Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1860
- 1879)
1860. The evidence of Mr Spencer and Mr Chapman
is that the necessary work can be carried out in two or three
months and, after a hiccup, I corrected it and told you what it
was that Mr Chapman was saying on that subject. He thought three
months and Mr Spencer, I think, thought a couple of months, so
perhaps he meant two, perhaps he meant three. Refer please to
the transcript of Day Five for Mr Spencer, at page 37, questions
1247 and 1248, and Day Six for Mr Chapman, at page 45, question
1651, somewhat corrected by me this morning. Those time estimates
have not been challenged as to how long it would take. There is
considerable urgency because, as Messrs Weiss, Spencer and Chapman
all in their different ways confirm, the new ticket hall is needed
at opening and not at some later time. See, for example, Mr Chapman
at Day Six, page 23, questions 1516 and 1517.
1861. To achieve that, the necessary amendments
to the Bill, we say, must be made while the proceedings are in
this House, so, always on the supposition that we have succeeded
in persuading the Committee that the Petitioners' first proposition
is correct, we shall be inviting you to direct the Promoter, in
conjunction with the Corporation of London and British Land, to
continue and complete the necessary appraisal of the options within
three months of your decision in such a manner as to permit them
to be compared and the best option chosen. Sir, I will come, with
your leave, to the detail of the direction that I am going to
be asking the Committee to make in a moment, but, first, I would
just like to jump forward to the next stage.
1862. The next stage is: what happens if, at
the end of the three-month period, the parties are either, firstly,
all agreed on the way forward, or, secondly, cannot agree? In
event one, the Promoter would want to inform the Committee, through
your Clerk no doubt, what had been agreed, whereupon your Committee
might wish to have the agreed way forward publicly confirmed before
you and approved before setting in train the necessary procedural
steps to permit the agreed solution to be incorporated into the
Bill. In view of the importance of this issue, we think you may
well wish to appoint a time for such an agreed solution to be
publicly discussed. The Committee might, in other words, wish
to be publicly informed of what amendments to the Bill were going
to be necessary, what the procedural ramifications were of introducing
them, and so on. The need for the matter to be urgently addressed
is so that the agreed solution can be incorporated into the Bill
and dealt with as part of the procedure on which you are currently
embarked, as I have mentioned.
1863. The position becomes more difficult though
if the parties have been unable, by the end of that three-month
period, to agree which of Options 1 or 6 should be chosen, so
would you mind taking this possible scenario: that the Promoter
comes to the view that, on balance, Option 6 is the best because,
although more expensive, it involves no disruption to the Metropolitan
Line and is easier to do, whereas the Petitioners, on the other
hand, come to the conclusion that Option 1 is preferable because
that option is cheaper, though technically difficult, and because
it is less likely to attract petitions in opposition to it which
would, if upheld, threaten the progress of the Bill, or because
it has other advantages which Option 6 lacks, such as quicker
and easier access to the street.
1864. Now, sir, in that event, we would hope
that the Committee would, and I respectfully submit that the Committee
should, indicate that, in the event of such a dispute being unresolved
within three months of the date on which the Committee announces
its decision, either party should have the right to ask the Committee
to do two things: one, to resume its consideration of the Liverpool
Street eastern ticket hall issue by deciding; and, two, to resolve
the dispute as to which option to take itself. What we are going
to ask the Committee to do is to incorporate in its decision,
if otherwise favourable to us, a direction to that effect.
1865. Sir, on that hypothesis, the further dispute
to be resolved would be an occasion for the Committee effectively
itself to choose between the options which had by then been presented
for the solution of the problem. In considering your decision
on the first issue, you will obviously, therefore, need to consider,
sir, not merely whether we have succeeded in persuading you of
our first proposition. If we have succeeded, we will invite you
to go on to indicate, in non-technical terms of course, what kind
of Crossrail station at Liverpool Street the Committee envisages
in place of the current proposal.
