Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 10380 - 10399)

  10380. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I think that is enough; you are going off the point now, Mr Akker. I have let you go on for quite a long time. You have made your points very clearly, have you any other specific points?

  10381. Mr Akker: Just about the website, sir. I looked again after I said what I did this morning about the attractiveness of the website and how user friendly it is. Do you accept, Mr Dean, that there is little information relating to the concerns of Spitalfields on that website in relation to trying to address their specific concerns? There is a lot of technical data about Parliament which needs to be explained in terms of ordinary language, and it is not explained in ways which many organisations would explain a complex and difficult arena.

  10382. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Akker, I think we will get counsel to look at the website. I must confess I have not seen the website myself; I do not know if any of the Committee members have, so I think we will come back to that point. Mr Binley?

  10383. Mr Binley: I have two very quick questions which really concern the general attitude of consultation within the national government and local government scenario, because the whole business of consultation came upon us rather quickly and became a fashion item in this respect. I want to ask two questions about the depth of professionalism and ability that you feel the public sector has in effective consultation? I know we are throwing a lot of money at it but I want your view on how professionally we do this as a general response, first.
  (Mr Dean): I am not sure whether I can speak for the whole industry and all consultation exercises. What I would say is that a number of respected commentators in the transport industry have complimented on the standard and quality of our work, and they have said, and I quote, "We have raised the bar for every other project", and the work we have done has been warmly received.

  10384. Let me then be more specific, finally, and I need to declare an interest. I come from the marketing world and I have been horrified to learn that you did no market testing of the work you undertook in this respect, and that concerns me in two ways. One, you can throw a lot of money at a project and not get any effect from a project unless you market test, so I want to be absolutely sure from you that there were no elements or that you did not really consider market testing to be important or to be a sizeable part of this project, is that the case? I want to know what market testing you did, because you could be throwing your money in the wrong direction unless you actually knew how the market was reacting to your marketing thrust.
  (Mr Dean): I think there was a continual exercise of market testing. We have had approaches—

  10385. Let me cut this short. Then you will be able to show us the results of that market testing?
  (Mr Dean): Well, the results are the number of people that we engaged in the project—

  10386. No. I am talking about professional and specific market testing. You can show us those results.
  (Mr Dean): There has been market research undertaken—

  10387. No, market testing. You can show us those results?
  (Mr Dean): What I am saying—

  10388. I am asking the question at this moment. Can you show us the results of your market testing?
  (Mr Dean): I am not sure whether "market testing" is something that I fully understand.

  10389. Let me explain it to you very briefly. It is talking to the people that you are targeting to find out if your thrust is getting through to them and being understood by them. That is what market testing is about. So, it saves you a lot of money because you could get it wrong. Can I ask again: you say you did market testing. If that is the case can you show us the results of that market testing? It is a yes or no answer.
  (Mr Dean): I can only give you my previous answer, that the results of the market testing are in all of the reports where people—

  10390. Well, I have not seen any yet.
  (Mr Dean): —have commented on the adequacy of consultation.

  10391. Mr Binley: I will leave it at that, but I have not seen any, quite frankly, and I think that is a shortcoming.

  10392. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Akker, we will not take written submissions but what we suggest is if you would like to come tomorrow to conclude I would be happy with that, but could you be concise, please, and I will stop you again, or Mr Meale, when he is back, will do so, and I thank you for your questions.

  10393. Mr Akker: It may not be necessary, sir --

  10394. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I leave that in your capable hands but I do say again, please keep it concise. We do want to hear everybody.

  10395. Mr Elvin: May I just try and help Mr Binley by saying that there are two NOP surveys which we have not produced because we have not been asked for them yet, but if Mr Binley would like to see them I have not got them to hand but I will make surely copies are produced.

  10396. Mr Liddell-Grainger: That would be helpful. Thank you. Mr Dean, could you stand down, please? Thank you very much.

  10397. Could I call Dr Jeff Safir?

  The Petition of the Spitalfields Practice

  Mr John Akker appeared as Agent.

  10398. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Dr Safir, can I apologise to you for the slight overrun? It was unexpected. We felt as a Committee it had to be dealt with now and I think it has been a good use of time.

  10399. Dr Safir: I have already arranged a locum for this evening, so thank you.


 
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