Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 8700 - 8719)

  8700. Chairman: What I need from you is are you specifically and directly affected by the Bill? What do you want us to do? We cannot replace one with the other.

  8701. Mr Pearce: First of all, what I want you to do is to be fair. I would like to invite the Select Committee to attend the afternoon session of the colloquium of experts for Mono Metro in Cardiff on 2 June so that you can ask the experts for Mono Metro directly and you can take then a balanced view on whether Crossrail is an illegal Bill and whether it should be halted through Parliament or whether you should take a second look and look at an alternative project that has been discriminated against right from the start.

  8702. Chairman: Can I say, Mr Pearce, the Bill, as it stands, cannot be seen from this Committee as illegal. It has been presented with a Bill by Parliament itself and told to see the Bill through. We cannot judge in respect of that. We have no remit. It is outside of any responsibility that we have. As for attendance at a panel of experts meeting on 2 June, I think it is a little bit too late or near to the event for us to attend but what I am prepared to do is if you are prepared to send us the views of those experts then we will take that into consideration in the petition in the course of the Bill.

  8703. Mr Pearce: Yes. I was going to come to that actually because we are in the process of producing our technical and commercial feasibility study for the project that will go together with the commercial feasibility for the line between Hyde Park and the Olympic Stadium that we are proposing to fund so that the Government would not have to fork out any money for this project. We would build it, fund it and lease it back to the London regional government. Yes, thank you very much, we will be submitting that document to you. Can I ask you if you will further have that document independently assessed as Crossrail was independently assessed by Sir Adrian Montague?

  8704. Chairman: What we will do is we will receive any evidence and documentation which comes through and we will view it in the light of the responsibilities we have been given in relation to the Crossrail Bill. That is all we are entitled to do. If it comes out we will look at it, whether it has any relevance to the Bill and our responsibility is a matter which we will have to use our own judgment on.

  8705. Mr Pearce: Will you go back to Parliament and will you inform Parliament of the legal situation that now exists, that Crossrail cannot substantiate its choice of technology because it is unable to disclose due process documents that are absolutely vital? We have been asking for this for a very long time, I am sorry it has come to this.

  8706. Chairman: I am very grateful for the opportunity to clear this matter up. Sir, you are in Parliament, you are addressing Parliament.

  8707. Mr Pearce: Yes.

  8708. Chairman: This is Parliament.

  8709. Mr Pearce: Yes but—

  8710. Chairman: We, as I have said, will take any evidence, any submissions that any petitioner puts forward in due process and we will judge them in the light of the responsibility we have in relation to this Bill. I can guarantee that. Whether it comes up trumps for you or not is another matter entirely but we will read everything and judge everything in due course.

  8711. Mr Pearce: Thank you very much.

  8712. Chairman: Mr Elvin, would you like to add anything?

  8713. Mr Elvin: Sir, no, I have already made my submissions about the principle of the Bill. Can I just make this absolutely clear: there is no breach of due process caused by the Bill. This is a Bill which has been duly committed to this Committee following the Standing Orders of the House. Of course, Parliament is the master of its own process, subject to any overriding principles of European law. The European law principles of environmental assessment have been followed and you have heard our position on that in opening. The only requirement with regard to alternatives in environmental assessment is to give an account of those alternatives which have been studied. There is no general requirement to consider all alternatives advanced. Those alternatives have been assessed and they are contained within the alternative chapter of the Environmental Impact Assessment. So far, therefore, as due process is concerned, (a) Parliament has followed its own Standing Orders and committed this matter to Committee and (b) the Environmental Assessment has complied with the due requirements of European law. Therefore, there is no legal issue involved in this matter.

  8714. Chairman: Thank you, Mr Pearce. We will now move on to the case of James Middleton. Mr Taylor?

  The Petition of James Middleton.

  The Petitioner appeared in Person.

  8715. Mr Taylor: Mr Middleton is a resident of Olney in Buckinghamshire which is in the Milton Keynes South Midlands development area. In essence his petition raises concerns regarding the nature of the rail network to be provided by Crossrail. He contends that the project should be a wider strategic scheme covering the South East and East of England. He also raises concerns that it should not be a stopping metro operation but a regional express. Again, just as Mr Elvin mentioned in relation to the previous petition, we would raise issues concerning whether or not the petition actually goes beyond the scope of the principle of the Bill in proposing an entirely different project from that which is before the Committee. That sets the context for what Mr Middleton has to say.

  8716. Chairman: The democratic process is a peculiar thing, Mr Taylor, I think we will proceed. Mr Middleton?

  8717. Mr Middleton: Thank you, Sir. I would just like to get it straight, I have emailed what I am going to say to Sian Jones, Mr Walker and Kate Pasquale from the Promoter. As far as I know everyone has got a copy.

  8718. My name is James Middleton. I live in 5 Crab Tree Close, Olney, Buckinghamshire. I am retired but I have many years of experience in transport planning. I have prepared my own drawings. I did do them on the dining room table but I think you have versions of them. Olney is between Northampton, Milton Keynes and Bedford.[108] It is at the very centre of the Government's huge Milton Keynes South Midlands development area.


  8719. I am a strong supporter of Crossrail in principle but it should be a regional scheme covering the South East and East of England as well as London, not the slow London-only operation put forward by the Promoter. A regional scheme would serve a wide area, including my own stations of Milton Keynes and Northampton. I am very surprised the Promoter has not followed the successful Thameslink and Thameslink 2000 strategy.


108   Committee Ref: A100, Proposed Route Plan of Alternative Regional Crossrail (SCN20060516-008). Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007