Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20980
- 20999)
20980. So far as Popular is concerned, certainly
any solution for the Popular boat owners staying in the West India
Quay complex as a whole turns on British Waterways. I cannot speak
as to how completely robust their position on Millwall Dock is,
we just cannot tell; but if there is going to be a solution for
Popular it totally depends on British Waterways.
20981. Sir, that is not an absolutely straight
answer to the question but I hope you get the general impression
of it.
20982. Mr Binley: Yes, I have read between
the lines. My second question is, I am really concerned about
the people involved here, it seems to me that time is beginning
to be of the essence, and I just want to be assured that these
good people can come back to us if things do not work out as you
intimate you hope they will do. How can that fit in with this
process?
20983. Ms Lieven: Sir, obviously we hope
we are beginning to draw to a close the committee hearings in
this House.
20984. Mr Binley: We hope so too!
20985. Ms Lieven: There is no question
whatsoever that these Petitioners can come back in another place
and raise the concerns. I think I should say, sir, and again Mr
Berryman or somebody else will tug my gown if I have got this
wrong, part of the difficulty we have here is timing. We all know,
it is not a secret, that there is not a fixed date for Crossrail
works to begin. Around Canary Wharf the Committee will know from
their site visit, but also from their knowledge, there are a lot
of building works going ahead at different times. There is the
North Quay development; there are things happening at Heron Quay;
you will hear on Thursday or next week about things happening
at Wood Walk. Opportunities open up and then they close down again
if something changes. It may well be that one absolutely fixed
solution is not decided on by the time we leave Parliament altogether;
but we are hoping to narrow down the options and to tie the third
parties, in particular Canary Wharf and British Waterways, to
some clear commitment.
20986. Sir, in terms of coming back, obviously
until this Committee is finally closed they can come back here;
but, probably more importantly, they can come back in another
place if the boat owners feel that we have not done all that we
should.
20987. Mr Binley: I am concerned about
the vagueness of their recourse to action by the boat owners.
That does concern me. My view of this whole thing has been that
the Promoters are the interlopers into existing sites, existing
businesses and existing homes. Consequently the Promoters need
to go way out of their way to ensure that the people disaffected
by the project (which is supposedly for the good of the people
of this country, locals specifically) should not be so disaffected.
I have not heard from you how we might guarantee that for these
people?
20988. Ms Lieven: Sir, it is a difficult
one here. We absolutely accept the need to do what can be done
for these people. There is no equivocation on this. I put this
one into Mr Mould's famous speech about the Stepney Green church.
We will do everything we can but unfortunately in this one, unlike
some where it is simply a question of handing over some cash or
digging a bigger hole, we are ultimately at the say-so of other
parties; because we cannot simply say, "We'll solve your
problem and we'll move you to Middle Branch". We will commit
to doing everything we can in terms of talking to third parties.
It is very helpful if the Committee makes its view very clear
because that helps us with third parties.
20989. Mr Binley: Just one more question
I do apologise but I am concerned. I recognise the ever-changing
nature of this whole development site, because that is what it
is, and the development is only part completed. I recognise there
are opportunities open which are closed within a very short time;
and I recognise that big, great tower blocks often take precedence
over what are very small people in little boats—and I do
not mean that in any rude sense at all.
20990. Is there not a way, at the very end of
the day, within a given timeframe, that Crossrail will need to
fully and properly compensate these people if that becomes necessary
and that that compensation sits way outside the code? Is there
an undertaking that can deal with that?
20991. Ms Lieven: Sir, there is an entitlement
to compensation in the Act under the Bill for interference with
private rights of navigation. There is no possible question that
these people's private rights of navigation—
20992. Mr Binley: I think you misunderstood
my question. I want you to tell me something different and something
special. Are you people going to do that?
20993. Ms Lieven: Sir, I can tell you
the something special, because there is a specific clause in the
Bill about private rights of navigation which is specific to Crossrail,
so there will be compensation available. The precise extent of
that compensation very much depends on exactly what is claimed,
and on the legal basis of what is claimed. Sir, that is as far
as I can go. Obviously if the Committee wants us to go further
then the Committee can say so.
20994. Can I say, sir, I do not understand.
In all our discussions with the commercial ship owners I do not
think their primary concern is compensation.
20995. Mr Binley: I recognise that.
20996. Ms Lieven: They want a good alternative
mooring, and we are doing everything we can to achieve good alternative
mooring; but behind that there is the safety net of their right
to compensation.
20997. Chairman: I really need your advice
here. I am a great believer in the fact that commonsense usually
prevails at the end of the day. Taking you back to your statement
a little bit earlier about the position of British Waterways being
helpful in this matter, it is true to say that this Committee
does not have the powers to order them to come before the Committee.
Can you advise me, what if this Committee were minded (and I am
saying this because I want it on the record) to recommend that
the Promoters compulsorily acquire the dock or have reason to?
Would that be possible within the remit of the powers of the Committee?
20998. Ms Lieven: Sir, there are two
different docks which we are talking about. So far as Middle Branch
Dock is concerned, I do not know the detail of where is being
proposed—I know it is Middle Branch Dock but I do not know
exactly where and I do not know exactly how it interfaces with
Canary Wharf Group's development aspiration—but I think
both us and Canary Wharf Group would be very, very unhappy with
some kind of blanket recommendation that we promote an additional
provision to compulsorily purchase land there, because it could
have truly knock-on effects on development rights there.
20999. Sir, what I know of the discussion yesterday,
I think with a fair wind and a bit of assistance from the Committee
in terms of talking—
| 
