Examination of Witnesses (Questions 12720
- 12739)
12720. MR TAYLOR: My Lord, I understand
that there are some queries relating to the last sentence of the
undertaking that I read out yesterday morning.
12721. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is right.
I think most of my colleagues and I are a little unhappy that
it should be in, and I am not sure that it actually adds anything
very much.
12722. MR TAYLOR: Well, let me see if
I can explain the reason we included that last sentence. This
relates to the undertaking I gave yesterday relating to rail infrastructure
provision, the last sentence of which relates to the capability
of the existing rail network to handle the current and forecast
growth in rail traffic to 2015, and it explains that the translation
of such capability into the allocation of capacity is for the
ORR to determine. What is intended by the undertaking is the preservation
of the capability of the existing rail network to handle both
current traffic and forecast growth in rail traffic to 2015, in
other words, the preservation of train paths, both those that
are existing and those that are forecast as necessary to accommodate
growth in rail traffic to 2015. Obviously the existing paths are
already allocated under existing access options and access contracts.
In relation to future growth, it is for particular train operators
to apply for an access option and to get those from the ORR, so
that means that the allocation of the particular paths that we
are seeking to preserve is a matter for the ORR. The Promoter,
therefore, cannot commit now to particular paths being allocated
to particular rail users because to do so would cut across the
ORR's statutory powers and functions and indeed it would, further,
be likely to be unlawful as a result of relevant EU Directives.
Indeed, the approach that the ORR took in its decision to approve
the access option required the capacity for growth to be preserved,
but it was explicit in not allocating particular capacity to particular
rail users, and the Committee may recall that paragraph 82 of
the ORR's decision made that absolutely clear. The Promoter can,
therefore, only undertake to preserve the capability of the existing
network to handle current and forecast growth in rail freight
to 2015, in other words, the number of paths, but, if that capacity
were allocated by the ORR to rail freight, that would allow for
growth in freight to 2015. It is that matter that the last sentence
of the undertaking I gave yesterday was intended to address, so
it is just to make it absolutely clear that the Promoter is not
allocating the particular capacity for future growth to a particular
user.
12723. CHAIRMAN: It is a reservation,
is it not, from the rest of the undertaking?
12724. MR TAYLOR: Yes, I think I would
prefer to call it a `clarification', but clearly it was not all
that clear. All we are seeking to do is to make it perfectly explicit
that the rest of the undertaking relates to the preservation of
paths for future growth, but those paths are not allocated by
this undertaking to particular rail users, so I hope that clarifies
the matter.
12725. CHAIRMAN: Is it possible to alter
the wording in such a way as to show that it is not an undertaking
that you are capable of giving and, therefore, it is not part
of the undertaking that you are capable of giving and, therefore,
it has to be outside the terms of the rest of the thing?
12726. MR TAYLOR: My Lord, I hope I have
made that clear this morning.
12727. CHAIRMAN: Well, you have made
it clear, but I do not think the wording makes it very clear.
12728. MR TAYLOR: In that case, I will
go away and see if I can come up with better words.
12729. CHAIRMAN: I think it needs to
be reshaped, the last sentence, with some sort of reservation
about that.
12730. MR TAYLOR: I will go away and
come up with a form of words, my Lord.
12731. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: I
have a question and it relates to the paper that we have just
had circulated on the Promoter's response to the question of railway
compensation which, I presume, you have a copy of.
12732. MR TAYLOR: I am afraid, I do not
actually have that to hand, but I know of its content.
12733. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Well,
while you are having a look then at the point that the Lord Chairman
has raised, could you have a look at 1.3 which reads:
12734. "The intention is that Network Rail
will undertake the on-network works contained in the Crossrail
Bill. Many of these works have a general benefit such as electrification
and the six works on which EWS has sought undertakings. These
works will be designed in detail by Network Rail and the possessions
and non-network change disruption planning will also be Network
Rail's responsibility. Network Rail will also be paying for these
works and recouping the cost through access charges."
12735. I am confused. I thought that you had
given us the figures for the cost of these works and from that
I deduced that you were the ones who would be meeting the bill.
12736. MR TAYLOR: I will go away and
take instructions.
12737. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: It
does link into the issue that the Lord Chairman has raised because
the argument has been that the six works should be undertaken.
12738. MR TAYLOR: I see the point and
I will take instructions and get back to you.
12739. LORD SNAPE: My Lord Chairman,
I am even less happy than my colleague about this. The original
wording agreed by the members of the Committee, and I have it
in front of me, says that "the Committee recognises the accepted
importance of rail freight to the economy", and I do not
want to read it all out, but this is the original undertaking.
I do not think that the Promoter's undertaking recognises the
concern of the Committee as far as rail freight is concerned.
I am not much interested in the fact that the translation of such
capability is for the ORR to determine, I know that, but it is
not for the ORR, with respect, or Mr Taylor to write the recommendations
of this Committee. The Committee was concerned about the future
of rail freight and expressed in quite an anodyne fashion, in
my view, its concern in the original amendment in the suggested
words for consideration that my colleague, Lord Young, prepared.
I do not think that the Promoter's undertaking recognises the
concern of the Committee at all. It points out everything that
we knew, that these are matters for the ORR, but it is a matter
for this Committee surely to express our concern about the capability
so far as rail freight is concerned. How that capability and that
capacity is provided may well be a matter for the ORR, but it
is not a matter for us.
| 
