Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8220
- 8239)
8220. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: That
is exactly what I am asking. It is the only way to do risk management.
(Mr Berryman) I am sure you will be reassured to learn we
do have a risk management committee which is chaired by our Chairman.
I attend it when I am not attending this House. We also have a
section in the company devoted entirely to risk management to
think about these issues and we also rely on outside consultants
to advise us on these points.
8221. Does this whole structure exist in a computerised
form, to take Mr George's point, where you can alter the criteria
for the model and ask the model what will happen if you get a
number of minor variations, because you seem to me to have a huge
congestion of issues here which must be almost imponderable in
terms of prior assessment?
(Mr Berryman) There are two things to say. First of all,
when I spoke about the risk, I was talking about the overall risks
to the project, which include construction risks and other things
of that sort.
8222. I am talking about operational risk.
(Mr Berryman) You are talking about operational risk. The
operations are modelled on a computerised system which provides
the basis for the assessments which are made and testing of the
kind of events that you are talking about will be carried out
using those models.
8223. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: I think,
Mr Berryman, from the point of view of this Committee and this
Committee's position, I would not expect you to be able to satisfy
us that you had established every risk and been satisfied about
it, but I do think we should—although it is not on the agenda—want
to know exactly what risk assessment process you have followed
and how strong the integrity of the data that can be fed into
it is and the questions which it can be asked to resolve are,
because I have heard nothing on that subject and this is a huge
vast subject and I would like to know a little more about what
the risk assessment system is.
8224. MR ELVIN: My Lord, could I deal
with it this way: the reason you have not heard anything is because
nobody has raised it. The ORR has overriding safety duties, as
your Lordship will be aware. What I will ask to do is for something
to be put together and we will give your Lordship some information
next week when we deal with the rail powers, if that is convenient.
8225. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: I shall
look forward to it.
8226. BARONESS FOOKES: If we are looking
at risk, and this is not unimaginable unfortunately, what about
security both during construction and operation, when one thinks
in terms of terrorist risks?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, these are obviously high on our agenda
as we go along. Funnily enough, it is easier to handle during
construction than it is during operation because we can control
entry to site and so on and we can take appropriate precautions.
Security on trains in normal operation is very difficult to achieve
simply because of the volume of people and the number of movements
which are made, and the numbers of movements made on Crossrail
will be enormous. Just going back to construction for a minute,
the kind of systems that were used on the Channel Tunnel Rail
Link included turnstile access to site, these things that look
at your eyeballs to make sure you are who you say you are.
8227. CHAIRMAN: Iris recognition.
(Mr Berryman) Iris recognition. All that sort of thing was
done for all of the sites and it worked out very successfully.
We have a particular problem at one of our sites at Pudding Mill
Lane because we are adjacent to the Olympic construction site,
who also have very serious concerns themselves about security,
and we are in dialogue with them all the time. The security of
the construction, as I say, is relatively straight forward to
manage.
8228. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Could I come
back to the Petitioner's point and ask Mr Berryman please, why
does he think this Committee should not respond to that legitimate
Petition?
(Mr Berryman) I think that my response to your question would
be that part of the agreement which we have got with ORR will
ensure that the necessary inputs are put into the system to make
sure that the outputs, which everybody wants to achieve, are actually
achieved. What we do not want to do is be committed necessarily
to some of the works where we may change them. We may come up
with a better design which does not require compulsory purchase
powers because they are within the railway corridor but which
give a better or more economical or more effective layout than
those that are currently on the drawing board.
8229. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: I follow that
and I would support what you are trying to do there, but it seems
to me that you could still achieve the objective which has been
laid down for you by these changes but it might disadvantage others
from the position that they are presently seeing them now.
