Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8980
8980. Can we put that up, please? 04B-007.
Hutchison Ports, like so many others, welcomed the decision of
the ORR, and under "Infrastructure Delivery" you referred
to the port expansions and some of the issues which you have raised
today, and commitments which are independent of Crossrail. You
then go on, on the next page, page 8, to argue that the enhancements
that are going to take place with regard to the port's development,
which you have referred to, should be treated as committed works
in the modelling.
(Mr Cann) Yes.
8981. Those are your works, although, of course,
the reality is you have not absolutely committed to them yet.
(Mr Cann) There is an important distinction
here. We are saying that the development of the ports and the
rail growth that will be coming consequent of them should be taken
8982. The growth in the freight to 2015 was
agreed before the ORR.
(Mr Cann) In terms of Crossrail or in
terms of planning inquiries or
8983. No. The freight industry put forward (particularly,
Mr Garratt, I think) calculations showing the proposed expansion
of freight capacity to 2015.
(Mr Cann) Yes, and the Promoter put forward
evidence saying that could be accommodated, minus one or two paths,
but essentially could be accommodated on the basis of timetabling
based upon the delivery of
8984. You are going off-point. The 2015 evidence
was put forward. Are you saying that that did not include the
additional growth from the ports to 2015?
(Mr Cann) I believe it did.
8985. It did. So, in fact, the point you were
making was already catered for in the figures agreed before the
(Mr Cann) It was catered for if the six
infrastructure enhancements were built.
8986. You will understand that the ORR took
a different view as to whether specific infrastructure requirements
should be stipulated at this stage, but took account of the fact
that infrastructure works would be required in order to achieve
the objective test. We have been through all this with other witnesses.
(Mr Cann) Yes, it seems that would be
required and that means that we have some concern.
8987. That is a matter I am dealing with in
submissions. Can we look at the last paragraph as to what your
reaction was to this? "We note that Crossrail is not committed
to constructing a number of proposed rail infrastructure enhancements
that could be of benefit to freight interests. Nevertheless, we
understand the timetabling work has assumed in some instances
that these uncommitted enhancements are being provided. The ORR
must be mindful to demonstrate sufficient capacity is available."
So you were not taking significant issue with the ORR's provisional
(Mr Cann) No.
8988. You now take a different approach before
their Lordships. As I understand the way you have just justified
it, these are two different processes and it is open to their
Lordships to take a different view to the ORRputting it
(Mr Cann) That is the way I understand
8989. So having said we must commit to industry
processes, what you want is having not achieved the securing of
the infrastructure enhancements you wish to have a second bite
at the cherry, having not even argued the point with the ORR after
the provisional decision. That is what you are after. Just so
we understand it.
(Mr Cann) From what I understand, putting
a Bill through Parliament is not part of the normal railway process.
Essentially, yes, I am saying that from the way I view things
the ORR determines a share of capacity and Committees such as
this determine other matters.
8990. The ORR, you accept, is the body which
normally in the industry process balances the interests of all
(Mr Cann) In terms of the share of the
8991. That is what we are talking about, is
it not? We are talking about the share of the capacity, are we
not? What else are we talking about. That is what infrastructure
improvements are aboutenhancing capacity. What else?
(Mr Cann) I am sorry, I am talking in
terms of the representations I made to this Committee.
8992. I am sorry. Let us just cut the playing
with words. We are arguing about how to secure appropriate shares
of capacity, are we not? No more and no less.
(Mr Cann) Hutchison's view is that we
should ask for certainty on delivery of infrastructure enhancements
and provisional capacity.
8993. Do you find it so difficult to answer
a simple question, Mr Cann? We are arguing here about securing
capacity, are we not?
(Mr Cann) Yes.
8994. The ORR has taken one view with regard
to how that should be done. You were asking their Lordships, in
a forum where their Lordships cannot hear representations from
all the interested parties because they are not all Petitioners,
to take a different view from the ORR, having listened to everybody
in the industry on both passenger and the freight side as well
as Government, and to take a view second-guessing the views of
the ORR on precisely the same issue, which is capacity share.
(Mr Cann) I am asking you to take a view
on infrastructure enhancements. I am asking them to take a view
on infrastructure enhancements.
8995. MR ELVIN: Thank you very much.
Re-examined by LORD
8996. LORD BERKELEY: Mr Cann, are you
asking for an alternative route to industry process; or are you
asking for an additional route?
8997. CHAIRMAN: Lord Berkeley, this is
at the centre of this issue. I think it would be very much better
if you did not ask leading questions. Let the witness say what
he has to say and do not put the words in his mouth.
8998. LORD BERKELEY: May I ask him to
give a very short outline on that?
8999. CHAIRMAN: Yes, of course you can.
26 Crossrail Ref: P63, Correspondence from Hutchinson
Ports (UK) to the ORR, 19 March 2008 (LINEWD-34_04B-007 to -008) Back