Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence

Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8980 - 8999)

  8980. Can we put that up, please? 04B-007.[26] 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 into account.

  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 ORR.

   (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 decision.

   (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 ORR—putting it bluntly.

   (Mr Cann) That is the way I understand it.

  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 those concerned.

   (Mr Cann) In terms of the share of the capacity, yes.

  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 about—enhancing 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 BERKELEY

  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

previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008