Examination of Witnesses (Questions 10540
- 10559)
10540. Chairman: I was at the Annual
General Meeting of the War Graves Commission. Mr Elvin, would
you like to enter the frame?
10541. Mr Galloway: If my learned friend—I
should not say that, I do not have his qualification—would
just let me read this inspiration which has reached me on the
issue of the race relations question. "The Spitalfields Society
was in constant touch with the CRE, Trevor Phillips", a good
friend of the Government, "and the legal requirement on a
project like this is for a racial impact assessment to be carried
out" and that is a legal requirement, "Crossrail only
carried out the racial impact assessment after the CRE pointed
this out and after round two of the consultation. Further, there
were no leaflets in Bengali in round one, only in Chinese and
some other languages". That is the reference that I made
to "unlawful".
10542. Chairman: Mr Elvin, would you
like to get up a bit more quietly this time!
10543. Mr Elvin: I will try not to throw
everything on the floor! I was not trying to upstage Mr Galloway
and I do not think I would be effective to do that, even if I
did.
10544. Can I deal with the racial equality issues.
We presented, in fact, to the Committee as P92 this afternoon
a complete run of the correspondence there has been between Crossrail
and the Commission. As we made clear this afternoon, racial equality
impact assessment has been carried out and it is now being kept
under review, as there is a requirement to do so. The reason it
was late was there was initially some question about whether it
applied to Crossrail. It was accepted later that it did and it
was carried out. We have not received any adverse comment from
the Commission as to that. As Mr Simon Dean gave in evidence this
afternoon, the Commission has not served any notice in respect
of a failure to comply with the duties under the Act and, indeed,
the position now is that additional matters have been put forward.
10545. If I might just draw the Committee's
attention to document P91, which is the document on consultation
in Spitalfields. Following consultations with Tower Hamlets, and
I appreciate that may not satisfy the Petitioner, Tower Hamlets
asked for, and there has been appointed, a community cohesion
adviser to improve community relations. The consultation does
not end with the lodging of the Bill, it continues, and even past
Royal Assent it continues because there is then detailed design
and all the other matters that have to be resolved where discretion
is left and where there is consultation required with the local
authority and the like, for example under Schedule 7 of the Bill.
10546. Chairman: Would that include full
coverage in all languages?
10547. Mr Elvin: I will come back to
that in a moment. It has also been agreed that there will be future
collaboration directly with the borough for community relations
purposes, and that has been agreed and has satisfied the borough.
10548. In terms of language versions, in fact
Bengali information was provided in 2004. Indeed, I showed the
Committee this afternoon the English leaflet and the Bengali leaflet.
I also showed the Committee some of the display panels for the
information rounds, both the equivalent English and Bengali versions.
They were made available and, indeed, Bengali speaking interpreters
were made available at the information locations. That has all
been given in evidence this afternoon. I am summarising the position
but the Committee will have it in the transcript from earlier
this afternoon.
10549. I am reminded by Mr Mould to say that
of course there is a broader equality impact assessment which
is ongoing. That involves, as a consultee, the CRE as well. As
far as the allegations of breach of the Race Relations Act are
concerned, there is no evidence that has been breached and we
would say in the material we put before the Commission, and before
the Committee this afternoon, that we have complied, so far as
we have been requested to do so, with the requirements of the
Act. Therefore, I do reject Mr Galloway's suggestions that there
is a breach of the law. No doubt if he puts in a note which raises
further matters we will respond to that in due course.
10550. Can I deal with certain other matters.
Much of Mr Galloway's objection is to the principle of the Bill,
and, sir, you have already reminded Mr Galloway of the remit of
the Committee. Mr Galloway made his passionate views very clear
to the House at the second reading debate on 19 July, columns
1154-1158 of the Commons' Hansard for that day. They were rejected
by the House. The House took a different view. The democratic
views of the locality are not represented solely through Mr Galloway.
The Borough of Tower Hamlets, and I appreciate he has strong views
about their position and I cannot say anything about that, he
is obviously entitled to the views he holds, the democratic representation
through the Council takes a different view of the importance of
Crossrail, of its benefits to the area, and of the position now
reached on consultation. Indeed, Mr Whalley on behalf of Tower
Hamlets on Thursday last week, Day 38, and I will give you the
reference to this when I close the case on Spitalfields tomorrow,
said that whatever problems there might have been in the past
there had been a major change of late and Tower Hamlets were satisfied
so far as community consultation was concerned.
10551. Be that as it may, the democratic process
has both approved and supported the principle of Crossrail through
the House, reinforced, and one only needs to read Hansard
for 12 January at the instruction debate to see the support reiterated,
through the local authority. Whilst Mr Galloway is entitled to
express the views that he does, within the context of the Hybrid
Bill procedure that issue is no longer open to debate, the House
having reached the view it reached on the second reading.
