Examination of Witnesses (Questions 4660
4660. CHAIRMAN: Now, where were we? I
keep on interrupting, so I cannot remember!
4661. MR ELVIN: Neither can I! I think
I had stood up to answer some of my Lord, Lord Brooke's questions
and I think I have answered those. As I said, they were either
options to amend before committee, to request an additional provision
or, even at Third Reading, it would have required a recommittal
to the Select Committee, but the issue undoubtedly, fairly and
squarely before the Commons by Third Reading, which was nearly
a year after these reports had been produced, which was last December
of course, was that this issue could have been recommitted to
Select Committee had an MP decided, with the support of the Government,
to promote another alternative.
4662. CHAIRMAN: I should think the joy
in another place would have been intense if that had happened!
4663. MR ELVIN: I have to say, the joy
of the Commons Select Committee being told that they had to continue,
I think, would have been interesting to observe, yes!
4664. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: The
cup would have runneth over!
4665. CHAIRMAN: Mr Horton, that, I think,
is the factual situation. This was before the Commons Select Committee.
They did have powers to ask for additional provisions to be put
forward which would then have been submitted to Petitioners and
they would then have had an opportunity to decide upon it. In
relation to Route B, that did not happen. Is that not right?
4666. MR HORTON: Yes.
4667. CHAIRMAN: Now we have got to the
stage where you are asking this Committee in the second House
not specifically of course to deal with the southern route, Route
B, because we cannot for the reasons that I have given already,
but what you are trying to do is you are trying to persuade us
to advise the House that Route B was part of a main alternative
that was not considered as part of the EIA process and that the
House of Lords, as such, should be requested to have further consideration
about this so that it might be possibly given effect. Is that
what you are doing?
4668. MR HORTON: Yes.
4669. CHAIRMAN: And the House of Lords
has got no powers to do that because of Standing Order 73, so,
even if the House of Lords decided that there was something wrong
with the environmental impact assessment and that this part of
the central London area ought to have been part of a main alternative
to be considered, the practical result is that it is now too late
to introduce additional provisions to give effect to that.
4670. MR HORTON: Well, my Lord, I would
have to take instructions on whether your Lordship is correct
4671. CHAIRMAN: Well, of course you take
4672. MR HORTON: I have to defer at the
moment of course to your Lordship's greater experience of procedures
in this House, but I am asked just to emphasise one point to you.
On 30 January ----
4673. CHAIRMAN: Of which year?
4674. MR HORTON: Of 2007. At the time
that the Petitions in respect of AP3 were being considered, Mr
Carpenter, who was representing the Woodseer and Hanbury Street
Residents' Association ----
4675. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we know Mr Carpenter
4676. MR HORTON: This is at paragraph
18837 and it would probably help if I asked for this to be put
on the screen and I will read it from the screen.
Mr Elvin says, "Can I add that this, quite apart from the
fact that it is going back on material which was dealt with in
the summer, is departing from the principle of the Bill. The House
has approved the limits of deviation at Second Reading; arguments
along the lines that seem to be suggesting the issue of the southern
alignment is completely outside the principle". Then at 18838,
the Chairman says, "Can I just respond to that
4677. CHAIRMAN: Mr Horton, this is the
point I have dealt with this morning.
4678. MR HORTON: Well, the only reason
I am referring you to this is that the Chairman says, "I
made it clear yesterday that there is no question of us rerouting
at all. I made it absolutely perfectly clear that decision has
gone but we will hear evidence where there were mitigations in
relation to the AP3 changes", so plainly the Commons did
not consider that they had any power any longer in relation to
asking for an additional provision in relation to Route B.
4679. CHAIRMAN: I do not think that can
be right because there were additional provisions being considered
at the time, AP3, on to which some of the Spitalfields groups
tried to clamber in order to attach the Route B point to it, and
there were also additional provisions, AP4, about the station
at Woolwich, so it was not the end of APs.
10 House of Commons Select Committee on the Crossrail
Bill, First Special Report of Session 2006-07, Crossrail Bill,
HC 235-V, paras 18837-18838 (SCN-20080311-012 to -013) Back