Examination of Witnesses (Questions 21080
- 21099)
21080. Mr Whale: I appreciate that.
21081. Mr Elvin: Can I raise a couple
of points, sir?
21082. Chairman: Yes.
21083. Mr Elvin: Mr Whale simply fails
to understand what the position is here, with respect. Clearly
the Committee will judge for itself in a moment with Mr Schabas,
but can I just make three short points and ask the Committee to
keep these in mind?
21084. Firstly, Mr Whale simply has not grappled
with the point you made very clear in your letter, that the issue
of the alignments is part of the principle of the Bill and Mr
Schabas is only being called to deal with the alignments issue.
If that is what he is doing he is asking him to go against the
Committee's view that this is a Bill principle issue approved
on Second Reading.
21085. Chairman: Can I respond? What
has just been said to the Committee is that he is not going to
talk about the alignment and not going to repeat the allegations.
21086. Mr Elvin: He has not told you
he is not going to talk about the alignment. Mr Whale has failed
to understand your first point in your letter about the principle
of the Bill. Clearly we ought to try and see what happens but
I am just asking you to bear that in mind.
21087. The other point I would like you to bear
in mind, and clearly you will reach your own view on this, sir,
is that Pedley Street is not part of AP3. It was a non-hybridising
amendment. The removal of Pedley Street did not require an AP;
it is not dealt with in the AP3; it is a non-hybridising amendment
made in the context of the third supplementary Environmental Statement;
therefore issues arising from Pedley street do not come into AP3
and the issue of the alignment and the location of Hanbury Street
has nothing to do with AP3. The alignment is fixed to other factors
and, as the Committee well knows, the Hanbury Street shaft was
selected for reasons which are gone through in detail in the ES,
and you made your decision.
21088. Chairman: We are not going to
revisit Hanbury Street; we have taken evidence and a decision
on that.
21089. Mr Elvin: Absolutely. Thank you,
sir.
21090. Chairman: Mr Whale?
21091. Mr Whale: Thank you, sir. I do
think it is proper for me to say to you that I cannot pretend
that if I call Mr Schabas he is not going to talk about alignments.
Mr Elvin, in fairness to him, is entitled to have me say that.
It is not a case of me not grappling with your letter. As I explained
in my submissions a moment ago, I submit that this Committee in
this House would want to be satisfied that, whatever alignment
might have been chosen or whatever terms might have been provided
to you, that had been done in a way that was both adequate and
lawful and, secondly, the Association is responding directly to
an undertaking that the Promoter gave that it would look at a
southern alignment.
21092. Mr Elvin: Just to help you, what
we said we would do is we would issue further environmental information
on the alignments. That is nothing to do with AP3—
21093. Chairman: I understand.
21094. Mr Elvin: —it is in SES3.
21095. Chairman: Yes. Mr Whale, we have
dealt with the alignment issue; it is not within AP3 and we are
not going down that route today. It is not within the provisions
we are asking for and which your clients have petitioned on. It
is only matters within AP3 that they have asked to come to this
hearing on, so let us hear their case. Changing the alignment
is not in the provision.
21096. Mr Whale: Could I beg your indulgence
further with two minutes' adjournment so that my client can just
take stock of what has been said about Mr Schabas and what he
may or may not say, and what you have just said?
21097. Chairman: Yes. Two minutes.
After a short break
21098. Chairman: Mr Whale?
21099. Mr Whale: If I may call Mr Schabas,
please.
Mr Michael Schabas, recalled
Examined by Mr Whale
| 
