|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 235-ii HOUSE OF COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE taken before the on the Wednesday 17 January 2007 Before: Mr Alan Meale, in the Chair Mr Brian Binley Kelvin Hopkins Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger Sir Peter Soulsby
Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in. 17919. CHAIRMAN: Can I, firstly, say to everybody that all the Committee Members wish everybody a happy anniversary. Contrary to what Mr Elvin said yesterday, the anniversary, 17 January, is today, although some of us have been on punishment for much longer. 17920. MR ELVIN: I have been on punishment for over two years. 17921. MR BINLEY: You have borne it very well, Mr Elvin. 17922. MR ELVIN: I did have hair before we started. 17923. CHAIRMAN: Just to remind members of various organisations and the public that it is my intention to suspend the Committee at about 11.45 or sooner, if that is possible, so that Members can go off and prepare themselves for Prime Minister's Questions. If necessary, we will resume this afternoon. Just to remind everybody here that coffee is available around about that time in the corridor.
The Petitions of Eleanor Ferguson, Mr Gerald Collins and Ms Mona Hatoum and Caroline Hamilton.
MS ELEANOR FERGUSON appeared in person.
17924. MR ELVIN: Thank you, sir. Sir, the way things have worked out I think you are left with only two sets of Petitioners today. The first is the return of Ms Ferguson and the Princelet Street occupiers at 61 Princelet Street. Can I just remind the Committee of the location and the interim decision. You will recall that the Princelet Street properties are on the right-hand side, the purple line, and they are those the Committee considered would be extraordinarily affected in noise terms by the Hanbury Street shaft. 17925. Can I remind the Committee of the interim decision and our response to it? I have extracted from the transcript. The top is the interim decision of the Committee announced by Mr Meale on 25 July, which is that we should take steps to ensure properties are compulsorily purchased and to provide the Petitioners with individual letters of comfort guaranteeing the flats will be bought before the work begins. Ms Lieven, on behalf of the Secretary of State, accepted that, on 11 October, saying we would, in the event of the shaft being constructed at Hanbury Street, broadly as proposed, purchase the properties no sooner than nine months before the shaft works begin. 17926. Can I say to the Committee, if the exhibit can be put up, that letters were written to each three sets of occupiers on 11 October. They were written in the same terms to each of the three sets of Petitioners. What they were told was, notwithstanding the various terms of the hardship policy they would be deemed to have satisfied, notice would be given nine months before the commencement of works and that outright purchase would occur nine months before the commencement at Hanbury Street. We will pay advance compensation on the occupier's own estimate, subject of course to the matter then going to a Lands Tribunal. 17927. What we have not done - and I think this is the bone of contention this morning and this is not something the Committee asked us to do (we consider we have done exactly what the Committee asked us to do) - is I understand that the Petitioners would like us to purchase outright now, even though funding for the works has yet to be secured and Royal Assent has yet to be secured. As far as the Department is concerned, we have made an offer in terms which meets the Committee's interim decision. Of course, it is the works which cause the difficulty, and our position is, simply, that an offer to purchase outright, regardless of the terms of the hardship policy, nine months before the works begin, with no notice being given, adequately satisfies the exceptional circumstances identified by the Committee. 17928. CHAIRMAN: Before we proceed, could I ask one question of you, Mr Elvin. We have made our decision, which is very, very clear. Until the Bill is achieved are there any circumstances where it would be right, because there is no money until the Bill ---- 17929. MR ELVIN: As you know, and the issue was raised at the last debate in the House, the issue of funding remains to be determined by the Government. Of course, it is the works themselves which cause the problem. There is the hardship policy, outside this offer, and if the hardship policy were met in advance of those nine months, of course, it would continue to apply if it were relevant in these circumstances. We have waived all of that with the nine month-period the Committee asked us to do. As I say, I am not sure there is anything much left for me to say. We think we have met the Committee's requirements. 