements, if we got one of them, it would be better than nothing,
but I still urge you to consider the first element of the request.
That is on procedure.
7384. Can I turn to merits and I seek to make
four points on procedure. I have not addressed you on the second
option because the second option is in effect the first sentence
of Option 1. On the merits, there are four points. The first point
is what I would describe as `context' for the case, and I would
just remind the Committee that, until November 2004, which was
post the Montague Review of July 2004, the line to Ebbsfleet formed
part of the scheme, so it was promoted by the Secretary of State,
not as part of the hybrid Bill, but it was promoted as part of
the scheme by the Secretary of State, so we are not suggesting
something that has come into Bexley's mind as a good idea to add
on some limb somewhere. We are just saying let it go back to how
it was when it was first proposed, so it is a scheme which has
received due consideration, been through the Montague Review,
come out of the Montague Review and was still promoted for consultation
purposes in September 2004 and taken out in November 2004. The
reason that the Promoter has given for removing that line was
impact on service reliability. That is the reason. Cost has been
raised, but it was not cost and that is clear from the exhibits
we have put in. That reason, service reliability, no longer holds
good because a solution has been found which is the four-tracking
from Slade Green to Dartford. Therefore, in terms of the merits,
it has been through the process, it was taken out for one reason,
that reason is capable of being overcome, and that is the context
for our petitioning point.
7385. The second point I wish to make is this:
that the benefit:cost ratio provides an indication of whether
a project can be considered to be good value for money and there
is no effective dispute that the extension to Ebbsfleet based
on current figures satisfies the criteria in that the benefit:cost
ratio is, by agreement, as good as that for the whole scheme,
so it cannot be rejected in terms of cost because, otherwise,
the whole scheme should be rejected in terms of cost as a similar
benefit:cost ratio.
7386. The third point is that the regeneration
benefits of extending the line to Ebbsfleet are significant. It
is an area of London where there are significant pockets of deprivation,
and you have the figures in front of you. Mr Donovan explained
that north Bexley is not, in his words, in the same category of
the leafy suburb of Bexley which might be imagined, and the figures
are there. The Belvedere example is given and that is described
as an `opportunity area' in the London Plan. It has land available
to create jobs and provide for housing and both those factors,
housing and jobs, could be given a significant boost, and you
have the figures in front of you, if the line were extended. Indeed,
part of Crossrail's original business case, and again you have
the figures, was that employment would increase significantly
in Belvedere if this scheme went ahead, so there are significant
regeneration benefits.
7387. On that point, can I just draw your attention
to the extract from the Crossrail Review which was put in by the
Promoter as one of their exhibits, the first exhibit I think.[58]59
Paragraph 2.75, just before the part that is highlighted, the
third sentence, says, "Benefits would arise from further
switching from crowded national rail services with congestion
and journey time improvements ... extension to Ebbsfleet would
also support the regeneration of the Thames Gateway", so
the Montague Report recognised the regeneration benefits that
would be derived from extending the line to Ebbsfleet. The part
highlighted in that document is the service reliability point,
but that is capable of being overcome by the four-tracking, so
that is my third point on the merits, the first point being it
was part of the original scheme; the second point a positive benefit:cost
ratio; the third point, significant transport and regeneration
benefits, and my fourth point responds to the improvements to
infrastructure point made by Ms Lieven. Yes, there will be improvement
to infrastructure in the area but notwithstanding those improvements
the benefit:cost ratio is still positive, and the actual benefit
to people living or seeking work in the area is demonstrated by
page 49 of our exhibits and, yes, page 49 is based on 2001 figures
but it gives a very broad indication of the massive increase in
the number of people who could reasonably be expected to work
at Belvedere if this change came about.[59]60
That is just an example based on Belvedere: of course, the same
would apply to the stations to the east.
7388. My Lord, those are my submissions, unless
I can assist on any other procedural points or on the merits.
7389. CHAIRMAN: Mr Cameron, my colleagues
are asking me about an amendment which leaves out "without
delay", as it were.
7390. MR CAMERON: My Lord, I think it
is the same answer that Mr Lewis asked me before: we would prefer
"without delay" but would welcome any encouragement,
and if the words "without delay" were omitted it would
be much better than no words at all.
7391. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, you took this
point, and I know we had a statement in the Budget about funding
for Crossrail. Has there been any commitment at all for funding
for an extension to Ebbsfleet?
7392. MS LIEVEN: No, my Lord, absolutely
not. The only commitment is to take forward the safeguarding proposal—that
is there is no funding and no commitment to fund an extension
to Ebbsfleet.
7393. CHAIRMAN: Any more than there is
for the extension to Reading?
7394. MS LIEVEN: Any more than there
is for the extension to Reading, that is correct, my Lord.
7395. My Lord, can I just raise one point on
Mr Cameron's amended proposal, which is that it does, in my submission,
potentially leave the landowners along that route in some difficulty
if they get to a TWA. It is not at all clear to me how a provision
that falls under section 9 of the TWA works in practice when you
get to the TWA inquiry, but to the degree that it means that the
principle of the extension is established then it does put those
people at potentially quite a material disadvantage at an inquiry
in circumstances where this was not part of the original Bill
proposal, and was not even part of the original Bill proposal
that this provision should apply.
7396. It is difficult to tell quite how much
weight to give to that but, in my submission, it is something
that the Committee should consider when there is an open-ended
commitment that at whatever time, if ever, a TWA comes forward,
section 9, if it still exists, will apply to that TWA, and I just
put it as a point to put into the balance as to whether the Committee
feels that, on the evidence you have heard today, it is justified
to make that decision at this stage.
7397. Of course, those people can go to the
TWA inquiry and object to the TWA, but the whole point of Mr Cameron's
amendment is that it will make it that much more difficult for
them to do so. That is what it is intended to achieve.
7398. CHAIRMAN: I want to clarify this.
If the principle is established under that section of the 1992
Act—heaven knows what will happen if there is a Planning
Bill—but for the moment, is it possible for objectors to
put forward the equivalent of a request for additional provisions
so as to change the principle?
7399. MS LIEVEN: I do not believe it
is, my Lord, no; I am not conscious of any equivalent procedure.
Mr Walker, who was in attendance at the Stratford Channel Tunnel
Rail Link inquiry, tells me it is not. I should say it is not
at all clear as to quite how section 9 works. My instructions
are that at the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Stratford TWA inquiry,
which followed the precedent that Mr Cameron has told you about,
in fact the principle of the scheme was discussed and considered,
but ultimately the Inspector recommended that the scheme went
ahead, as indeed it did, but it is not quite as clear-cut as with
a hybrid bill, where it is simply not possible for a Petitioner
to come before this Committee and say: "We do not think this
Bill should proceed at all".
58 59 Crossrail Ref: P49, Extracts from Crossrail Review,
Adrian Montague, 2004 (BEXYLB-44_04-055) Back
59
60 Committee Ref: A35, Population & Employment west of Belvedere
(5) (BEXYLB-44_05A-049) Back
|
