Examination of Witnesses (Questions 5760
- 5779)
5760. Chairman: That is most helpful;
thank you very much indeed. We will go back to Mr Smith and his
evidence. Mr Welfare, do you want to cross-examine?
5761. Mr Welfare: Thank you, sir.
Cross-examined by Mr Welfare
5762. Mr Welfare: Mr Smith, when we adjourned
yesterday you described in your evidence the hardship policy,
describing the situation where somebody has to move or has a compelling
reason to move and is affected by a scheme of this type. The questions
I would like to put to you are designed to establish its limits
a little more clearly from the point of view of residents. You
have described six criteria for the hardship policy, the fourth
of which—and this is Information Paper C8 from which you
have take those conditions—is that there is a compelling
reason to sell. That is on the second page of C8.[1]
Can I ask you to confirm that therefore the hardship policy does
not apply to a resident affected by Crossrail in this instance,
who does not wish to move but is concerned about the value of
their house?
(Mr Smith) Yes, that is correct,
the policy is aimed at people who have hardship, and mitigating
hardship.
5763. Nor against someone who, for example,
might wish to borrow against the value of their house and that
value is diminished?
(Mr Smith) Unless that leads to hardship
5764. One of the requirements is a compelling
reason to sell, but if they are not looking to sell, they are
looking to stay where they are but to enlarge the borrowing on
their house.
(Mr Smith) Yes.
5765. In other words, somebody may have suffered
a loss or be facing a loss but not have a compelling reason to
move and the policy does not help them in those circumstances.
Condition 5 was that there is no foreknowledge of the Crossrail
project, in other words that somebody has not bought a house knowing
that Crossrail is in the offing and thereby put themselves in
the position of standing outside the scheme; the buyer knew or
ought to have known about Crossrail. Is that foreknowledge now
in effect a criteria?
(Mr Smith) Yes.
5766. From what date did it take effect?
(Mr Smith) I believe it was December 2003 when
the most recent Crossrail proposals were put forward.
5767. So from December 2003, somebody who bought
a house affected by Crossrail is deemed to have the knowledge
that it puts them outside the scheme, in terms of hardship suffered?
(Mr Smith) Yes.
5768. That is despite the fact that Crossrail
has not as yet been approved by Parliament and is obviously in
front of this Select Committee at the moment to approve its precise
terms. The sixth condition was that an owner had made reasonable
endeavours to sell and could not do so except at a price at least
15 per cent lower than the market value had Crossrail not occurred.
That is right, is it not?
(Mr Smith) Yes.
5769. To state the obvious the loss of 10, 12
and, on the margin, 14 per cent does not qualify under this scheme.
(Mr Smith) No.
5770. Therefore residents are expected to bear
in effect that loss as a consequence of Crossrail without the
scheme giving the any assistance in that event?
(Mr Smith) In essence a line has to be drawn
somewhere, but the harsh answer is, I suppose, yes, there has
to be a line and if that is 15 per cent then someone who does
not suffer it will not gain from it.
5771. Almost we are saying 85 per cent, let
us say, rather than 100 per cent?
(Mr Smith) Yes.
5772. My learned friend, Ms Lieven, yesterday
gave you the example of Mr and Mrs Wood, whom I do not represent—Mr
Wood appeared representing himself. Mrs Wood is a music teacher
and Ms Lieven put to you the situation—without accepting
that this is the fact, I must point out—that if Mrs Wood,
let us say, found it very difficult to teach, or would find it
difficult to teach at home for reasons of noise, and indeed has
to move. You said that if she could not teach at home and therefore
had to move she would qualify under the scheme.
(Mr Smith) Yes.
5773. If there were quite severe noise disruption,
but short of preventing her teaching at all—suppose the
pupils still come but it is noisy and makes the lessons more difficult,
or some pupils come but fewer than previously or fewer than might
have been expected—would the hardship policy apply in that
event?
(Mr Smith) I think you have to look at each
case on its merits. I am getting a little . . . I think if someone
could not carry on their business reasonably there, as a result
of the noise, and all the other various criteria were settled
then, yes, she would fall within it, but I am not quite sure on
the gradings down from that—I am not quite sure what is
involved. If she does not want to move then presumably she will
not wish to sell and therefore the hardship policy will not come
into play.
5774. That is really the point that I am seeking
to illustrate, but I am not in any way trying to tie you to any
specific incidents or indeed to giving too firm a judgment on
where a particular case or any case might fall in a range—clearly
there is a range. But the fact is that under the hardship policy
if somebody is not obliged to move but suffers some detriment
to their business—in this respect let us say fewer pupils—then
the policy is not going to help them?
(Mr Smith) No, they would then have to fall
on the Compensation Code, compensation, rather than the hardship
policy.
5775. If the disruption is temporary—let
us stay with the music teacher for a moment—and it is through
the construction period but it is not permanent, that would fall
short of a compelling reason to move, would it not?
(Mr Smith) It is a matter of degree, I would
say, in each case, and the extent to which the interference made
it impossible for them to continue. So, no, I do not think that
we could actually say no it would not apply.
5776. In certain circumstances it may be impossible
to continue but in other circumstances there may be a temporary
disadvantage to a resident which is going to put them outside
the scheme, and it will vary on the circumstances?
(Mr Smith) Absolutely, yes.
5777. All I am trying to establish is that there
are boundaries and difficulties with this.
(Mr Smith) Yes, there are. As I said, there
is a lay member on the Hardship Panel, appointed by the Secretary
of State, and I think that was brought in on the basis that there
would not always be clear black and white and there may be shades
of grey, and having an independent member just looking at the
particular situation would help independently to determine how
those should be dealt with. But I have to confess that I cannot
really put it any more than that. I do not pretend that each case
will be easy and there will be a clear black and white situation
for the Committee. The reason for the lay member is to try to
help that assessment as well as any other expert evidence given.
5778. Mr Smith, you helpfully described the
position of the lay member to the Committee yesterday because
Ms Lieven asked you about the process for the hardship policy
and you described the Panel arrangement. She was referring to
my remarks about the need for an independent process but my remarks
had actually concerned noise insulation and, on occasion, temporary
re-housing decisions and the need for a consultation process in
that area, which placed the decision in the hands of the independent
party such as the local council. So can I ask you not about hardship
policy but in relation to noise insulation and temporary re-housing?
I realise that these may also be questions for Mr Thornely-Taylor.
Decisions about which given property qualifies for insulation
or does not or qualifies for temporary re-housing or does not
are not made under the process you have described, they are not
under the hardship policy, are they?
(Mr Smith) No, they would come under the noise
policy.
5779. The noise and vibration mitigation scheme.
(Mr Smith) Yes.
1 Crossrail Information Paper C8, Purchase of Property
in Cases of Hardship, 3(d) (LINEWD-IPC8-002). Back
| 