17930. CHAIRMAN: Ms Eleanor Ferguson, are you representing all of you? 17931. MS FERGUSON: Yes, I am speaking on behalf of Mona Hatoum, Gerry and Caroline. Can I say at the outset that we are very pleased and thankful for the Committee's recognition that we are extraordinarily affected by the works at Hanbury Street? We are also very pleased that this has been taken on board by Crossrail. Just to pick up on a couple of points before I come on to some other issues that my friend here has made, he has said that it is just the works that cause the problem. That is one thing I would take issue with. He has also said that we are asking for the properties to be bought now before Royal Assent. That has never been our position; our position has been that what we are asking for should take effect once - obviously, nobody knows whether it will ever turn into an Act or whatever - the Bill has received Royal Assent. We are not asking for anything in advance of that. 17932. The position as we see it is that whilst there is this recognition that we are extraordinarily affected and there should be compulsory purchase, when the Committee made their ruling the wording that was used was that it should be compulsorily purchased before the work begins. Crossrail have chosen to interpret this as, essentially, a restatement of hardship policy. In other words, nothing at all will happen until nine months before the work actually starts. That pre-supposes that the work does start at some unknown date in the future. It means that the effect for all three of us is that if there is no funding - and this has been raised - or if funding is delayed for five years, ten years, 20 years, however long it may be, bearing in mind we have already been in this position since 2003 (our anniversary is not a year ago today as it is for some people here, our anniversary starts back in 2003) and we have been unable to do anything with these properties. 17933. Things have moved on a little bit to the extent that there is this recognition that if - if - the work goes ahead, if it goes ahead at the Hanbury Street shaft (and I will come back to some of the wording in the letter in a minute) we are fundamentally in the position where the effect of this letter, as it stands at the moment, is that if there is no funding for this project, or if it takes five years, ten, 20 or 30 years to go ahead, we will not be able to sell these properties unless we can show hardship because of divorce, hardship because of illness or we need to move to a different or bigger premises. Those will be the only reasons in which we can move. That means we cannot sell on the open market; the undertaking, such as it is, is personal to us, so even if we were in a position to find somebody to take it on the undertaking would not transfer. In the underlying documentation from Crossrail they have made it quite clear that anyone buying in knowledge of the Crossrail proposals now would not be eligible for even hardship policy. Effectively, that puts it out of the equation. 17934. What this letter constitutes is, in our opinion, a very woolly assurance that is couched in very woolly language. It is not a compulsory purchase order on the back of which we would be able to serve a blight notice to bring things forward. It is not a situation where the properties are required for the project, albeit that the value of the recognition that we are extraordinarily affected is that we are a sound barrier for the rest of the work that is carrying on. Somehow, bizarrely, that seems to equate in Crossrail's terms to a building that is not required for the project. 17935. So, in all of these circumstances, all of us who bought in good faith - and I can give you my personal position: I bought in 2001. I did what all purchasers do; I did all my searches, did all the things you are supposed to do, I got a letter from Transport for London saying: "No, no, you are not affected." On the basis of that, I went ahead and bought the property, as did Caroline and Gerry who bought earlier than I did. That was in 2001 and that was because the route at that time was a different route. Crossrail changed their mind in 2003, so that they are singing a different song. So, all of a sudden, all of these assurances, all of this work that we have done, in buying with good faith and with searches, is negated, and a new route is brought into force, the route is then safeguarded and that, effectively, kills off our options for selling. 17936. It has never been the position of all three of us that we are saying that this project should not go ahead - that has never been our position. What we are saying is that this is a government project, if the government wants it to go ahead that is fine but we feel that we should not be sacrificed - in other words the few for the greater good of the project - and that there should be meaningful and real compensation. All of us buy houses, a lot of us buy houses and we are in a situation where we tie up quite a lot of capital in it. Why should we not be able to sell it just because we want to sell it? Whereas we are now locked into a situation where we do not know if this project will go ahead, if there will be funding. We do not know, even if it does, when this will be, or what any of our circumstances will be in five, ten or 20 years' time, or anything like that. So we are now left in this, in our view, iniquitous position where you are, effectively, stuck. 17937. The wording that was used by the Committee in the initial ruling was "before the work begins". "Before the work begins" can mean anything from the day after Royal Assent right up until nine months before the project commences. What we are asking for is that when the actual Bill gets Royal Assent, if indeed it does, that we would be in a position to require Crossrail to purchase the properties. We do not feel that we are asking for anything at all unreasonable; we are simply asking for the freedom to do with our property exactly what we would want to do, as any other buyer of property would do, whereas, at the moment, we are locked into their precise conditions; we are very much at the mercy of Crossrail and the mercy of funding that may or may not happen. So that is our essential position. 