Examination of Witnesses (Questions 18340
- 18359)
18340. All that has happened is that the balance
has switched from very slightly in favour of Hanbury Street to
in favour of Woodseer Street, in noise terms—nothing else
has changed. Certainly, the issue that has tipped the balance
very firmly in favour of Hanbury Street has not changed at all;
there is nothing in the SES which suggests any change in the engineering
issues and the alignment issues. I just wanted to make sure the
Committee was aware that it does not predict greater problems
in Hanbury Street.
18341. Sir, if that satisfies the Committee
on that particular point, I will call Mr Leeks, just to give you
a short account of the community liaison panel.
Mr Clinton Leeks, sworn
Examined by Mr Elvin
18342. Mr Elvin: Mr Leeks, this is your
first appearance before this Committee. You are Clinton Leeks.
Could you explain to the Committee who you are and what your role
is within Crossrail, please?
(Mr Leeks) Yes, sir. I am the Director of Corporate
Affairs for Crossrail. I joined the company in July of last year,
and my remit is to cover what I would describe as the external
face of Crossrail in dealing with stakeholders, dealing with media
issues, dealing with and engagement with government departments,
Transport for London and all the various parties who have a big
or small stake in the future of the project.
18343. Mr Leeks, a report dealing with the initial
months of the panel was sent to the Committee on 17 January 2007,
under cover of a letter from Gareth Epps. Was that a report which
you oversaw and had input into?
(Mr Leeks) Yes, sir.
18344. Can you explain briefly the purpose of
Crossrail's initial involvement in the panel?
(Mr Leeks) Certainly. We
took on board very much the reference to Spitalfields' need for
a panel in the Committee's interim decisions, and we were struck
by the use of the word, also, "immediately" and the
fact that, clearly, the Committee were concerned that there had
not been sufficient engagement with the community up till then.
What we decided to do was, first, in discussion with the borough
council, who, again, were referred to in the interim decisions
as a party we should work with, set up a panel, and, secondly,
talk to our community cohesion advisers that have been referred
to already and, of course, who cover not only Spitalfields but
were employed to cover cohesion issues along the whole of the
route. We felt that, particularly given the fact that (I have
to be honest) we only knew a certain amount about exactly who
would be the people we should involve, a practical and pragmatic
way forward would be to engage with as many different groups as
we could, have a first panel meeting and take feedback from the
people who were there, as to whether we had the remit right and
whether we had the membership right, particularly as to whom should
chair and so on, so that was the approach we took to the meeting
on 31 October.
18345. In terms of your seeking assistance from
Tower Hamlets, do they have experience of these matters?
(Mr Leeks) As I understand
it, yes. I spoke to the Chief Executive on one occasion, but also
my staff (you mention Mr Gareth Epps), saw their community cohesion
expert as well, I think.
18346. Is there any desire by Crossrail through
you to dictate how the panel should be run in the longer term,
or what the membership of the panel should be?
(Mr Leeks) No, sir, none
whatsoever. My aim, and I think Crossrail's aim, was very much
to start an engagement process and encourage the community to
move it forward, and specifically to give us suggestions on areas
they thought were under-represented on the panel and, possibly,
areas for work where the panel could develop, for instance, sub-groups
such as health, which you have mentioned, at the first meeting,
as areas for further work.
18347. We know there were difficulties because
a number sought, effectively, a public meeting rather than a representative
meeting, and then boycotted subsequent meetings. Can you explain
briefly, before we come on to discuss how you seek to take matters
forward in the future, why Crossrail was not interested in a mass
public meeting?
(Mr Leeks) Yes, sir. This
was raised at the first meeting and we had a long discussion about
it. There were several different approaches. Open days were suggested
at one point, a public meeting among all the Petitioners, where
we would call a public meeting and they would then use that to
select their own representatives was suggested, and the actual
scope of those who would be invited to the public meeting, several
suggestions were made. As acting chair (and I do emphasise that
because I was very much saying I did not feel it was appropriate
for me to go on chairing; I wanted to facilitate a chairman or
chairwoman coming from within the Community) our view was that
a public meeting was not really, we felt, the right way of, if
you like facilitating a public meeting convened by Crossrail,
for some of the reasons you, sir, and colleagues have heard already—the
community choosing its own representatives. I was at pains at
the meeting to stress that we had no difficulty with the concept
of a public meeting, and we would welcome the community organising
such a meeting or meetings as a process of choosing the very representatives
that we wanted them to draw into either the main panel or the
various sub-panels that would be specific to individual issues.
18348. Now that the point has been made this
morning about the cost of the venue, would Crossrail have any
difficulty paying the reasonable costs of the venue if the community
wished to organise a meeting so that they could select their own
representatives?
(Mr Leeks) Speaking for
myself, sir, I cannot see any problem with that. The idea has
not been put to me before. My concern was that I could not see
that it was the best way forward for Crossrail to convene the
meeting, but if the resources are an issue we may, within reasonable
means, be able to help with that.
18349. Taking matters forward, Dr Safir did
attend the December meeting. What was the intention behind inviting
him to the meeting?