1866. Sir, I hope you will permit me, for ease
of reference on the record, to suggest how you might frame a direction
which would reflect the three elements of the Petitioners' first
proposition and, at the same time, ensure that the process continued
to a successful conclusion. I should make it clear that implicit
in the direction we are inviting you to give is the rejection,
firstly, of Ms Lieven's cheap and cheerful, easy alternatives,
secondly, the rejection of any option not presented to you, such
as the so-called `EDF option', about which Mr Elvin declined,
on instructions, to tell you any more when the Committee understandably
became interested in hearing more about it, and, thirdly, rejection
also of the Promoter's suggested undertakings, all of which are
wholly inconsistent with acceptance of the proposition that Liverpool
Street urgently requires incorporation into the Bill of a properly
appraised, serious alternative to the Promoter's present hole-in-the-wall
scheme.
1867. So, sir, recognising that what I am about
to suggest will only be appropriate if the Committee have accepted
our evidence, the direction I would invite you to give to the
Promoter, in that event, is as follows, and there are nine short
steps:
1. The Promoter is to amend the Bill to make
proper provision for an eastern ticket hall for Crossrail at Liverpool
Street.
2. Discharging passengers through a hole
in the wall at point M will not do.
3. A much more radical solution must be found.
4. There are two options for solving the
problem which the Committee has heard about.
5. The Promoter must do further work on both
of these in conjunction with Ove Arup and the City Corporation
of London over the next 13 weeks (defined as `the relevant period').
6. By the end of the relevant period, the
Promoter must choose which option he favours and present the results
in writing to the Petitioners and to the Committee.
7. If the Petitioners wish, the Committee
will reconvene at the request of the Petitioners in order to hear
and determine representations as to which option is best.
8. If such a hearing takes place, the Committee
will decide on the best option. In that event, the Promoter will
be required to amend the Bill as soon as possible thereafter in
order to reflect the decision of the Committee.
9.(a) If the parties are agreed by the end
of the relevant period what is the best option, they will present
the results of their agreement to the Committee and the Committee
will decide whether it wishes to be informed publicly as to the
details.
(b) Thereafter, and subject to any direction the Committee
may give, the Promoter will be required to amend the Bill as soon
as possible in order to reflect the agreed option.
1868. That, sir, closes the, I hope, only way
in which we are respectfully suggesting the Committee might approach
the giving of an appropriate direction if of course it is satisfied
that the Petitioners have made out their first proposition.
1869. Sir, I turn almost lastly to the timing
of the Committee's decision. We are conscious that it would be
usual in a case like this to delay a decision until the end of
the proceedings. There are very real objections, we would respectfully
suggest, to that course and I wonder if I may just trespass on
your time a little longer to make essentially two points about
that in support of the desirability of making an early decision.
1870. The first point can be expressed like
this: that the submission that you should make an early decision
on our Petitions is not unprecedented. During the proceedings
in 1995 on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, numbers of Petitioners
sought changes to the Bill. In two cases, the changes sought involved
placing sections of the line in tunnel. These were the so-called
`mid-Kent tunnel' and the `Barking long tunnel'. In the first
case, the case of the mid-Kent tunnel, the case for the tunnel
was heard on Days 6 to 9 in early March of 1995. The decision,
as it happens adverse to the Petitioners, was announced eight
days after the conclusion of their case on 22 March 1995. The
second case, the case in favour of the Barking long tunnel, was
heard on Days 37 to 39. I do not have the exact date, but I calculate
that it would have been in about May or early June of 1995, and
the decision was announced on Day 54 in late July of 1995. Again,
I do not have the exact date. I mention these dates in order to
introduce the second point that I want to make. I will again briefly
give you, if I may, some relevant dates.
1871. In the proceedings on the Channel Tunnel
Rail Link, the first Petition was unsuccessful. The second was
successful. As a result of that success on the Barking long tunnel,
in July 1995 and following the summer recess, the Bill was carried
over on 1 November 1995 to the new session and an instruction
passed in relation to a kind of additional provision. It is not
strictly correct, I think, on a hybrid bill to refer to that,
but everybody does. An instruction was passed in relation to an
additional provision as to the amendments required inter alia
as a result of the decision of the Committee in July that the
Bill be amended to provide for the Barking long tunnel. Petitions
against the proposed amendments were deposited by the deadline
of 6 December 1995 and hearings on them took place in that month
and in January with decisions being announced on 31 January 1996.
