Examination of Witnesses (Questions 3820
- 3839)
3820. LORD SNAPE: Although it is the
same evidence that you put forward in the other place and was
rejected?
3821. MR HORTON: I did not appear in
the other place, my Lord. The whole point of being able to petition
the Lords is to be able to re-present an argument in the hope
that it may be better received in this House than in the other
place.
3822. CHAIRMAN: I think you want to talk
about the EIA process.
3823. MR HORTON: Yes, certainly.
3824. CHAIRMAN: You are not setting that
in the context of any particular alignment. It is going to end
up in the question of whether we have got any powers to do it.
3825. MR HORTON: Yes, I accept that.
3826. CHAIRMAN: Is that right?
3827. MR HORTON: It is right, my Lord.
It has taken me some time, because there is so much material,
having been instructed late, to strip this issue down to its bare
essentials. Those instructing me, as often happens with lay persons,
have not seen it as clearly as, I hope, I now see it and seek
to present it, but for that purpose it is very important that
you should see the extent to which you can consider the issue
within what is actually a framework which is agreed between the
parties.
3828. CHAIRMAN: I think the best thing
is to let you get on with it.
3829. MR HORTON: I am grateful. I am
sorry I am making Lord Snape impatient; I am not renowned for
being the fastest gun in the West, but I am the most accurate.
3830. LORD SNAPE: As long as you shoot
straight you can be as slow as you like!
3831. MR HORTON: Thank you very much.
All I ask you to note, because it is important to a point I have
to make on the law, is that, as you can see from that October
2007 study, the Promoters appear deliberately to have chosen to
avoid at all times giving any detailed consideration to alignment
B, even, most extraordinarily, when, following the undertaking
given in the other place, they chose to offer to look in more
detail at alignments south of the Bill line. One asks oneself:
why have they steered clear? That will go to a point of law I
have to make in a moment.
3832. If I may then take you to the way that
Mr Elvin approaches this, I have copied (so it can go up on the
screen to help your Lordships) a note which he provided on 26
February 2007. I am afraid it has some underlining. I apologise
for that, but, nonetheless, I hope it will help.
3833. MR ELVIN: What Mr Horton is incorrectly
referring to is a letter I wrote to the Chairman of the Commons
Select Committee. Do your Lordships have a copy of the Government
overview of the case for Crossrail and its Environmental Impact,
Command Paper 7250? I do not know whether that has been supplied.
3834. CHAIRMAN: No.
3835. MR ELVIN: It is the summary that
was presented to the House of Commons on Third Reading and this
is part of a longer letter which appears at pages 67 to 77 of
that Command Paper. Mr Horton is looking at pages 72, 73, 74,
75 and 76, I think, of the Command Paper. We will see if we can
make sure you have copies of the Command Paper. It is 1 March.
3836. MR HORTON: My Lords and my Lady,
you will see that on the first page it has got page 6 at the top.[2]
My learned friend refers to the legal framework and there he is
only dealing with whether, in relation to the passage of legislation
through Parliament, an environmental assessment has to be undertaken.
I need not read it out to you because, as I understand it, the
Promoters accept that in this case it did have to be undertaken
and, of course, it has been undertaken.
3837. You then see, on page 7, the heading:
"Judgment as to the adequacy of an environmental statement".[3]
The opening proposition, at paragraph 5, is: "The adequacy
of the ES is a matter for the reasonable judgment of the decision
maker, in this case Parliament." My Lords, up to a point
I do not quarrel with that—I make it clear. Then, at paragraph
6, there is a reference to a decision in the High Court and a
quotation from the judgment of Mr Justice Ouseley. If you turn
over to page 8—
3838. CHAIRMAN: Can we see, before that
disappears, the beginning of that quotation at the bottom of the
page?
3839. MR HORTON: At paragraph 199? "The
Environmental Statement, therefore, is not just a document to
which the developer refers as an Environmental Statement; it is
that document plus the other information which the ... authority
thinks it should have in order for the document to be an Environmental
Statement. ... the authority judges whether the documents together
provide what Schedule 44 ... requires." Then, at paragraph
203, if I may take you to the underlined passage in the middle.
It is not my underlining. I assume it is Mr Elvin's.[4]
2 Crossrail Ref: P26, Note in response to SsBA, 26
February 2008 (SCN-20080312-002 Back
3
Crossrail Ref: P26, Judement as to the adequacy of an environmental
statement (SCN-20080312-003) Back
4
Crossrail Ref: P26, Judement as to the adequacy of an environmental
statement (SCN-20080312-004) Back
| 
