Examination of Witnesses (Questions 10220
- 10239)
10220. Mr Akker: I want to make a point,
sir, about the exhibition in Brick Lane, if I may do so, because
this relates to the relations with the Bangladeshi community in
that area, and if I could just do that briefly. It is the position
that there was an attempt to hold an exhibition in Brick Lane
and very great exception was taken to this by the Bangladeshi
community because it was held in an old brewery.
10221. Mr Liddell-Grainger: We are aware
of this. This has already been dealt with. Could you move on from
there? I am sorry to chivvy you, but it is just to try and bring
a new point. That was brought out very clearly yesterday and we
made very clear representation yesterday evening to Mr Elvin that
that was not acceptable.
10222. Mr Akker: Okay. Can I just say
for the record, sir, there have been very large meetings of the
Bangladeshi community and the resolutions have been put down.
10223. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you.
10224. Mr Akker: There is a point here
which, with respect, I do not know whether you have considered
and that is the position of the Crossrail referee.
10225. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Please carry
on.
10226. Mr Akker: Many of us were concerned
that there was a person in office who would or could help us with
problems which we were having with Crossrail. I wrote to the Crossrail
referee, as others did, but I have included in the bundle, sir,
the reply which we received from the Crossrail referee. That is
dealt with in A4.[8]
Now I will not go over the meetings which are listed here, though
I could say all the meetings listed here were not ones called
by Crossrail but were called by the local community. Therefore,
to say that Crossrail was responsible for them is highly misleading.
What I would say to you, sir, is that the Crossrail referee did
not intervene and say that there were problems regarding consultation.
It is as plain as a pike staff, as Lord Denning would perhaps
say, that there was not any meaningful consultation in this area
and yet the Crossrail referee did not come to any view other than
to say it was ill-founded. Now, from a common sense point of view,
I would either say there is something wrong with the terms of
reference of the referee or that he did not discharge his duty
efficiently. I ask for future reference where there are major
construction sites as this that the public does have the ability
to apply through an independent person who can look at these things.
10227. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you.
10228. Mr Akker: The other thing I would
say in terms of the reference of the Bangladeshi community is
something which you probably are not aware of, that is exhibit
A3.[9]
This is a letter from the chair of the CRE. Can I draw your attention
to paragraph 2 in which he says, and I paraphrase, `We share your
concerns that all the listed bodies have not been adequately consulted
and informed the local community and especially the Bangladeshi'.
10229. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I think,
Mr Akker, you made your point. We will wait and see what Mr Elvin
says about that.
10230. Mr Akker: I would also say on
that, sir, Crossrail did make some attempts later on to correct
that, hence the exhibition and other things, but there has been
a history here, a lot of damage was done in the early stages and
the Bangladeshi community have a great soreness about this as
a result.
10231. On the general public face of Crossrail,
could I just make one point lastly on this, sir, as an aside.
We live in a modern age where information technology is very vital
to us. We rely a great deal on it. A great deal of disappointment,
in my mind, relates to the information that is available relating
to Crossrail on their website. I would very much like you in the
Committee to look at their website. It has things which are no
doubt very important such as the need to encourage young engineers,
the changes in the management team and things of that sort, but
when you have got a situation where a major bill is going through
Parliament, there are a lot of concerns in the area. It is very
good avenue for getting up-to-date information. I do not think
that meets that test, and I ask you to look at that. Now the second
issue, sir, and I am grateful for what you have said about your
earlier statements, the second issue, and I shall be far shorter
on this, concerns the alignment of the route. I think it is fair
to say Mr Berryman has explained this on no ends of occasions
that there were two prime reasons why it is necessary for the
lines to go through Brick Lane. The need to get to the railway,
the Great Eastern Railway, and the siting of Whitechapel Station.
I have to say that on some things—and I do not mix in influential
circles—I have spoken to one or two transport correspondents
and to several politicians, but there is quite a strong belief
that as far as funding of Crossrail that the current proposal
regarding Crossrail will be far too expensive and what has been
put to me is that there may be a scaled-down version of this Bill
by Mr Berryman's comments to the Committee yesterday and there
may need to be forced economies to the route. You look puzzled,
sir.
