Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8240
- 8259)
8240. CHAIRMAN: Mr Berryman will be here
again next week so you could put these things to him.
8241. MR ELVIN: I wonder if I might ask
Mr George for the favour that we might be told what the six are
as well since we have not been, we have not the faintest idea.
All we have in the Petition is the list of all the enhancements
that are proposed. I have asked Mr George several times for some
clarification of the case he will be presenting and I would hope
we might get it a little bit before next week so we can see whether
there is any scope for agreement.
8242. MR GEORGE: I am sure we will get
it to him as soon as possible. I have been asked by Mr Elvin this
morning. We will try and co-operate. We always try and do these
things in a spirit of co-operation between the Bar and to help
Parliament.
8243. CHAIRMAN: I do not think there
is any point in going on with this at this stage because we are
not going to get anywhere.
The Petition of Jean Lambert MEP and others
8244. MR ELVIN: Your Lordship says that
and your Lordship has heard a great deal on Mr George's side but
I have not had an opportunity to come back yet! Can I do it this
way, I will call Mr Berryman again next week rather than take
up time now because there are Petitioners who are scheduled for
today who have not been heard. Can I say this: firstly, EWS ran
all of these arguments before the ORR having complained bitterly
to the Commons Select Committee we should not be going outside
industry mechanisms. I have got copies of the EWS representations
which I will make sure you have for next week. There are various
paragraphs in the ORR's decision which make it clear that these
self same points Mr George is making to the Committee, now were
made to the ORR, and EWS having failed to persuade the ORR now
wants to do what it complained we were doing which is going outside
the industry mechanisms and asking your Lordships to second-guess
the ORR's decision so that EWS can get some benefit for EWS's
own interests. I will pursue that in greater detail next week
but that is the headline point, if I can put it that way.
8245. CHAIRMAN: It is not surprising
in that case it is not terribly easy to understand the ORR's decision.
8246. MR ELVIN: I have spent some considerable
time, I will not say leisure time, closeted with the ORR's decision
reading it and digesting it, and I hope we can present some clarity
on some of the points. Just before we leave this point can I draw
your Lordship's attention to paragraph 79.[41]
Your Lordships are concerned about making sure that any changes
do not impact on others, and that is not just EWS but freight
and passenger services, and you will see it expressly requires
the model which is the basis for the 92 per cent to include all
non-Crossrail franchised passenger services, and freight services,
both at current levels and with capacity growth for 2015. They
are built into the assumptions that are required so that they
are protected because the model output is based upon protecting
those interests, so that there is that basic level of protection
in the way the ORR has gone about it. I say that briefly now that
the ORR (if your Lordships just look at the first couple of sentences
in 79) is seeking to apply an objective test which balances the
interests of Crossrail with the interests of the rest of the industry
and sets the parameters of the outputs which have to be achieved
by reference to protecting those interests which are recorded
in paragraph 79, rather than just by tinkering at the edges, as
EWS are seeking, and imposing certain matters which the ORR does
not think are necessary. I will go into that in more detail to
the extent it is required next week, but it is just helpful for
your Lordships to have that in mind at this stage. I am not going
to trouble Mr Berryman with any further questions on that. We
will do that in more detail next week if that is convenient.
8247. CHAIRMAN: Mr George, have you got
any more questions?
8248. MR GEORGE: I had finished all my
questions a long time ago!
8249. CHAIRMAN: Well, Mr Berryman, that
is a foretaste of what may happen next week. I think it would
be very helpful if we knew which six points you have in mind for
the purpose of this exercise.
8250. MR ELVIN: Can I say in response
to my Lord, Lord James, and my Lady, Baroness Fookes' questions
that we will produce a short note on risk assessment and on security
issues. I can assure Baroness Fookes that we are liaising with
the security services over the proposals for carrying out the
works, but we will produce a short note which will deal with both
of those issues.
8251. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Berryman.
The witness withdraw
8252. CHAIRMAN: Is that our tuition?
8253. MR ELVIN: That was the teach-in
as it were. Now you have the Petitioners.
8254. CHAIRMAN: So we now go on with
the Petition?
8255. MR ELVIN: Indeed.
8256. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr George,
we will revert to this next week.
The following Petition against the Bill was read:
The Petition of Jean Lambert and others.
MR ALAN
FRANCIS appeared as Agent.
8257. CHAIRMAN: Mr Francis, the system
that we have been operating is that the Promoters say a short
word at the beginning factually about the Petition that we are
about to consider. It is then over to you for you to call witnesses
and of course you can cross-examine any witnesses the Promoter
calls if you wish to. Perhaps, Mr Elvin, you would like to start?
The Petition of Jean Lambert MEP and others
8258. MR ELVIN: Your Lordship has probably
forgotten because it was so long ago now but I did actually make
some general submissions on Jean Lambert's Petition with regard
to the fact that a whole range of changes were being suggested
which were outside the principle of the Bill and they covered
far too wide an area for them to be the legitimate concern of
one Petitioner to a hybrid Bill because the Petitioners cannot
possibly argue that personal interests are impacted by such a
wide range of works across the entire network. Nonetheless, our
principal point is that what is proposed goes against the principle
of the Bill. This is what we said to Mr Francis in the Commons.
We did not seek to resist Mr Francis presenting the position.
I do not intend to call evidence but Mr Berryman will be here
if the Committee or Mr Francis wishes to ask him any questions.
8259. CHAIRMAN: The difference of course
is that in the Commons it would have been possible to have additional
provisions.
41 Crossrail Ref: P55, The Office of Rail Regulation's
decision on the application for a Track Access Option for Crossrail
passenger services on Network Rail's network, Para 79, 14 April
2008 (SCN-20080422-004) Back
| 
