Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16540
- 16552)
16540. Chairman: I well understand that,
but I think you also have to understand that we, as a Committee,
are charged with listening to every aspect of it, the Promoter,
yourself and the Petitioners. We have to view all of those and,
at the end of the day, we must then report to Parliament. Parliament
thinks Crossrail is a good thing and it will occur, all we can
do is report on that. We cannot stop it, we can only give our
best thoughts on that. When that is done, Parliament will then
decide whether or not Crossrail goes ahead. It has indicated that
it will. We cannot prejudge any of that, that can only be done
by Parliament itself. We have our thoughts in mind and it is at
least to say that you have put up a strong argument there which
has been unusual in that is has been recognised by most of the
Committee. They are prepared to say there is a difference in this
case than others we have heard.
16541. Mr Mould: The answer to Dr Pugh's
question is that we have made no commitment in relation to acquisition
of any property which is not required for the purposes of the
Crossrail scheme. I put it that way because there is a small number
of properties which will be required at a very early stage in
the process of the construction of the scheme, an advanced stage,
in other words, in the process of the construction of the scheme,
where we have entered into agreements on a contingent basis to
acquire those properties in advance of the works to enable us
to make early process. That is quite clearly a different category
of a situation than that with which we have here where we do not
propose to acquire the properties and do not need to acquire the
properties in order to carry out the scheme.
16542. Chairman: In that case, I think
from the Promoter's standpoint, we are aware and know your views.
We are also aware of the Petitioner's views. The Committee, at
some point in the future, will take a decision on that in its
report to Parliament, but Parliament itself will decide on such
matters.
16543. Mr Mould: I am very reluctant
to try the Committee's patience, but if I can make one further
point. We have placed before you the revised hardship policy,
please, do not be misled by the approval date at the bottom of
the page which says 91205, I am afraid that is incorrect. This
is the version which has been revised in the last two or three
weeks to embrace the position of the concerns.
16544. I would ask the Committee when it is
considering this matter to look carefully, as I know you will,
at paragraph 3.5, because it does not just deal with the point
which you are focussing on today, which is cases where the works
themselves are going to be neighbouring residential properties
incapable of reasonable occupation, but it does deal with those
other particular categories under which compelling reason to sell
may be accepted such as a move to larger and different premises,
financial pressures and so on and I stress to the Committee that
as far as it has expressed concerns about not being able to sell
at this time, it would be wrong for the Committee to go away with
the sense that our policy does not seek to embrace and to address
concerns of that kind in certain categories of case. I hope the
Committee has that point.
16545. Chairman: Can we just leave it
there and just to repeat to you that the Committee has not actually
made its decision on where this should actually be, so I do not
want to pre-empt that. When we make our decision, which will be
in the near future, then we will know which way forward to go,
but if you have any further views on this, the last time you will
have an opportunity, if you wish to make any further statement
on that or extra on that, it is 10am next Tuesday.
16546. Mr Mould: I do make it clear that
we have considered this carefully and our position, and clearly
we do not see eye to eye with a member of the Committee, but our
position is that we do see the kind of changes to our approach
that the Committee will see and the position of the Committee
is a suggestion that we should consider would be a very radical
change to statutory arrangements on blight and I do make that
point and repeat that point.
16547. Chairman: So we are fairly clear
then, other than the statement you have made you are not going
back?
16548. Mr Mould: I am certainly not prepared
to be so disrespectful as to say that we will not go away and
think any further about what the Committee has said, of course
we would not do that, but I do make it clear that I have been
very robust in my response.
16549. Chairman: You have, but let me
be even more robust, 10 am on Tuesday morning is the last opportunity,
other than that we will be considering this matter by the summer.
16550. The last word, Ms Ferguson, if you would
like to say a few words?
16551. Ms Ferguson: Hopefully I have
said it all, my position is fairly straightforward. You wrote
these policies in good faith, we are in this situation through
no fault of our own. It is not just a question of what happens
if the project goes ahead, it is what happens if the project does
not go ahead for a number of years and I think Mr Mould said there
was nothing exceptional about these properties. Believe me there
is if you are in our position. As far as we can see we are in
a position where we are virtually on top of this site, we are
in the position where we are exceptional as against every other
home owner in the land who cannot sell their property if they
want to, who cannot rent out their property when they want to,
who cannot do all the normal things that people do and who is
waiting at the whim of Crossrail to see whether or not they might
or might not at a later stage accept us on to a policy and Mr
Mould says, "Well, well, well, it is not just the work, there
are these other situations", but they are incredibly limited.
Do we have to get divorced, fall sick, or want to move to larger
premises in order to qualify, because that is actually what it
boils down to? There is no other route to go. He seems to be suggesting
to all of you that there is this sort of general kind of cosy
cover that will allow us to apply at an earlier stage; there is
not, so if we cannot sort ourselves under these general specific
headings in their policy and just let us leave at this. Let us
suppose in the short term that Crossrail is delayed because they
cannot get funding, that means that we cannot get on to this policy.
If the project goes ahead then he is saying well we will have
a look at the design schedule as and when it happens and then
we will really think about it, so from our point of view that
is totally and utterly unacceptable and we would ask the Committee
to make its decision and have it written in its procedure at this
stage.
16552. Chairman: Thank you very much.
That concludes the petition. Can we just, before we conclude the
day, wish you a good journey home and also that you do not have
to get divorced. The Committee will next meet at 2.30 this afternoon
in private and tomorrow in private and the next public session
will be next Tuesday, at 10 am.
|
