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
| 
