Examination of Witnesses (Questions 21400
- 21419)
21400. Ms Lieven: You have already had
that and you have already heard why an alignment that goes north
of Oxford Street has all sorts of problems, both in terms of cost
of acquisition, which Mr Berryman said before was likely to be
comparable, and in terms of the fact that one would then be looking
at a whole series of different worksites which are likely themselves
to be highly controversial—Cavendish Square behind John
Lewis in Oxford Street is perhaps the obvious one, and Connaught
Square is not likely to be desperately popular as a worksite—a
whole series of worksite issues. However, most importantly, is
the point that Mr Berryman made before, which is that the stations
are in the wrong place for the passenger flow. Passengers want
to be in Oxford Street, and primarily to the south of Oxford Street;
running along Wigmore Street means much longer interchange times
and much less alignment in transport terms. We have dealt with
all that before, sir; I cannot see the Committee is going to be
helped (Day 24, just for the note) by that.
21401. There is one final point I would like
to make. Again, Mr Berryman could give evidence on this if necessary
but, in my submission, it is not appropriate, and that is the
suggestion that we have got a very expensive project and we simply
sit back and do not consider the cost of it. That is completely
wrong. The estimate of expense is a public document produced by
the Secretary of State to the House. However, all the time, behind
the scenes, we are working very, very hard on reducing costs.
The Committee will be conscious of that through the press attention
to Crossrail and the various announcements that have been made
recently. We are constantly reappraising costs and seeing how
we can cut them down. I would not want the Committee for one instant
to think that we just take however many billion it is and leave
it there, but it is not a matter that the Committee needs to engage
in. It does not go to the issues that are properly raised in Petitions.
Also, we are obviously not going to produce detailed cost breakdowns
of work because that is commercially confidential information
and it is likely to be very disadvantageous to us in a contracting
process and a tendering process if we revealed all our cost estimates
in the public domain. Sir, I only touch on that because I do not
want the committee to think that we are, as a project, or a Promoter,
insensitive to the issue of cost. Nothing could be further from
the case.
21402. So, sir, I am intending to leave it there,
unless the Committee feels the need to hear from Mr Berryman on
any points.
21403. Chairman: I do not think there
is any necessity for that, but I will say that Mr Levaggi said
he had to make a fist of his case, and he was actually arguing
financial data, and he has every right to Petition—
21404. Ms Lieven: Absolutely, sir.
21405. Mr Levaggi: First, dealing with
the issue as to whether or not the Petitioners have the right
to raise the issues in their Petition, my learned friend makes
the point well that the Petitioners have standing to make this
Petition because they are residents in the affected area. So if
they have standing they have the right to petition in relation
to any relevant issues, and surely the issue of costs is a relevant
issue. It is, surely, of interest to them how much this is going
to cost. It might not be the case, if somebody in Manchester wanted
to petition on the basis of the cost of this project; that that
person might have the requisite standing, but my clients do, and
I think Ms Lieven has accepted that, in reality. Much of this
does come down to costs. It comes down to costs and it comes down
to a proper consideration of alternative alignments, not a continuous
assessment of what they regard as a done deal, but a proper consideration
by way of comparable evidence of the cost of alternatives. That
must be the case in relation to any transaction in the country,
whether it is a business transaction or whether it is a private
transaction. Why should it not be the case in relation to a project
that will cost £7.9 billion? It must be the case. That £7.9
billion might be wrong. It is a very, very expensive project.
21406. Sir, those are my submissions and they
are the submissions of the Petitioners on the Residents' Society
of Mayfair and St James. Finally, we have made points other than
on costs. Without recalling Mr Winbourne to go over those points
again, there were points made about disturbance and whether or
not the positioning of escalators and that sort of thing could
be improved. I heard those points; those points will be on the
transcript. They are my submissions.
21407. Chairman: Thank you very much,
Mr Levaggi.
