Examination of Witnesses (Questions 18840
- 18859)
18840. Chairman: Can I also say I am
unhappy about the arrangement which we are having to make—
18841. Mr Elvin: I will say no more at
this stage.
18842. Mr Carpenter: I would like to
put that on the screen, which is the map you are familiar with
from yesterday.[4]
Mr Michael Schabas, recalled
Examined by Mr Carpenter
18843. Mr Carpenter: This is the map
which shows the alignment A, B and C from the 2000 report. I would
like to ask Michael Schabas to tell us a bit about himself.
(Mr Schabas) I think you know me already.
18844. Chairman: If your witness is an
expert I would like to know the depth of that expertise.
(Mr Schabas) I will refresh the Committee's
memory. I was here earlier. My training originally was as a Masters
in Transport Planning at Harvard University and worked in a major
role on rail projects in Vancouver, London, the Jubilee Line Extension—
18845. Mr Elvin: I do apologise. I cannot
hear what the witness is saying.
(Mr Schabas) I will speak
louder. My name is Michael Schabas, I have a Masters in Transport
Planning from Harvard University. I worked on rapid transport
projects in Vancouver, the Sky Train, Honolulu, came here to work
on the Jubilee Line Extension, actually, to conceive and develop
the project and promote it in this Committee room. I have worked
on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, I am a Director of two operating
railway companies in Britain, but I am not speaking on behalf
of any of those organisations, I am speaking in a personal capacity
as an expert witness for the WH Residents' Association.
18846. Chairman: I think that is sufficient.
You have been before but it is a question of we have got to have
this down because there are sometimes people with the same name,
you see.
(Mr Schabas) I have not
found anybody with the same name yet, but you are absolutely right.
I am sorry, I do not have a prepared speech because I believe
the Committee does not want people to read long statements, so
I will try to keep it as brief as possible.
18847. Chairman: That is always our hope.
18848. Mr Carpenter: Could you tell us
how the CTRL, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, compares with Crossrail
in your experience?
(Mr Schabas) Sure. I got
involved in CTRL in this room actually. I was advising Newham
Council on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link project and observed that
one of the most expensive and difficult parts of the project was
the terminal station which was then going to be at King's Cross.
It was a separate building promoted by British Rail in this room.
The Channel Tunnel Rail Link project at the time was like the
Crossrail project, it was a project that had strong political
support but no money. I observed that you could make the project
cheaper by going into St Pancras. The King's Cross residents were
quite keen on that idea because it would save their neighbourhood.
The British Rail QC was very critical and said it was impossible,
they had looked at alternatives and you could not do it. I think
people know what actually happened. Channel Tunnel Rail Link was
run by a separate part of BR, it was not an organisation that
had someone at the top who ruled everything with a tight fist.
18849. Chairman: Can I just stop you
there. It is very, very important that we stick to two things.
One is we have got to relate it to Crossrail directly.
(Mr Schabas) I am just getting
there.
18850. Chairman: I could look at the
French railway system and link that to the Channel Tunnel, you
can go as far as you want to go. You need to stick to what we
are discussing. The reason why I applied the ruling to allow this
case to be made was that there were certain statements, accusations
made about the wrongdoings that have occurred in relation to this
project. That is what I want to concentrate on. I want to concentrate
on the AP3 and those accusations. We cannot go wider on that.
(Mr Schabas) Mr Mould said
a few minutes ago that they studied alternatives carefully and
in detail. I believe that is not correct. They should do that
and on CTRL we did that. We knew we were fighting an uphill battle
to get our scheme through Parliament and to get it funded, just
like Crossrail, and we said we did not really care that much which
side of any building we went down, we wanted to get there so we
would look at every alternative anybody could think of, and we
looked at hundreds, thousands of alternatives.
18851. Mr Binley: Chairman, can I just
ask through you. so that I understand, are we talking about differences
that have occurred since this matter was first discussed before
this Committee?
(Mr Schabas) I think we
are discussing the relevance of this drawing here.
18852. Mr Binley: I would like to know
this. Are we talking about matters that have changed since this
matter was first discussed or are you having a second bite of
the cherry? I would just like to know that.
18853. Mr Carpenter: These matters have
changed because we had not had AP3 when we last petitioned so
we did not know the details and we had not had SES3.
18854. Mr Elvin: Mr Binley, if I can
assist you, the alignment has not changed.
(Mr Schabas) I think it
may be not a second bite of the cherry to the extent about what
this drawing reveals and points to about Heron House, it is something
about the process. This drawing was not available to them before
and they assumed, I guess, that they had carefully and in detail
looked at the alternatives. They brought me this drawing recently,
and the text that went with it, and I was frankly appalled because
I could see that—Sorry. In 2001 I met Mr Berryman and said,
" You need to look at alternatives" and he said, "No,
we are going to build the safeguarded scheme because the politicians
want us to start building within two years and there is not time
to look at alternatives". He told me that. He can correct
me if he wants.
18855. Chairman: Mr Schabas, I am very
unhappy with this one. I am very unhappy about this this morning
and whether or not it is actually relevant and can be allowed.
What I am going to do is suspend this hearing to take advice for
a few moments and I would ask the public and everybody to leave
the room.
Counsel and parties were ordered to withdraw
and, after a short time, were again called in.
18856. Chairman: We are a bit perturbed
about the presentation this morning of the second witness. What
we have decided to do, Mr Carpenter, is this: we have taken your
evidence from the first witness and we will not be revisiting
that at all; however we are not willing to hear the case which
you are making in relation to your expert.
18857. We have listened to the accusations in
the statement which you made earlier and we are giving you the
opportunity to go away from here and write to the Committee with
those accusations in a statement, with evidence which you may
have, which the Committee will then review and, if necessary,
call a further meeting with you and your witness and hear that
evidence.
18858. We view this matter very, very seriously
but we have to point out to you that so far the case that you
have been making in relation to your second witness seems not
to be relevant at all to the AP3. It is up to you to make that
case in the evidence which you gather and if you so present it
to the Committee.
18859. There are very serious accusations which
are being levelled and we cannot avoid that, therefore we are
giving you the opportunity to present us with that in the future.
We are suspending any further hearing on this matter other than
if you wish to sum up in relation to the earlier evidence of the
previous witness.
4 Committee Ref: A212, Liverpool Street to Burdett
Road-Alignment Options A, B and C (A and B under Ansell House)
(SCN-20070131-001). Back
| 
