Examination of Witnesses (Questions 13420
- 13439)
13420. This is a project, is it not, which has
been driven to a large extent by the necessity to cut costs down
where that can reasonably be done?
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
13421. If you are wrong in supposing that there
is a potential £8 million saving on option 7, there is a
£10 million difference between option 4C and option 7A, is
there not?
(Mr Berryman) It is currently an £8 million
difference.
13422. What did I say?
(Mr Berryman) You said ten.
13423. I said, if you are wrong in supposing
that there is a potential £8 million saving to be identified
in option 7, the figures we are talking about are, very roughly,
£20 million with option 4C and £30 million for option
7, are they not?
(Mr Berryman) In round figures, yes.
13424. That is against us. I find it astonishing
that you think an extra £10 million is potentially defensible
when 4C is a cracking good solution to the problem that I am asking
you to assume the Committee has accepted needs to be addressed.
(Mr Berryman) I would not agree with you that
4C is a cracking good solution. There are a number of significant
risks involved in it. There are a number of other places on the
project where risk outweighs apparent first lower costs, where
we are doing things in a slightly more expensive way to avoid
risks. There are quite a significant number. As you can imagine
in a project of this size, that is the case, because we are dealing
not just with raw numbers but with the risk that is associated
with those raw numbers.
13425. I do not know if the line of questions
that I want to quickly put to you is going to end up impressing
the Committee or not. There was an exchange, was there not, if
you look at the white bundle, page 55, between Mr Elvin, Mr Chapman
and the Committee on day six, concerning what we no know as option
7. The exchange begins at page 52. At question 1698 at the top,
Mr Elvin asks, "Can I ask you to look at one of the plans
you have produced. Could you pick up your figure 2. I did want
just to pick you up on the options which have been discussed.
One of the possibilities that has been raised in discussions is
the possibility of using the EdF power transformer box, is it
not?" Mr Chapman says, "That is correct."
(Mr Berryman) I recall this discussion.
13426. That is what is now being called option
7 that is under discussion.
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
13427. It goes on for four pages until we get
eventually to page 55 and Sir Peter says this at 1735: "If
I can come back to your exploration of the EdF power transformer
area as a possible further option, I think the Committee would
perhaps consider it unfair to continue to press the witness about
whether or not it is an option when it is not something that you
on behalf of the Promoters have put in front of us as an option."
Mr Elvin says, "We are not suggesting you should pursue any
options at all." Sir Peter: "It is a bit unfair on the
witness who, quite reasonably, told us that they have found two
options that they think are possible for you then to criticise
him for not having found a third which you yourselves have not
found." That is in January.[33]
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
13428. There is nothing about option 7 in February,
March or April. Suddenly, round about 8 or 10 May, the Promoter
puts option 7 back on the table. He does so notwithstanding that
Mr Meale, our learned Chairman, in his letter of February to Mr
Elvin and me asks for further information about providing extra
capacity in ticket hall B.
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
13429. Why must the Committee now be concerning
itself with the alleged merits of an option which, until that
time, none of us thought was being considered at all and, in particular,
when we in the meantime had accepted that any further work on
our Eldon Street option 1 should be accepted was no longer appropriate
to do?
(Mr Berryman) This arose as work on option
4 developed. You may recall at the time when we were talking about
this the very preliminary suggestions that we could move the Post
Office vaults and do the job that way. As we went into discussion
with the Post Office and looked at the vaults, that became much
more problematic and we looked at this option again, the substation
option, which had always been on our radar, I feel bound to say.
Mr Elvin raised this at the previous sitting of the Committee,
but it had not been worked up at all at that point.
13430. I want to summarise the position in this
way, and they are really just four points. The first is we suggest
that the Promoter has not played this quite down the middle over
recent months and in relation to option 7 that is a very good
example of something being introduced at a later stage to muddy
the waters of what is already a complex debate. That has been
your purpose and object really in putting forward an option which
ex hypothesi you do not believe is necessary now and may
never be necessary.
(Mr Berryman) That certainly is not the case.
I think the last point you made is correct, we do not believe
it is necessary at this stage. What we have been looking for is
something that could be done in the future without disturbing
the passenger flows to the Crossrail line or to London Underground,
and this seems to offer that possibility in a much more acceptable
way than option 4. I certainly would not accept that we have been
trying to muddy the water, on the contrary.
13431. Mr Berryman, secondly, has the Promoter
done any work in relation to what compensation would have to be
paid if option 7 were required to be adopted now?
(Mr Berryman) Yes. We do not think that there
would be very much compensation.
13432. You have done the work, have you?
(Mr Berryman) Sorry?
13433. You have done the work?
(Mr Berryman) We have had our property people
look at that and do an estimate and that is included, of course,
in the chart that you just put up.
13434. You are aware that is potentially very
controversial, are you not?
(Mr Berryman) I am aware that British Land
do not agree with us.
13435. What do they say?
(Mr Berryman) They say we would have to pay
them £40 million or some such figure.
13436. And if they are right about that?
(Mr Berryman) One hesitates to say this but
if they want an entrance here which is better surely they should
not be seeking excessive compensation, and we do think it is excessive,
for the use of their land. Do they want a better entrance or not?
13437. You did not sound as though you hesitated
much, I have to say. Mr Berryman, what about the position UBS
have taken who occupy 100 Liverpool Street, does that make any
difference to you?
(Mr Berryman) In what way?
13438. Along with British Land we are talking
about the major land holder, supported by the Corporation of London,
who favours 4C and not 7. UBS do not favour 7, do they?
(Mr Berryman) Who, UBS? Did you say UBS, I
am sorry?
13439. UBS, yes.
(Mr Berryman) So far as I am aware, no, they
do not. They do not want any works to be done outside their office
at all actually.
33 Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill Evidence,
Para 1735, 26 January 2006 (SCN-20060629-010). Back
| 