17938. If you look also at the letter that Crossrail have written to all three of us, it is couched in incredibly (I cannot think of another way of putting it), in our view, woolly terms with caveats everywhere. What they are saying is that: "In recognition of the Committee's request, where, after further review, there remains a continuing need to carry out the works at Hanbury Street, broadly as currently proposed" they confirm that they will pass on to somebody else and somebody else will then buy. So they are building into this, even at this early stage, the caveat that: "Well, who is going to say 'as currently proposed'?" Who is going to say how much it has changed? Are we going to have to come back at some future date and re-argue the toss? 17939. This is further emphasised on the second page of the letter when they say: "The Promoter considers that the above achieves the Committee's objective whilst allowing Crossrail flexibility to refine its design in the hope of reducing or removing the impact of any works to the extent you may continue in occupation." So it seems that flexibility lies on the side of Crossrail but very little, in fact no, flexibility lies on the side of the three of us, and we are, effectively, cooped in at the whim of Crossrail and unable to really make any progress other than if Crossrail give us a tick in the box and say: "That is what we can do". That, in a nutshell, is our view. 17940. The other point, and it is really a side issue, is that they are talking about giving us notice from the date nine months before the work is due to begin. I think others, for example, EMI Limited, have been given indicators that they will be told of the position as soon as the funding notice comes through. Our main position - what we are actually asking for - is the ability to require Crossrail to buy these properties once Royal Assent comes through. I think there should be some equity in the actual way everybody is treated, and that it should not be a case of: "Hold off to the last minute and then perhaps we will tell them at 61 what is happening". There should be a position where we are given much, much more notice. If you were not minded to go along the lines of exactly what we are asking for in the purchase at Royal Assent, perhaps we should be looking at something whereby if nothing happens within five years then they buy the properties. We are asking for certainty; we are asking for something that will allow us to make some cut-off point in our lives where we know exactly what is happening. We are not in a position to do that and this could go on indefinitely in the position we are in at the moment. I am happy to answer any other questions, but that, broadly, is the position that we find ourselves in. Whilst we are grateful for the movement and the recognition of the need for compulsory purchase, we are asking the Committee to take it a little bit further. We are three people in the scheme of a very, very, very large project and if I was to ask either of my colleagues Mr Lewis or Mr Elvin to sit where I am sitting, I have a funny feeling they might agree with exactly what I am saying. 17941. MR ELVIN: I am afraid I do not. Can I just make it clear that what Ms Ferguson is effectively asking the Committee is to change its decision. Ms Ferguson does not want purchase on commencement of the works, she wants purchase immediately following Royal Assent. We have done what the Committee asked us to do, and if I might remind the Committee, of course, the reason for that is unless the shaft works go ahead there is no adverse impact on those properties. 17942. What Ms Ferguson inaccurately terms "woolly language" is actually there to ensure that the undertaking covers the situation where the shaft is not exactly as it appears in the Environmental Statement there because there is further design; it is there to protect the occupiers so the undertaking bites even if we changed the design. That is why it says: "Broadly as currently proposed" because, otherwise, there might be some concern that it only applied if we went ahead with the scheme as shown at the moment. That is why it says it allows flexibility to refine the design (on the second page). So that is there to protect the occupiers. 17943. Can I make this additional concession in a final hope that this will achieve some form of closure on this issue? I do urge on the Committee the point that we have done exactly what was requested, but I am prepared to go one stage further and say this: if those three occupiers, who we have given an undertaking through those letters of 11 October, wish to sell their properties prior to being given the nine months' notice and are unable to do so unless a similar undertaking is given to their purchasers, we will give the same undertaking to the purchasers as we have given to the three sets of occupiers. We will not give it automatically; these letters cannot be treated as applying to them, but if Ms Ferguson or one of her fellow residents can show us that they can only sell in the context of a similar undertaking being given to the incoming purchasers, we will issue a letter in the same or broadly identical terms to the incoming purchasers in order to facilitate a purchase in due course, if that falls before the nine months. 