Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8040
- 8059)
8040. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I am not asking
for it now, but it seems to me to be a very unusual statutory
provision.
8041. MR ELVIN: It is there because of
the complexity of the rail arrangements. In particular, concern
exists with regard to London Underground and the PPPs where there
will be interaction with them and it is necessary to safeguard
Crossrail's position to make sure that the arbitrations do not
go off and deal with matters which are extraneous to Crossrail.
However, I will deal with those matters next week. They are matters
which are still considered to be important, although fall-back
powers, and they are matters which have had the support of both
Houses to date.
8042. CHAIRMAN: Well, they may have had,
but I do not think they have been discussed in any detail.
8043. MR ELVIN: Well, I am not aware
that they are specifically petitioned upon and I do not think
Network Rail ----
8044. CHAIRMAN: They are raised in one
of the Petitions.
8045. MR ELVIN: But whether they are
pursued is another matter and certainly I am not aware that Network
Rail are concerned, and they would be the primary organisation
to raise such matters, but I am happy to deal with it further
next week, should the Committee require it.
8046. My Lords, this week your Lordships are
dealing with specific rail issues other than the railway powers.
I am pleased to say that, due to negotiations and sensible discussions,
a large number of the issues that were timetabled for this week
have fallen away, so, for example, the South West Regional Assembly
that was timetabled is no longer appearing, and I am only going
to deal with those matters which seem likely to arise this week
which hopefully should be few.
8047. Firstly, there is the Petition of Jean
Lambert MEP and two associates. You will be hearing a Petition
on behalf of Ms Lambert. She also appeared before the House of
Commons Select Committee and raises objection to Crossrail on
the basis that it should be significantly extended so that it
provides a whole range of services which are not currently provided
for in the Bill: Richmond via Willesden Junction on a new extension
to the railway; to Heathrow T5 Station west and then north to
join the Great Western Main Line; to Windsor from Slough; to Uxbridge
via South Ruislip; from Greenford East to West Ealing Junction;
and with an extension from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet, although in
the House of Commons there was a rather more ambitious proposal.
I can deal with these matters briefly, although if ----
8048. CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that they
fall within the general trouble about the principle of the Bill.
8049. MR ELVIN: Your Lordship takes the
words out of my mouth. The Commons Select Committee had a similar
difficulty, and you will find this in the House of Commons Select
Committee Report, Volume 4, paragraph 13119. The Commons Committee
said that this also went well beyond the interests of any individual
Petitioner to raise route-wide concerns which fell outside the
principle of the Bill, so I do not propose to deal with them in
any greater detail. If your Lordships have any questions, Mr Berryman
will be here to answer them should any specific issues arise.
8050. CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that we
are in a different position from the House of Commons because
we cannot deal with additional provisions.
8051. MR ELVIN: And the issue of the
principle of the Bill in any event, as your Lordship says, is
plainly raised by these matters and we flag that up in the normal
way in the Petition response document.
8052. Secondly, ATOC, the Association of Train
Operating Companies, is due to appear. We have agreed a form of
undertaking with ATOC to resolve their objections which is to
ensure that proper compensation is payable. There is a technical
difficulty about the relationship between the franchise agreement
and the access options which has given rise to difficulties, but
there is agreement in principle. I am not sure whether the drafting
is 100 per cent agreed, but the substance of the issue is agreed,
although I understand that ATOC wish to make a statement to the
Committee this morning.
8053. We curiously have received correspondence
in the last few days from South Eastern Trains, which is not a
Petitioner before your Lordships' House. They are one of the organisations
which are named in the ATOC Petition because they are one of the
train-operating companies that ATOC represent, but they have not
separately petitioned and in the correspondence they have raised
an issue about the loss of stabling rights at Plumstead, which
is not the subject of petitioning, so, even if your Lordships
were to take a broad view as to their being Petitioners because
they are named in the ATOC Petition, the simple fact is that the
matter that they have raised in correspondence and they claim
that they wish to raise before the Committee is not a matter which
has been raised in the Petitions, and I did go through the ATOC
Petition several times yesterday to see if I could find it. No
doubt you will be informed in due course if I have misunderstood
the position.
