Examination of Witnesses (Questions 4640
- 4659)
4640. MR ELVIN: It is in the green book,
volume 5, and the Commons heard from the same Petitioners that
you have heard from this week. I am just trying to find it, but
it was a lengthy day. I wonder if your Lordships would like the
coffee break while I am trying to find it rather than keep you
waiting while I find the section.
4641. CHAIRMAN: That is a very good idea.
After a short break
4642. CHAIRMAN: Mr Elvin, you were showing
us in your submission some of the events and on page 8 you deal
with, I think it is, SES3.
4643. MR ELVIN: That is correct, my Lord.
4644. CHAIRMAN: When was that produced?
4645. MR ELVIN: I think it was November
2006.
4646. CHAIRMAN: The House of Commons
Select Committee was still sitting?
4647. MR ELVIN: It sat until October
2007.
4648. CHAIRMAN: So, from that moment
on, there was the possibility for the public to know that consideration
was being given to an alternative alignment in Spitalfields?
4649. MR ELVIN: Yes, and, my Lords, I
said I would give you the references. Ms Jordan, who instructs
Mr Horton at least for one of these Petitions, she raised, and
put before the Commons Committee, the 2001 report on alignment
B. It is volume 5, pages 1760 to 1763. She showed the Commons
the plan that you have seen and she made the point that it was
a perfectly viable route, that it is not severely obstructed with
buildings, and she complained that there was not a proper report
behind it, making essentially the same points that Mr Horton makes.
These points were made between paragraphs 18698 and 18704 and
I responded to them in due course, referring in part to SES3 at
18710. Part of the issue was concerned with the location of the
Hanbury Street shaft, but it was also concerned with option B.
4650. CHAIRMAN: I am just trying to find
the date of this.
4651. MR ELVIN: It is 30 January 2007,
the date that the Commons considered these matters.
4652. CHAIRMAN: But the Petition was
before that obviously. The Petition must have been dated earlier
than that.
4653. MR ELVIN: This came in on the back
of AP3, I think, but we had already accepted that there would
be an opportunity to come back when we put in the additional material
on the Hanbury Street shaft and the southern alignment, so it
had already been agreed the previous summer that these Petitioners
could come back and make any points about the additional information
we put in.
4654. CHAIRMAN: And they did.
4655. MR ELVIN: And they did, including
the report of March 2001. Therefore, AP4 on Woolwich was not deposited
until May of 2007. There would have been, had the Commons Committee
thought it appropriate, opportunity to promote an AP. The matter
was clearly before the Commons at Third Reading and ----
4656. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but before we get
to the Third Reading, it would have been possible for the Select
Committee in the Commons to ask for an additional provision to
deal with this route?
4657. MR ELVIN: It would have been. They
took the view similar to your Lordships, that it traversed the
principle of the Bill and they were not prepared to, but it would
have been open to them because, as your Lordships know, it is
a matter for the Committee to decide what the principle of the
Bill is.
4658. CHAIRMAN: Well, I think the additional
provisions add to the principle of the Bill.
4659. MR ELVIN: Yes, and we were already
making various amendments. Just as a point of information, the
Petition date that was heard in January 2007 was December 2006.
| 
