Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6840
- 6859)
6840. Ms Lieven: Thank you very much,
Mr Berryman.
6841. Chairman: Just one question before
you go, Mr Berryman. You mentioned that you had had some liaison
on the river route with the Environment Agency.
(Mr Berryman) That is right.
6842. I presume also the Port of London Authority
because it has responsibility in part for that route.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, that is why I said one of
my colleagues who dealt with that is not here today so I could
not ask him but it was the relevant authorities.
6843. I do know on most of that the Environment
Agency has full environmental rights, but there is the other authority.
I wonder if you could write us a note on their objections to the
river route.
(Mr Berryman) Yes, certainly. I can tell you
briefly about that. They were suggesting that it would increase
the risk of flooding upstream and that was the issue they were
very concerned about.
6844. Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr Pugh-Smith, how long do you think you will need for summary?
6845. Mr Pugh-Smith: I will be under
five minutes, sir. I have a logistical problem: I have to be in
Cardiff later on this evening and if it is possible to get completed
by five o'clock or thereabouts I would be very grateful.
6846. Chairman: That is entirely in your
hands!
6847. Mr Pugh-Smith: I appreciate that
and I will be very brief.
6848. Chairman: Ms Lieven?
6849. Ms Lieven: I will do my best, sir,
two minutes.
6850. Chairman: We have the most important
people in the building here, the stenographers, and we have only
got agreement until five.
6851. Ms Lieven: I appreciate that, sir.
I will keep it extremely brief. As I understand it there are three
principal issues raised by the Residents' Association: failure
to consider alternative alignments; the EIA requirements; and
compensation.
6852. So far as the issue of alternative alignments
is concerned, you have just heard the evidence of Mr Berryman.
It is important to focus on the legal requirement, which is not
to set out in the ES every alternative but to deal with an outline
of the main alternatives. That is done in the Environmental Statement.
6853. So far as our consideration of alternatives
is concerned, we have over the past years considered alternatives
in very considerable detail and at the end of the day it comes
down to a professional appraisal that the alternative schemes
do not provide sufficient additional benefits, and in most cases
provide no additional benefit and, indeed, additional disbenefit.
In particular, they do not believe the overcrowding on the Central
Line, they produced other problems on other lines, and in terms
of the river route they produced significant construction problems
as well. You have heard Mr Berryman's evidence on it and we also
dealt with it briefly in opening at Day 1, paragraphs 58-60. Sir,
can I suggest that we have this report which deals with the alternatives
in much more detail copied and circulated to the Committee so
that if Members do have any concerns about more detailed points
they can look at the report.
6854. So far as the EIA requirements are concerned,
we dealt with that in opening at Day 1, paragraph 137. The ES
at volume one, chapter six, pages 112-127 does meet the legal
requirements to consider the main alternatives in outline. Importantly,
as Mr Elvin made clear in opening, the fact that an ES does not
provide the level of detail on a particular point that a particular
objector wants does not make it an invalid ES. We say we have
entirely met the legal requirements.
6855. Finally, sir, on compensation, the evidence
that Mr Winborne gave, as Mr Winborne very freely accepted in
evidence-in-chief, comes back to an attack on the National Compensation
Code. We call it a code but, of course, it is made up of different
legislative pieces, we all know that by now, but Mr Winborne quite
freely accepts what he is seeking is a change in the national
law at this point and, as we have said again and again in our
submission, it is not appropriate for this Committee to do that,
it would be quite wrong to change the law in relation to those
affected by Crossrail and not those affected by other schemes
elsewhere. It is right that compensation should be provided consistently
across the United Kingdom in accordance with the will of Parliament.
Can I just refer you to Mr Elvin's closing on Smithfield Traders
at Day 14, paragraphs 4041-4049 where we dealt with that comprehensively.
6856. Chairman: I think that is a fair
summary but may I remind you also the Committee has the right
to look at all evidence that is presented before it and to have
a view. Whether or not it is a direction is another matter, but
we can certainly give a view.
6857. Ms Lieven: So far as compensation
is concerned, it has been raised by a lot of Petitioners and I
suspect it will be one of those points that we will come back
to briefly in our final closing at the end of this process, whenever
that should be, so we can pull together all the points that have
been made. I do not want to keep repeating the same point every
couple of days, it is going to get tedious.
6858. Chairman: Thank you, Ms Lieven.
Mr Pugh-Smith?
6859. Mr Pugh-Smith: Thank you very much.
Chairman, as I explained when I opened the case on behalf of the
Residents' Society on 30 March, the issue that was in front of
you was an issue of alternatives and so I raise the same point
in closing and put matters in their appropriate context starting
with the requirements of the environmental assessment directive
and the EIA regulations for England. Parliament is the decision-maker.
You can form a view as to whether or not alternatives have been
adequately considered. We point to the fact that the consideration
of the Environmental Statement is sketchy, to put it at its most
benign, and inadequate substantively, to put it at its most precise.
The very information you were told blandly by Mr Berryman this
afternoon which could be available is not available, or if it
is available it is hidden away in such a form that it is not readily
accessed. You were promised a document that was a response to
the Superlink proposal and in fact we have provided it for you
already, it is exhibit 15 in your bundle, the 25 pages that Mr
Schabas said did not actually provide substantive answers to the
points that he had raised.
| 
