Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 21040 - 21059)

  21040. Mr Whale: Yes. All I would ask at the moment is for me to explain to you why it is referable to AP3. Mr Elvin may say he is not persuaded and then it will obviously be a matter for you and your Members.

  21041. So far as the letter goes, I have just one or two introductory observations. The letter seeks, in a sense, to respond to representations both of my Association and the SSBA who obviously are formerly separate formerly separate Petitioners. I can understand why the letter seeks to address both the representations but that distinction ought not to be lost on you.

  21042. At the foot of the third page there is a reference to an allegation by Mr Schabas as against Mr Berryman and the letter goes on to conclude at the foot of that page that you have already heard Mr Berryman's evidence and rejected Mr Schabas' assertion. For my own part, I cannot see how that conclusion has been reached. Yes, you have heard from Mr Berryman but where the rejection comes from, I know not. Be that as it may, on the last occasion Mr Schabas was in the middle of his evidence when proceedings when suspended. You invited him to write to the Committee, which he has done. To my mind that does not sit well with a submission that his evidence has already been rejected.

  21043. What I had in mind this evening was for Mr Schabas, in a sense, to try and make good his allegation. He can be cross-examined by my learned friend, Mr Elvin, and can be asked questions by Members.

  21044. There is a presumption at the top of the fourth page as to advice that may or may not have been given by previous counsel for the Association. The Association are content for me to say to you that that presumption is misplaced.

  21045. Can I then turn to why, in the Association's view, its petition is directly referable to AP3? Those are the matters of substance that I alluded to a moment ago. The first point is that there is, as a result of very recently disclosed material, that is to say, and you have it in your bundle, a map. This might be an opportune time to have a look at that.

  21046. Chairman: We will list this as A243.

  21047. Mr Whale: For the moment I do not think we need to put the map on the screen, I just simply want to advert to it and the date of its production. This is drawing A00/4 revision A which shows a number of alignments for the track. This was supplied to the Association on 24 January of this year. Their position is that this goes to the adequacy of both the Supplementary Environmental Statement and Crossrail's consideration of other routes. It is really two points: firstly the adequacy but, secondly, the fact that it has only been disclosed so very recently. The Promoter had promised to consider the southern route. The Association's position is that has not been done adequately or at all and this map is referable to that.

  21048. The next point is that the Pedley Street tunnel worksite has been excluded and the Association's position is that has major implications for two things: firstly, the case for going through Spitalfields at all and, secondly, the need for a shaft in Hanbury Street.

  21049. In your letter of 14 March 2007, Sir, if we might take that up, and again that is in the bundle, you very correctly reminded the Association on the purpose of the proceedings and you said that the general alignment of the tunnel and stations are part of the principle of the Bill and in my submission that reference to a general alignment does not preclude some consideration of other alignments.[13] Limits of deviation have not been identified. I understand there has been an interim finding on the Hanbury Street site but no report to the House as such on that.


  21050. The remit of this Committee is to consider petitions, which obviously plainly you are doing, and to report recommendations including as to compromise, and the Association's case on the alternative routes or the adequacy of the exercise to discount them, goes to the subject of compromise.

  21051. Just as a matter of procedure and fairness, in my submission the House and this Committee ought to be concerned to ensure that the Environmental Statement of the Promoter complies with the relevant regulations and does what it is supposed to do. There is in the bundle for tonight advice from other counsel which says it is not adequate and this is an issue that the Committee ought to countenance.

  21052. I understand, and I have seen the transcript of it, that on Day 74 of this Bill on 21 February 2007 the Promoter sought to submit that the petition of the Residents' Society of Mayfair and St James ought not to be considered for very similar reasons to those that had been advanced today. Mr McCracken QC, who was representing the Petitioners, put forward a number of points and I would like to adopt those. The first is that this is a petition by a group of residents whose homes and area are affected. Mr McCracken submitted, and again I adopt, that you should be very cautious, very cautious indeed, before refusing to hear the Petitioners. You have afforded them the chance to return, they are grateful for that, there are witnesses here, and they say their evidence is directly referable to AP3 and you ought to at least give them the chance to put that case before you.

  21053. As I have already said, you suspended the hearing on 31 January because of, on the face of it, a serious allegation. Mr Schabas is here and, as I have said, he can be questioned by you under oath and by the Promoter; that has not happened before.

  21054. The Association already nurses a sense of grievance as to the consultation exercise by the London borough of Tower Hamlets; that I know is not the responsibility of the Committee. That grievance would be compounded if they were to be shut out and, if I may say so, particularly in circumstances where, on my feet so to speak, I on their behalf am having to address a letter that was not forwarded to them and was apparently sent some two weeks or so ago. Those factors all militate in favour of giving them this opportunity to say to you why AP3 is directly an issue.

  21055. Chairman: Can I respond, before you go on further? In relation to the letter I accept that and I have already issued apologies on behalf of the Committee.

  21056. Mr Whale: I am grateful for that.

  21057. Chairman: I think we can deal with it in that respect. What I am going to do is, at the end of this hearing, if you want to write a letter to this Committee in response to that letter, then we will take that as evidence. I think that is reasonable.

  21058. Mr Whale: Would that be instead of evidence tonight or as well as?

  21059. Chairman: No. You can go away from here and write a letter in response to the Committee. That is not instead of.


13   Committee Ref: A243, Correspondence from the Chairman to Woodseer and Hanbury Residents Association, 14 March 2007 (SCN-20070320-012). Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007