21408. Mr Elvin: Sir, I have circulated
a set of written closing submissions, for a number of reasons:
one, it picks up a number of common themes and, two, it responds
to a number of common points that have been raised by the Petitioners
over the last 14 months. Whilst we are not absolutely at the end
of the Committee process we are largely at the end of the Committee
process, subject to a few items of business which will be dealt
with after Easter.
21409. Sir, the purpose of these submissions,
therefore, following the completion of the hearings into the Petitions
against the Crossrail Bill and the three sets of Additional Provisions,
is to cover general points and themes which have occurred in respect
of a number of the Petitions present, although of course, as I
have just said, it is not the conclusion of the Committee hearing.
It is not the intention to repeat submissions and evidence made
on the specifics of individual Petitions which have been dealt
with at the time of the hearing of each of those individual Petitions.
The Committee, of course, is referred back to those submissions
and to the general opening which I made, good heavens, back on
17 January last year. How time flies.
21410. During the course of the Bill three sets
of Additional Provisions have been deposited with the Private
Bill Office, so far, together with Environmental Statements for
the APs and SESs as well, and fall to be considered in accordance
with the instructions of the House. I just remind you: AP1 was
deposited on 18 January 2006; AP2 9 May 2006 and AP3 7 November
2006. The amendments introduced by the APs were the subject of
submissions which I made on 18 January of this year, Day 66, at
the paragraph numbers set out in the note. Since the issue of
a station at Woolwich remains to be dealt with following last
week's statement by the Secretary of State, it is not proposed
to make a formal presentation of the filled Bill now but to leave
that until the final conclusion of the Committee hearings.
21411. Sir, I do not know whether you want to
give this document a document number.
21412. Chairman: Are you going to read
it entirely or not?
21413. Mr Elvin: No.
21414. Chairman: A247.
21415. Mr Elvin: Sir, if I can ask for
your guidance on this: it is divided into two parts, having just
introduced it. There are some detailed notes at the end on technical
matters such as Environmental Impact Assessments and environmental
information in the Åarhus Convention, which I was not proposing
to read out but to simply lay as submissions in documentary form.
I am going to summarise them for the moment, but it did seem to
me it would be easier for the Committee if I simply took you through
these submissions as briefly as possible, because the written
document is available and we will put it on the website so it
will be available for anyone else to see, rather than simply wearying
you with too long a recitation.
21416. Chairman: That is helpful.
21417. Mr Elvin: So, sir, running as
quickly as I can then through the main headings, the first one
is "Crossrail: the need for it and its benefits". The
position is set out in the main Environmental Statement Chapter
4. Taking you back 14 months, to the first day, Crossrail is a
major new cross-London rail link project to serve London and the
south-east of England. It will support and maintain the status
of London as a World City by providing a world-class transport
system. It will be a significant and essential addition to London's
transport infrastructure and the south-east of England and will
deliver a number of important benefits: firstly, a fast, efficient
and convenient rail access to the West End and the City by linking
the existing routes from Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east
with Maidenhead and Heathrow in the west.
21418. Secondly, improved services for rail
users through the relief of overcrowding, faster journeys and
the provision of a range of new direct journey opportunities.
Wider social and economic benefits not only for London, including
the regeneration of areas such as Docklands and Thames Gateway,
and also for the south east of the UK as a whole. The key objectives
are, therefore: to support the development of London as a World
City and its role as a financial centre of Europe and the United
Kingdom; secondly, to support the economic growth of London and
its regeneration areas by tackling congestion and the lack of
capacity on the existing rail network, and, thirdly, to improve
rail access into and within London.
21419. It will achieve these objectives by addressing
problems of inadequate capacity on the national rail and London
Underground networks, by improving accessibility to regeneration
areas, and by providing transport capacity for the growth expected
for London. This is not at the expense of regional services, such
as to the south-west and to Wales. Crossrail services will use
only the slow lines, as you may recall, during normal operation,
not the fast lines into Paddington and to Liverpool Station that
regional services use.
|