17944. I hope that attempt to extend what we have offered will, at least, give the occupiers comfort that that undertaking would then be available to them as a means of negotiating any sales, should they wish to do so before the nine month period comes in. Other than, I do not think I have anything left to say, unless the Committee want to ask me any points. 17945. MS FERGUSON: I think Mr Elvin is being slightly disingenuous. I cannot think of any purchaser who is going to come along and want to buy a property with exactly the same concerns as we have. I think that is being completely and utterly unrealistic. If someone comes along to buy the property they would want to be able to do with it what they want to do with it, including sell it as and when. I cannot see that anybody is going to want to put up with the very same provisions we are objecting to at this time. I think that is completely and utterly unrealistic. 17946. Whilst Mr Elvin has indicated that they have done exactly what the Committee indicated, the wording is "before the work begins" and "before the work begins" can mean anything between today, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow and right on up. They have chosen to interpret it in an incredibly narrow fashion, and for the reasons I have outlined I would argue that the Committee perhaps revisit this. I am simply looking at it from the point of view as occupiers of these properties. We are effectively prevented from selling them which is through no fault of our own. We have not got ourselves into this position out of choice. We have got ourselves into this position because Crossrail changed their minds about where the route was going to go and it seems that we are now being forced to suffer as a result and to me that seems iniquitous and, to use a sort of common phrase, downright unfair. 17947. CHAIRMAN: Mr Elvin, can I just ask, the question we are posing really, or have been posing, I should say, is whether or not land-take is reasonable and I think that is where we are, but it is not quite true what you are outlining to the Committee in respect of what can be done. People are going to be trapped, or there is the possibility of being trapped for an inordinate amount of time in a property and that is blight, is it not? Is there anything within the compensatory system which we have which actually might recognise that or not?
17948. MR ELVIN: We went through this last time, sir. There is the hardship policy if it is met in advance. Sir, can I just remind the Committee that, in your decisions, you specifically took the start of works as the relevant time. In the EMI case, and I have not put the transcript up, but it is paragraph 16566 on Day 56, you specifically asked us to buy as soon as practicable after Royal Assent because of course, in the case of EMI, it is a substantial business and a commercial operation which will take much longer to relocate than a residential occupation. Our position is that nine months is a perfectly reasonable period, bearing in mind that we are talking about relocating residential occupiers and not a large business. The Committee took a different view and applied different requirements to EMI and to these particular occupiers. We would respectfully say that that was a reasonable line to take. 17949. If I can put it this way, the nine-month period works also because, as the Committee will recall, and Mr Berryman said this in evidence although I cannot put my finger on it at short notice, but it was during the Spitalfields hearings, that the shaft is under review. He thinks it is still likely that it will be there, but there is a possibility, following the review, that the shaft might be dispensed with altogether, in which case, if that outcome were to be the case, there would be no adverse impact on the properties, so it is another reason not to jump the gun and require acquisition immediately after Royal Assent, but before we even know that the project is going ahead, let alone that the shaft at Hanbury Street will be built. 17950. CHAIRMAN: It is true to say that in the decision we made in respect of EMI, we did not actually stipulate a time limit, but we actually said as soon as practicable. 17951. MR ELVIN: After Royal Assent. 17952. CHAIRMAN: Just in response to one thing that you said in relation to EMI being a substantial business, that nevertheless does not mean that the inhabitants or the owners of the flats in Hanbury Street are less important. 17953. MR ELVIN: No, no, it is merely a recognition that it takes them much longer to relocate than it would a simple residential occupation. It is a clear recognition of that. A large business having to find alternative premises and move its operations and its employees is obviously faced with a much longer lead time than someone occupying a flat. No one is suggesting that the position of the occupiers should be downgraded by comparison; it is just a recognition of reality. 17954. CHAIRMAN: Ms Ferguson, we have heard your argument, it has been well put, and the Committee will come to a decision in its deliberations. Is that okay? 17955. MS FERGUSON: Thank you very much indeed. 17956. CHAIRMAN: We now move on to the Barbican Association and Richard Morrison.