(Mr Leeks) The first meeting
was very exploratory and, in fact, at the meeting the suggestion
was made, I think it may have been by Ms Cove, that we ought to
have included Dr Safir, and I must say I think that was a very
good suggestion, and we specifically took it on board and invited
him to the second meeting where he made a very significant contribution
on health issues.
18350. So far as health issues are concerned,
Ms Cove has referred to the need to cover a frank exchange of
views, relevant up-to-date information, health issues, various
other forms of impact, traffic, settlement, construction issues—all
the sorts of things that will arise out of the project. Do you
take any issue with that being the subject matter for panel discussions
in the future?
(Mr Leeks) No, sir. If I
can just amplify: some of those issues, particularly traffic,
environmental impacts and construction impacts, were actually
on the agenda for the first meeting, but we very much wanted to
use the first meting to explore how we could take things forward.
So with feedback we deliberately put them on the agenda for the
second meeting, but the second meeting did not really go very
smoothly, for reasons that I know you are aware of.
18351. As for the future, a further meeting
is convened, I think, for 6 February, next Tuesday.
(Mr Leeks) That is correct.
18352. We have put the agenda up. It is Tower
Hamlets AP3 604-001.[3]
To be held in the Women's Library, Old Castle Street. How do you
see taking forward an attempt to get the community involved? What
efforts have been made to engage other persons within the community
to try and get a better representation on the panel?
(Mr Leeks) Well, sir, this is
a difficulty. I felt, personally, at the end of the first meeting,
we were moving forward and it was a great disappointment when
a series of letters came to us that said no, I was wrong and we
were actually moving back. I felt obliged to move forward with
a second meeting, having committed at the first meeting that would
do our best to maintain the process. At the first meeting some
very specific concerns were put to us in the second half of the
meeting, after we discussed issues like the open meeting. Those
specific issues were about wanting to know more about traffic
impacts and environmental, so we wanted to look at those. I am
sorry, am I going off your question?
18353. What I would like you to focus on is,
given that there have been these difficulties to date, what is
being done to try and engage the community so you get better representation
on the panel and that you do manage to contact and have represented
a proper cross-section of the community, so that the panel is
made effective?
(Mr Leeks) I can only preface
it by saying we still do have a dilemma because we have many parts
of the community we want to engage with who, at the moment, are
saying they, for a variety of reasons you have heard, are not
comfortable with moving the process forward. What we have tried
to do, we have spoken to several members of the community privately
(if you do not mind I will not list them) to try and get a better
idea of what the concerns are and how we can move it forward.
We are also continuing to speak to the schools. The schools in
the area were specifically referred to by your Committee and they
have indicated to us that they have specific concerns and that
they would like to go on talking to us about those concerns. We
have encouraged them to think about joining the main panel but,
for a variety of their own related reasons, they would like to
go on talking to us in that group.
18354. You have got a sub-group for the schools.
(Mr Leeks) Correct.
18355. Has that met?
(Mr Leeks) Yes, it met—I
am sorry, I do not have the date in my head, my apologies—shortly
before Christmas, and it is due to meet, by coincidence, today.
18356. Is the existence of a sub-group your
decision, or is that at the request of the schools?
(Mr Leeks) The background
to that, sir, is that before the first meeting we did approach
the schools. I apologised at the time to the first panel meeting,
we unfortunately wrote to them in the week of half-term, I think
it was, and they did not respond. We then got hold of them again
and they indicated they would like to meet us but they had difficulties
with evening meetings. We believed having spoken to other stakeholders
that evening meetings were the best way forward for most people
who, of course, had other daytime commitments. So we ended up,
as I said, in early December with a daytime meeting with the four
main schools—one school could not attend—and we did
encourage them to join the main panel if they would wish to, particularly
perhaps to send a school governor who would be there in the evening.
18357. If the community does appoint its representatives
and you do get a representative cross-section, how do you see
Crossrail's role then being in relation to the panel? Does Crossrail
then intend to take a back seat? What would its relationship be
with the panel, if we can get that representation established?
(Mr Leeks) I would only
say take a back seat, sir, inasmuch as I feel quite strongly that
we should not chair it. I do not think that is the best way forward,
in terms of the panel and ourselves engaging and the community
engaging. I would hope they will choose their own chairman or
chairwoman. I offered at the first meeting, and I believe it was
accepted and we continue to do it, that if members wanted we would
provide full secretarial support, we would produce papers, we
would provide people to attend and answer questions. If they want,
we will book venues for them—venues are not that easy to
find, but we will help in that way.
18358. So Crossrail's role, if this panel can
be got up and running, will be to be consulted and for discussion
purposes; it will not be running the panel but it will provide
support for the panel in a practical and financial sense to help
it run itself.
(Mr Leeks) We are very much open to those suggestions
and that is what I hope we get at the first meeting.
18359. Mr Elvin: Thank you, Mr Leeks.
There may be some questions for you.
Cross-examined by Ms Cove
3 Crossrail Ref: P136, Crossrail Spitalfields Community
Liaison Panel Agenda, February 2007 (TOWHLB-AP3-6-04-001). Back
|