1872. Sir, the second point I make is this:
that the later the Committee reaches a decision which requires
an amendment to the Bill, the more likely it is that final disposal
of these present proceedings will be delayed. Had the decision
on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link on the mid-Kent tunnel, announced
on 22 March 1995, been in favour of the Petitioners, it is likely
that the Bill could have been amended by way of additional provision
in time for Petitions on those amendments to be heard and decisions
thereon reached before the summer recess. I do not suggest that
that would have enabled progress of the Bill through this House
to be significantly speeded up because there were other matters
to be attended to, but it must be right in principle, we suggest,
to reach decisions on Petitions involving changes to the Bill
early in the process even when there is no room for dispute about
how the Committee's decision should be given effect to. In that
case, there was no room. What the Petitioners were saying is that
that which was currently due to go over the ground should go in
tunnel under the ground.
1873. Here, however, it is not a simple case
of arguing that part of an overground railway should be placed
in a tunnel underground. If it were, it might not matter that
much if there was some delay in your Committee announcing its
decision on our Petitions. The present case is different because
there plainly is room for dispute as to which is the best option
for an eastern ticket hall at Liverpool Street. It is possible
that, with the Promoter's full co-operation, we might have been
able to place before you the two options sufficiently worked up
to permit your Committee to adjudicate on which was the best in
the event of dispute on this very occasion. By that, what I mean,
and I have not put it terribly well, sir, is this: that had we
been alert, and had the Promoter been alert, to the need to co-operate
together two or three months ago on providing for the Committee
two options which had been sufficiently appraised that they could
be realistically compared, on this very occasion you might have
been able to move on to the comparison between the two options
and make a decision on them in the event of dispute between the
parties. As it is, that has not been possible, and I blame nobody
for it, but it is plainly possible that, if the Committee is of
the view that the Promoter's present scheme is unsatisfactory,
if it upholds the Petitioners' first proposition, an early decision
to that effect, coupled with a direction to work up the alternatives
in the 13-week period I have mentioned, or to leave time for any
ensuing dispute as to which is the best option to be heard and
determined by your Committee well before the summer recess.
1874. Sir, I am very grateful to you for permitting
me to spend some time on these procedural matters, but, as has
often been remarked, just outcomes to disputes frequently depend
on the ability of the tribunal to devise fair and workable procedures
for resolving them and it is with that in mind that I thought
you might be assisted if I were to give you the benefit of our
analysis of the way forward in the event that you accept the main
case that we have been putting before you today.
1875. Sir, before I finally close, may I just
ask whether there is anything the Committee would particularly
like to raise with me arising out of those remarks?
1876. Chairman: On that matter, we will
have to give some time to consider your request and we will shortly
come back to you and give our decision on that. Please proceed.
1877. Mr Laurence: May I do so, sir.
In concluding, may I begin, as I always do, by thanking you, sir,
your Committee, your Clerk and the shorthandwriters for assisting
us during the six days it has taken to hear our Petitions. I know
that Mr Cameron, who cannot be here today, would want to be associated
with those remarks. Then, sir, if you will allow me, without,
I hope, setting any kind of precedent, may I, through you, say
a personal thank you to our witnesses and all who have helped
behind the scenes with the preparation of our case. These include,
in addition to those names I have already mentioned, Irene Dicks
of the Corporation, Alastair Lewis of Sharpe Pritchard, Angus
Walker and Teresa Weeks of Bircham Dyson Bell, Miles Price of
British Land and Sharon Daly, who has assisted throughout, of
Steer Davies Gleave. Thank you very much, sir, and, subject to
anything further you may wish to raise, those conclude my submissions
to the Committee.
1878. Chairman: Perhaps you would like
to move on.
1879. Mr Laurence: Is the Committee indicating
that that is the end of these present proceedings now because
I wonder whether, if so, you would consider just rising for five
minutes while those who are not concerned with the next case that
I am about to address you on, which is the Corporation of London/Markets'
case, can leave the room, but I am entirely in your hands on that?
|