The Petition of the Barbican Association. MR RICHARD MORRISON appeared as agent. 17957. MR MORRISON: Good morning, Chairman. Congratulations on your anniversary! I remember attending the first session. 17958. CHAIRMAN: I think it is commiserations! 17959. MR MORRISON: Yes, commiserations perhaps! 17960. MR ELVIN: Sir, the position with the Barbican residents, as you know from what I said yesterday, is that the crossover at the Barbican is no longer being pursued and I gave a statement yesterday with regard to the crossover and its removal, and I advised the Committee to delete the crossover from the Bill. Secondly, in terms of worksites, there will be few worksites in the vicinity other than those for temporary utility works for the utility diversions. The only other element was the Finsbury Circus worksite and I do not think that affects the Barbican residents. 17961. I am not entirely sure what remains of the Barbican residents' concerns. We have had correspondence yesterday which I do not, I am afraid, have a copy of. Mr Morrison was asking for reassurance about settlement issues and we wrote to him yesterday dealing with that and, if necessary, I will ask Mr Berryman to address any other remaining concerns. 17962. MR MORRISON: Perhaps I am slightly behind the news. Our major concern related to the crossover and in fact, after all the work put into this, we have been told that the Promoter will not be asking the Committee to continue with the revised crossover design and we are keen for some confirmation of that and also some confirmation that the powers in the original Bill will be struck out, as it were. If there is some statement tomorrow, I apologise, but I did not catch up with that. 17963. What we have been told by the Promoter is that they will not be asking you to include the additional provisions in the Bill and they will seek to remove the powers from the Bill. Our concern is that, subject to any other confirmation that may be available, some other body may seek to put the requirement for the crossover back into the Bill at a later stage, for example, the Office of the Rail Regulator or some other body, and we are concerned that there should be a clear decision either from the Committee or from the Promoter that the crossover is removed and gone for ever. 17964. MR ELVIN: We wrote to Mr Morrison in the same tone as we wrote to all the Petitioners relating to the Barbican in December. It says, "I am writing to let you know that the Promoter no longer intends to construct either the crossover as proposed originally in the Bill or the alternative design in AB2 and will, therefore, ask the Select Committee not to make the amendments". I cannot say what might or might not be in some future Bill or future works which are not before this Committee. All I can say is that we are not pursuing it in this project in this Bill and I hope we made that clear on the 19 December. Indeed, if any doubt remains, I gave the assurance yesterday in committee. In fact, if Mr Fry could go to the next page, Mr Mantey emailed Mr Morrison on 15 January, ie, the day before yesterday, reiterating the point, so I hope we have made our position perfectly clear. 17965. CHAIRMAN: At the end of the day, it is actually up to this Committee whether or not we wish to pursue it or not, but given that a decision has been reached in the manner which has been described, it would seem senseless if we went in the opposite direction, so under those circumstances, it is not the intention of this Committee to press those amendments forward, so does that give you confidence? 17966. MR MORRISON: Yes, that satisfies the point. Our concern was that we had some confirmation other than this five-line letter that we had in December saying that, after all the work which had gone in, suddenly it does not appear anymore. 17967. CHAIRMAN: All I can say is that it is not the intention of this Committee to press those amendments forward. 17968. MR MORRISON: Then that was the only point we wished to raise. 17969. MR ELVIN: And that concludes the business for today. 17970. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed, ladies and gentlemen. We will resume tomorrow morning at 10.00 am. |