Report on the SELRAP delegation to meet MEPs in Brussels Oct 12th, 2010
Present:
Andy Shackleton
David Penney
David Walsh
Brian Simpson MEP
Laure Ferrari office of Godfrey Bloom MEP
Anthony Brown office of Godfrey Bloom MEP
Chris Davies MEP
Marina Yannkoudakis MEP
Anna Kelway office of Timothy Kirkhope MEP
Bill Newton Dunn MEP
Philip Ball office of Brian Simpson MEP
Leanne Philpot office of Richard Howitt MEP
David Foster office of Jacqueline Foster MEP
Godfrey Bloom MEP
Sam Kidman office of Diana Wallis MEP
David Walsh thanked everybody for their attendance and noted that although a projector had been requested, none had been made available. The team would do its best without it.
He introduced the SELRAP team and outlined the format of the meeting as follows:
· Andy Shackleton will make a presentation
· We will then take questions
· Finally, we have some questions of our own, which we hope that you will help us with.
The whole thing should take about an hour, and should give the chance for some informal networking at the end.
. In the general remarks,
· SELRAP covers a wide constituency.
· We have members who belong to all the main parties, or none.
· We have support from MPs, MEPs, Peers and Bishops.
· We have support from businesses, local authorities and NGOs.
· What we all share is a belief that rail is both a driver of economic regeneration, and a path toward a more sustainable future.
· The particular piece of railway that we want to re-instate is the Skipton to Colne link.
· Although the link we seek is a mere 11.5 miles (or here in Brussels, 18.5 kilometers), the impact and the implications are far wider than that, as Andy will make clear.
Andy Shackleton then made his presentation. For lack of the projector, he referred those present to the information packs that each had been given. Each pack contained a print of the intended Powerpoint presentation (appended). He worked through this verbally, doing an excellent job in the circumstances. The meeting was then thrown open for questions.
Brian Simpson opened the question session. He queried why, given the breadth of support, the project had not already been started. He pointed out that EU funds allocated to TENs (Trans-European Networks) amounted to 500 million euro across all states, so that the expectation was that the bulk of funding would come from within the particular state in which the project was based. He pointed out that in order to receive EU funding, the UK government must apply, and that would require the UK government to commit to provided some of the funds required. He advised that the number of potential projects far exceeded the available funding, and that a review was in progress, during which many of these projects would be “put back on the shelf” – consultation to end in 2011. The only UK one likely to survive this process was the “Northern Hub”. If Skipton to Colne could be linked to that, it would stand a chance. If it helped to relieve congestion points that would count in its favour.
Godfrey Bloom agreed. He liked the idea of linking the project to the franchise bids. He had links to British Venture Capital, and the numbers looked good. If it would deliver “paying bums on seats” it would be commercially viable. He asked if SELRAP would be prepared to give a presentation to such a group.
SELRAP – all three agreed that could be done.
Godfrey Bloom then said he would speak to the chair of British Venture Capital to see if there was any interest.
Brian Simpson suggested that the hard part was not the building of a railway, but meeting the running costs.
Andy Shackleton answered that SELRAP would challenge the traditional method of costing, in particular the difference between the way that roads were costed, compared to railways. He advised the group that we also had freight in view. In addition, we have identified a workable service pattern and identified the number of train sets required.
Anthony Brown asked if we had identified potential freight customers.
David Penney noted that there were existing freight projections from Network Rail. In addition, Stobart was heavily committed to rail freight and would be a potential user. EU figures suggested that rail cost one third of road per lorry load, however Stobart’s figures for Southampton to the Midlands showed rail costing one sixth of road. We also have had recent discussions with Balfour Beatty, who were excited about the freight potential. They were also looking for a pilot to test out more cost effective ideas for building and running a railway. This tied in with the McNulty report.
Brian Simpson noted that the Settle-Carlisle line, once booked for closure, is now congested, and that another east-west route across the Pennines is needed. He advised the group that we are talking about a mixed mode railway, but that freight was the key.
David Penney told the group that SELRAP accepted that public money would not pay for this project. We were looking at possible public/private partnerships (PPP), with much of the money coming from private sources. We were not coming “cap in hand” to the EU, but were hoping for helpful suggestions. He said that the meeting had already helped with the information about the “Northern Hub”, and asked when the review results would be known.
Brian Simpson advised that it was awaiting the Commission’s decision. The European Investment Bank might be interested. With regard to finance, there was the possibility of issuing Eurobonds. He also commented that the Transport Committee had reservations about PPP. Some past schemes had resulted in the public purse taking the risk, and private investors taking the “cherry off the cake”. He advised caution.
Tony Brown advised that commercial investors saw the process of gaining planning permissions and local approval as a major obstacle. If there was local support, and there were no planning issues, attracting investment would be very much easier.
David Penney answered that SELRAP accepted this was the biggest problem
Tony Brown recommended that SELRAP pre-prepare the planning permission. He advised that generally the technical costs of seeking planning permission were low, but the compliance costs were high. However, if the local authority was committed to the success of the project, they would act to minimise the compliance costs.
David Penney thanked Tony Brown for his advice.
Godfrey Bloom agreed with Tony Brown. David Penney pointed out that compliance costs and length of the process had been a major issue for Chiltern Rail with the implementation of the Transport Works Act Regulations.
There were no further questions and the meeting was closed.
In the informal session,
Tony Brown advised that SELRAP should not use too close a comparison with Chiltern, as there were important differences. Chiltern had been building a new railway through a prosperous area in the south. There had been strong opposition locally, by people who had the resources to mount a major campaign. SELRAP by comparison was recovering a local railway rather than building a new one, and had much local support.
Brian Simpson commented that SELRAP was unique in two ways. No other voluntary group had come to Brussels with a proposal of this sort; and SELRAP understood the commercials implications, and had answers ready for the key business questions.
Each of the team was interviewed by Andrea Mott, Senior Producer for Quadrant Media & Communications Ltd. Who provide TV and radio coverage for stations around the UK from the European Parliament in Brussels and Strasbourg.