(Mr Berryman) Perhaps, my Lord, if I could give you an example
which is nothing to do with the rail freight aspect of it. One
of the works that is mentioned in here is the diversion of a sewer
called the Ham & Wick sewer, which is in the Bow area of London,
and the reason that that sewer has to be diverted is because our
tunnel would intersect with it on the alignment which is in the
Bill. We have taken powers to build that sewer and do all the
modifications and upset a lot of people who live there. Further
design development has indicated that we might—and it is
not final yet—be able to lower the tunnels, which the Bill
gives us power to do, so that we clear those sewers, and it means
we can achieve our objective without building that sewer. I am
sure that neither this Committee nor anybody else would want us
to build it gratuitously just because it is in the Bill if we
can demonstrate that it is no longer needed. All I am trying to
do is extend the same logic to the railway works and say obviously
this is what we intend to build at the moment, better ideas may
come along, and those ideas we do not want to—
8230. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: That was
the point I was trying to pursue. If the better idea comes along
it still has to guarantee the modelling you did which allocates
the paths on that basis, so it should not disadvantage in those
circumstances EWS?
(Mr Berryman) As the extract from the ORR decision makes
it quite clear, unless we can achieve that 92 per cent—and
as I say for our own reasons we actually want to be higher than
that—we will not be allocated those paths which are in the
provisional agreement.
8231. CHAIRMAN: Can I just ask Mr Berryman,
what has been put to you is that you should commit yourself to
the flyover going to Heathrow and the work at Greenford; are those
the only variables which would affect freight? I do not think
they are.
(Mr Berryman) No, my Lord, and in fact they are probably
two of the things which in any circumstances I can envisage would
happen. The only reason they would not happen is if we cannot
get track access from BAA or something like that, but put that
on one side, I do not think we should worry about that. I am thinking
more of issues around some of the freight loops—where exactly
is a set of points and crossings, exactly how long should a freight
loop be, which track should be the freight loop and which track
should be the running line—those kinds of things are the
things I am thinking about when I am saying there is some uncertainty
and we may need to change slightly what is in the Bill, not to
make it bigger of course but to make it smaller.
8232. CHAIRMAN: Mr George, this is why
I want to know what it is precisely that you wish Mr Berryman
to commit himself to.
8233. MR GEORGE: My Lord, next week you
will have the six works in this list which we want a commitment
to. Can I make it absolutely plain that these works simply give
a centre line for each of these works and there can be minor adjustments.
There are no detailed plans of these particular works at present,
they are not the sort of works you can go out and construct, as
my Lord will well know, so the idea that we are trying to pin
them down to a precise plan is quite wrong. What we do say is
that within the context of six of the works, including the two
I have looked at at Greenford and at Heathrow, there is flexibility
for minor adjustments but that would keep them within the work,
but they should be committed to carry out that work. Your Lordship
will have the six works and there will be no doubt about that
whatever.
8234. LORD SNAPE: Is it your fear then,
Mr George, as far as these six works are concerned that for reasons
perhaps of finance or expenditure any or all of them may be dropped
at some subsequent stage?
8235. MR GEORGE: That is our fear that
for reasons maybe of economy or maybe because there is some bright
spark who for a long time keeps saying, "Don't commit to
that because I think I may be able to dream up something better,"
but eventually he does not do and it is then too late and then
you get the pressure to the Regulator. It is not just Crossrail
who is squeezed as it goes back to the Regulator and he looks
at it and says, "It is very unfortunate because I was told
they were going to get to their 92 but either I am going to allow
something less than 92 or in order to get to the 92 I will take
away a few of their paths and I will take away a few other passenger
paths and I will take away a few other freight paths, and in that
way we will make the best of a bad job." That is our concern.
8236. LORD SNAPE: That, Mr Berryman,
if I can turn to you, is not an unreasonable fear surely? Given
your experience of these projects, is not the temptation likely
to be in the event of any budgetary overrun let us chop something
to do with the freight side because it is neither as apparent
nor as controversial as reducing something on the passenger side?
(Mr Berryman) That certainly was not my experience on the
West Coast Main Line, my Lord.
8237. LORD SNAPE: I think we have all
learned a few lessons from that!
8238. CHAIRMAN: Mr George, I do not know
how much further we can take this until we know what your six
points are and we will wait happily until next week for that.
8239. MR GEORGE: My Lord, today I merely
came to cross-examine on this matter. I come back to present my
Petition next week and that is when I would be asking your Lordship.
I would not remotely be asking your Lordship for any decision
on the matter today because your Lordship has not heard my witnesses
on the matter.
| 