8054. Finally, EWS, represented by my learned
friend Mr Charles George QC, in addition to their concerns relating
to rail powers which will be dealt with next week, EWS raise concerns
relating to the use of strategic freight sites by Crossrail. This
has already been dealt with, as your Lordships may be aware, at
some length by the House of Commons Select Committee in Volume
4 of the Select Committee Report, paragraphs 13690 and 14646 to
14650 and by me in closing at 16499. We raised before the Commons
the lack of actual interest of EWS in such sites and that the
absence of such an interest made it inappropriate to provide compensation
in the form of other rail sites. What I said in closing to the
House of Commons remains, we submit, as good today as it did in
2006.
8055. On the strategic freight site issues,
no compensation should be payable to freight operators for the
loss of strategic freight sites in which they do not hold an interest.
The strategic freight site scheme itself indicates that a strategic
freight site can be lost where it is compulsorily acquired and
it does not provide for alternative sites or compensation to be
payable. As I say, that position remains true today. As your Lordships
may well know, strategic freight sites are sites which have been
earmarked for freight, but which have not as yet been taken over
by actual freight operators. There are two issues on strategic
freight sites. As far as compensation is concerned, the first
issue, the nature of these sites is that EWS is not the occupier
of them at present and it has no legal interest in terms of having
any landed interest in those sites. Therefore, it is our case
that it would be inappropriate to give them financial compensation,
which is a view which the House of Commons endorsed.
8056. CHAIRMAN: Which are the sites?
Old Oak Common is one.
8057. MR ELVIN: We think Old Oak Common
in fact is probably resolved, subject to anything that Mr George
may wish to say, as there have been detailed negotiations on that.
Plumstead and Paddington New Yard appear to have been the main
focus if the Old Oak Common issue is not going to be raised. So
far as those sites are concerned, Paddington New Yard, the strategic
freight site will itself become a new concrete batching plant
after use by Crossrail, so there is no loss of a freight site
in the longer term. Plumstead Yard, which is needed for work relating
to the Plumstead portal, can be dealt with, if necessary, by Mr
Berryman who will explain that it will continue to be used as
a railway site, albeit not a freight site. It is a site that has
been unused and unclaimed for a very long while and EWS has now
made a claim for this site, but only after it had been safeguarded
by Crossrail.
8058. So far as the general principle is concerned,
if we take a strategic site such as Plumstead, should we in principle
be returning the strategic freight site in another location as
compensation? In very brief outline, as I have already mentioned,
there is no requirement in either the agreement that created the
strategic freight sites or in the Railways Act that compensatory
land should be provided, and the Committee may be aware, for example,
in other circumstances where open space is to be compulsorily
acquired that there is a requirement for exchange land. In the
railway world, freight sites which are lost which only have a
potential for freight use are not subject to a need to provide
compensatory or exchange land, so our position is that there should
be no requirement to provide an alternative site while there are
a number of sites still held by the British Rail Residuary Board
which are being marketed for freight and, if EWS wishes to take
other freight sites, then it should do so through the normal market
processes. Finally, it is possible that, were there any real demand
for Plumstead as a freight site, given that there has not been
to date, it could revert to that use after the Crossrail works
were completed.
8059. With regard to the issue of Old Oak Common,
the proposed Crossrail depot, there have been detailed discussions
between the Department, CLRL and EWS and it does appear that the
parties are close to reaching agreement. The Promoter has had,
and continues to offer, constructive discussions with EWS on that
issue, intended, if EWS so requires, to allow at least part of
the Old Oak Common site to remain in EWS's use when it is converted
to depot use in part for Crossrail. I do not propose to say anything
more about Old Oak Common because no doubt EWS will tell us in
due course what their position is on that. If my optimism turns
out to be misplaced, no doubt we will deal with this matter in
more detail on Thursday when EWS is scheduled to appear.
|
