Examination of Witnesses (Questions 21280
- 21299)
21280. Mr Kampfner: And then to find
a yard that has availability and the skills to do the work, it
may well take a considerable period of time—possibly from
now until at least two years in order to bring her back—in
the best case scenario.
21281. Chairman: Mr Berryman, would you
like to comment any further? I think all the questions have been
asked. I do not think you are coming back, Mr Mould.
21282. Mr Mould: No, I certainly do not
think so.
21283. Mr Kampfner: If I can just add
an additional point, which is that as part of this Heritage Lottery
bid, which is absolutely crucial for our long-term future, as
I am sure you will appreciate, a ship of that age is fragile.
She has not been out of the water for 20 years, and when we took
over the Maritime Trust had been looking after the superstructure
for 10 years in West India Dock, but the last time she had been
taken out of the water was in the early 1980s. We understand that
Heritage Lottery is very positive towards our project and very
supportive of our project, but obviously accessibility for disabled
users is an important issue. As part of our bid, we are working
with heritage consultants and the Heritage Lottery to understand
what access we can arrange for wheelchair and other mobility-impaired
users. We believe that the current understanding of heritage interpretation
today on a vessel of this type is that a solution, for instance,
such as the Cutty Sark, where an entrance was cut into
the side of the hull, is obviously not acceptable as it would
cause considerable damage to the heritage of the ship. We understand
that the way that access would be arranged on a vessel floating
in the dock might be through an interpretation centre on a pontoon,
perhaps, either on the side of the vessel or in the interpretation
centre close by the vessel, in which perhaps a multimedia experience
of the interior of the vessel would be displayed. This directly
impacts on any future mooring that we might be taken to because
our relationship with Heritage Lottery, obviously, is highly dependent
on where the vessel sits, and their concerns are that wheelchair
access and disabled access are taken into account.
(Mr Berryman) Sir, at the point that we are
looking at in South Dock (I know the Petitioner is not very keen
on that) there is already a form of access provided by the existing
footbridge which comes across that dock, which provides direct
access from the main Canary Wharf complex to that location. That
exists already. There would be room there for the mooring of a
pontoon as well.
21284. Chairman: I wonder if you could
give to Mr Berryman, and the Promoters, these ideas, and you could
have a word with British Waterways, and, again, a second note
on what it would propose for the future use of a pontoon.
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
21285. Mr Kampfner: Thank you, sir.
The witness withdrew
21286. Mr Mould: I am conscious of the
time, and I will be literally one minute. We have explained the
reasons why, in reality, the issue here is where to relocate to
rather than whether relocation is necessary. As regards where
to relocate to, we have explained our full commitment to using
our reasonable endeavours to finding alternative moorings for
the Petitioners, as we have with other vessels within West India
Dock. You have heard from the Petitioner and ourselves that both
British Waterways Board and Canary Wharf and other commercial
bodies in the area support the Robin and the work that
they do, and the Committee can draw some reassurance from that,
in my submission; you can be reassured that all will be looking
to do what they can, within reason, to find an appropriate alternative
location. Of course, that does not just mean a place, it means
somewhere which the Robin is able to work with and to continue
to carry out its work from during the period of the construction
works before it then comes back, which I understand it may, to
its current location. I think it is also important to bear in
mind that Crossrail, as a Promoter, is obviously committed, as
I have said, to use reasonable endeavours and within reason to
deal with the effects of the Crossrail project. No doubt that
point will be borne in mind by all when further discussion that
we have said we will gladly undertake (and Mr Berryman will be
writing to you about that) takes place in due course.
21287. Mr Kampfner: Can I just ask for
some clarification on something? I am unclear, after this meeting
today, on what our position is in terms of any kind of commitment.
21288. Chairman: What happens following
today is that the Committee as a whole meets on all these issues
and we will take decisions on the presentations which have been
made or the evidence which is asked for, because we have asked
for further notes to be sent to us. We will take all these things
into consideration and then we will take a view, and that will
be published as our response to the Bill.
21289. Mr Kampfner: Thank you, sir. If
we were to be offered a mooring which we felt would be completely
impossible for us to operate from, for instance—assuming
that were to be the position—what happens?