10232. Mr Liddell-Grainger: No, this
is slightly outside our auspices as a Hybrid Bill, therefore,
we cannot really take that into consideration. Your final remarks,
please, to the matter in hand. I would be most grateful, thank
you.
10233. Mr Akker: Really briefly, sir,
that refers to the fact that Whitechapel might not be the determining
factor in the future alignment of the route, but all the technical
aspects which this Committee has considered over the last two
or three days and Tower Hamlets last week all concern the compactness
and difficulty of getting access to what is a very tight area
of London; historic buildings, the access in terms of the ventilation
shaft. I would say to you, as did the Spitalfields Society also
yesterday, is that there should be consideration of the southern
route. I will not go into detail because the Spitalfields Society
did that very carefully. I would also say to you that, having
listened to the Spitalfields Society yesterday, I agree with them
that the best alternative, as it stands, is in my view Woodseer
Street. I now want to turn, having dealt with Woodseer Street,
to also deal with the question of the need for an intervention
shaft at all in the area. This was mentioned again, but can I
say to the Committee that there was some evidence of a view put
forward by Mr Drabble in 9414 about the need for an intervention
shaft and I hope that that will not be lost in the Committee's
consideration. Can I also, and I have included this in the bundle,
ask that Committee considers A5, sir.[10]
Of course the Committee will be aware of the statement made by
the Secretary of State relating to the tunnelling but he does
say in this statement, and it is the fourth paragraph at the end,
that he has asked Crossrail to consider the residual impacts of
the ventilation shaft in the area and he hopes that these can
be further ameliorated. I, too, sir, and lots of other people
in the area hope the impact of that ventilation shaft can be.
10234. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I think that
point has been very well made over the last couple of days.
10235. Mr Akker: The fourth point, sir,
and I do not know whether I can ask your indulgence on this, and
it does relate to the whole principle of Crossrail. It is the
concern that I think a lot of people got not only in Spitalfields
but I think during the whole line of Crossrail is the situation
that if you are so minded that this Bill passes and the Commons
pass the Bill then there will be a Bill published which will authorise
Crossrail to undertake this. The question is that people's property
and people's lives will be affected by this for many years. The
question that is open is that the Government as yet has not indicated
how this is going to be financed. If the situation is that people's
property will be blighted because of the route I would hope that
the Government will bring forward proposals certainly by Third
Reading about further details regarding this.
10236. Mr Liddell-Grainger: We have no
say in that. We are merely a Hybrid Bill reporting back to the
House on the findings of this. We have no say on the funding or
the Government's response to this. I am sorry. Your point is taken
on board, but there is nothing that this Committee can do to help
but thank you for bringing it up.
10237. Mr Akker: Therefore, sir, I would
ask you to consider the following points, that it is my strong
belief that the present scheme affecting the Spitalfields area
is misconceived and has been subject to imperfect information
by the local community. Far more attention should have been given
to the human impact and to engage with the local population. Secondly,
a southern route even at this stage ought to be urgently examined
and that the study being undertaken by Crossrail about the choice
of the ventilation shaft, indeed if there needs to be a ventilation
shaft, ought to be seriously considered and I do hope that Committee
will ensure that there is the most serious and deep investigation
of that because of the concerns which it has in the area in terms
of the disruption. I also say, and this is with some regret, that
the number of Petitioners from the Bangladeshi community has been
impacted on because it has been felt that this is a done deal
and that, although we are very lucky in this country that we have
got procedures like the one we are dealing with, open, transparent
and democratic, a number of people within the Bangladeshi community
have felt that people have not necessarily realised that.
10238. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I think we
have got the tape on that point well worn, Mr Akker. Thank you
for making it for the third time. I am very grateful.
10239. Mr Akker: I apologise. That is
all.
8 Committee Ref: A117, Correspondence from the Crossrail
Referee to The Spitalfields Society regarding Crossrail Proposal
under the Benchmark Scheme for the Spitalfields Area, 10 May 2004
(SCN-20060614-007). Back
9
Committee Ref: A117, Correspondence from the Commission for Racial
Equality to Mr John Akker, 8 July 2004 (SCN-20060614-008). Back
10
Committee Ref: A117, Written Ministerial Statement Crossrail
(Tunnelling Strategy) 30 Mar 2006: Hansard Column 101WS
(SCN-20060614-010). Back
|