10552. Can I say this: I do wish to point out
that there is exaggeration in the claims that have been made of
the impacts of Crossrail. Again, Mr Galloway may have strong views
but it is not helpful to his constituents, nor to the debate generally,
if matters are exaggerated. Can I give you a few instances of
those exaggerations. Firstly, as Sir Peter pointed out earlier,
no houses are to be demolished in the Spitalfields area. The question
of re-housing arises simply as a temporary measure because of
the impacts of noise in a limited number of properties in the
vicinity of Hanbury Street. Mr Galloway quite rightly points out
that the environmental impacts of a shaft, whether it be at Hanbury
Street or at Woodseer Street, we think, and we agree with him
on this, are likely to be broadly the same. The temporary re-housing
is simply to deal with the noise for those who are most likely
to be affected by the worst impacts during construction. No houses
are to be acquired and demolished.
10553. The second exaggeration is we are not
dealing with lorries every few minutes. There will be of the order
of 15 lorries a day at the height of the construction of the shaft,
about one lorry every half an hour. That is a drop in the ocean
compared with the number of lorries which already go up and down
the street, which you will have observed on your site visit and
which I observed on my visit to Hanbury Street. There are already
lorries going up to the Woodseer Street site and the Committee
has seen photographs of the large lorries which currently use
the area. Be that as it may, at the height of the construction
of the shaft it will be 15 per day, about one every half an hour.
As Mr Berryman explained yesterday, and indeed last Thursday on
Day 38, that will reduce after no more than two years to a single
vehicle a day, if that. The construction period under the revised
scheme is not seven years, it is at most two. It may be less than
that depending on which of the options for the Hanbury Street
shaft is taken up. The Committee may recall there are a variety
of options. They are not yet decided, they can be decided in consultation
with the local authority and the local community. They range from
putting as much as possible under ground and a range which includes
more over ground. The more you put under ground the longer the
construction period, the more you put over ground the shorter
the construction period, putting it crudely. The two years is
for the maximum construction which is for most of the shaft and
equipment being put under ground, so not seven years and certainly
not a lorry every minute.
10554. If we come to working hours, the working
hours are being currently agreed with the representatives of the
local authorities, principally Westminster, and Mr Berryman explained
that yesterday. If Mr Galloway had read the rest of the transcript
he would have seen that 24 hours relates to underground tunnelling
work but the likely general working hours will meet his requirement
of finishing at 6 o'clock. It looks as if the generally agreed
working hours will be—and I cannot promise this, Mr Galloway,
because we are reaching the final stages of agreement and it is
the City of Westminster who are the legal authority in the negotiations—but
the likely general working hours will be eight in the morning
until six in the evening. The transcript reference is Day 39,
paragraphs 9816 and 9817.
10555. In terms therefore of the impacts, we
do suggest that it is unfortunate that they are being exaggerated
because it creates a false sense of anxiety amongst local residents.
There has been misinformation, and misinformation from the side
of the petitioners as well as, it is claimed, from Crossrail.
I do not suggest we have been giving misinformation out but clearly
there are misunderstandings which Mr Galloway's presentation demonstrates
graphically are being pursued despite the information that we
have given to the Committee and elsewhere.
10556. I understand Mr Galloway's position on
the "grand plaza" scheme that Tower Hamlets has in mind
for Whitechapel Station. Mr Galloway will, I am no doubt, be pleased
to hear that we oppose it as well. And the Committee will recall
the debate over the demolition of McDonald's. We all may have
our views about getting rid of McDonald's and the like. Tower
Hamlets may wish to do that but Crossrail certainly does not.
10557. The reason for a Whitechapel Station,
which is regarded as fundamental by the Borough, is to provide
a new station which is accessible to all, whereas the current
station is not. It is to provide a new station accessible to all
and this area of all areas within London deserves better public
transport which Crossrail will bring. We propose an appropriate
ticket hall and appropriate entrance; we do not propose a grand
piazza entrance onto Whitechapel Road.
10558. So far as the need for the Hanbury Street
shaft is concerned, it is not merely ventilation; it is emergency
intervention. Recent events have shown graphically the need for
the Fire Brigade to enter the Tube and other underground railways
in case of an emergency at a minimum of risk to themselves and
maximum ability for them to get in and out to deal with those
who may be injured by unfortunate events. The reason the Channel
Tunnel has no shafts, apart from the obvious point—it would
be a little difficult—the Channel Tunnel has a third tunnel,
so the emergency intervention on the Channel Tunnel is via a third
independent tunnel not via shafts. We have already shown to the
Committee the Health and Safety Executive's requirement for one
kilometre-spaced tunnels for intervention purposes.
10559. Finally on the question of environmental
guarantees, I remind the Committee that I gave an undertaking,
not merely an assurance, but an undertaking on behalf of the Secretary
of State on day one to ensure compliance with the environmental
minimum requirements which are tied into the various mitigation
measures and the Construction Code which will apply to this project.
I think, Mr Galloway, the King's Cross Bill was a private bill.
I do not know about the undertakings given by private promoters
but the undertakings that I give are on behalf of the Secretary
of State and they are deserving, in my submission, of proper weight
and respect, as has always been the case with hybrid bills.
|