21290. Chairman: What we have to do is
to listen to the presentations made by yourselves and the Promoters
and any other evidence which you can gather en route, and we will
have to take a view one way or the other. At the end of the day,
we will come to a view. I give you fair notice that the Committee
is very limited in what it can do. For instance, we could not
say whether Crossrail will happen; we are directed by Parliament
for Crossrail to come into being. However, we do take all evidence
very, very seriously and take a view. Once we have taken that
view it will be published in due course.
21291. Mr Kampfner: Thank you, sir. Am
I okay to sum up? Thank you. Essentially, SS Robin, we
believe, is a major contribution to our merchant history and our
merchant navy. The legacy that she can potentially contribute
to East London's understanding of the history of Docklands is
immense and we are only at the beginning of that journey. We believe
that her location is absolutely essential and that visibility
and the awareness of the project are directly linked to her location,
historically as well as from a practical, transport and accessibility
point of view. We are only just starting to make an impact on
the local community in terms of the understanding that schools
have of the Docklands area, and the work that we have been doing
has been extremely successful in the last two or three years since
we started the education programme, and we believe that this is
something that can become an important part of East London's experience
of Docklands. We beg for your understanding that our location
is crucial in that contribution.
21292. Mrs Kampfner: Can I add finally,
as well, that the current location of West India Quay actually
provides the only source of sustainable revenue stream for our
charity. We have no government funding whatsoever. We are completely
reliant on donations from local businesses and, also, their use
in terms of private hire and functions on the ship, all the proceeds
of which go to the work we do with schools. Without that revenue
stream we will not have any money to keep the project going. Thank
you.
21293. Chairman: Thank you very much.
That concludes the second hearing today. We will now rise and
reconvene at 2.30.
After a short adjournment
21294. Chairman: Can I first of apologise
for being slightly late, but we were expecting a vote but that
will now take place around 3.20. If that happens we will suspend
the Committee while we go out and vote and then come back. The
Petition which we will hear is the final one today and is that
of the Residents Society of Mayfair and St. James. Mr Levaggi,
before you start, usually we get counsel to give us a summary
of where we are.
The Petition of the Residents' Society of Mayfair
and St James
Mr Levaggi appeared on behalf of the Petitioners
21295. Mr Levaggi: Sir, I was going to
do it myself but I am more than happy for counsel to do it.
21296. Ms Lieven: Sir, I am going to
make a summary which is that you have heard from these petitioners
on a number of occasions, you will recall the last time they attended
I made a brief submission as to why really they should be given
little if any further time, I am not going to read those submissions.
You will remember that their principal point was to promote an
alternative alignment north of Oxford Street known as the Wigmore
Street alignment. Mr Berryman has already given evidence once
to this Committee as to why that is not a sensible solution in
transport terms, but I do have him here, so if the Committee want
to hear that evidence again, we can call it again if necessary,
but I do not intend to open again and I will leave it up to the
Committee as to the time given to the Petitioner.
21297. Chairman: Mr Levaggi, before you
proceed, I know it was a bit problematic at the last hearing.
Just to reiterate two points, first of all, the alignment is set,
we are charged with seeing this thing through so we cannot go
and revisit that, that has been done and we really are quite firm
on repetition, so if you want to make a case alone on those slight
restrictions, you may.
21298. Mr Levaggi: Sir, yes, you wrote
to us on 14 March and you asked me to advise my clients to raise
issues which only genuinely relate to AP3 and Sir, in my submission
the evidence that we will present today does genuinely relate
to AP3. The main issue to be raised, which is the one which relates
to the costs and on the evidence provided by the Promoter, the
additional cost of AP3 on their case is £470 million. That
is practically £0.5 billion and the submissions we will make
and the evidence we will give today relates to whether or not
it is sensible to spend this £0.5 billion generated by the
third set of amendments and provisions so I would like to call
my first and only witness, Norman Winbourne.
Mr Norman Winbourne, recalled
Examined by Mr Levaggi
21299. Mr Levaggi: Could you advise me
whether it is necessary for Mr Winbourne to identify himself?
|
