Proceeding contribution from Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 9 January 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Crossrail Bill.
Crossrail Bill
My Lords, of course, we respect the independence and value of the independent guidance and advice that the Office of Rail Regulation provides. I would have thought that the noble Lord would have judged us on our record in that respect. We work closely with the ORR and nothing I have said today or that is in front of your Lordships would preclude further debate and discussion on these matters when the Bill comes out of Select Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked about the cost of grade separation at Acton yard and whether it was included in the cost estimate. Yes, it was included and I hope that that offers reassurance. It is probably wise if I now spend a little time talking about the Motion for an instruction tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I welcome the opportunity to clarify some points on this issue and I am grateful for the noble Lord’s openness. I hope that what I say will reassure him and others on this point. I know that he is a passionate advocate for freight—it is well known in your Lordships’ House—and he is greatly respected for that. The importance of freight has been reflected in the way in which the project and the Bill have been managed and, I assure the House, will continue to be managed. In my opening comments, I explained that to meet industry concerns the Government are seeking approval from the Office of Rail Regulation for an access option. I have referred to that on a number of occasions. This specifies what access Crossrail services can have to the main network, and it has been negotiated and agreed with Network Rail. A great deal of the timetabling work supports that and takes account of the interests of freight and other passenger operators. It may be of assistance to your Lordships if I describe opportunities afforded to the rail freight industry to ensure that its interests are not overlooked. My honourable friend the Minister for Rail chairs a forum for railway stakeholders that freight interests, including the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, attend. Network Rail chairs a timetabling reference group comprising the key railway interests, including EWS and Freightliner. At the request of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, his organisation, Rail Freight Group, joined that group some months ago. I understand that that has been received positively and is working well. It meets monthly, and discusses and seeks to agree timetabling work needed to support the access option application. The Office of Rail Regulation consulted widely on the application for Crossrail access option, the freight interests responded and a hearing is expected in a few weeks’ time. The Office of Rail Regulation hopes to make its decision in time for the appearance of rail petitioners in the Lords Select Committee. The Select Committee in another place spent several weeks hearing evidence from rail petitioners, with the majority from freight interests. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke to the Rail Freight Group’s petition in the committee. At page 35 of its special report, the Select Committee said, "““the freight industry faces an increasing challenge””," but that it believes that, "““these issues are largely the responsibility of Network Rail and others rather than the Crossrail project””." As the noble Lord said, it looked forward by concluding: "““We look to the Committee in the House of Lords to ensure that Access Option and any other remaining issues relating to the freight industry are adequately evaluated””." Today’s debate and all the comments made about freight, particularly those made by the noble Lord, are on the record for the Select Committee to take into account as it considers appropriate. I shall ensure that those comments are drawn to the attention of the Select Committee, and it is my firm expectation that it will actively consider those issues. Nothing that has been said today in your Lordships’ House has persuaded me that anything other than that would be wise.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 697 c934-5
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Construction Elizabeth line Crossrail Finance Greater London Infrastructure Freight Heathrow Airport Private sector Ports Railway stations Railways Railway network Passengers Underground railways Transport for London Liverpool Street Station
- Legislation
- Crossrail Bill 2004/05 to 2005-06 to 2006-07 to 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 02:02:50 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_432422
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_432422
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_432422