Examination of Witnesses (Questions 10420
- 10439)
10420. CHAIRMAN: I do not think we are
saying it is a matter of being bad in law --
10421. LORD BERKELEY: Well, I think Mr
Elvin implied that.
10422. CHAIRMAN: It is a matter for our
judgment, I think.
10423. LORD BERKELEY: It is your judgment,
my Lord Chairman, and I am not going to say any more about that.
10424. Finally, Mr Elvin kindly went through
our conclusions, and I do not think I am going to say any more
about the list of works which we have discussed at length.
10425. On my second slide, I am grateful for
the comments he has made.[33]
Just to run through them very briefly, I think the first one probably
is superfluous now. The second should be capable of being dealt
with under the industry processes, except we will have to see
what happens to clauses 40-42, but that is my only question there.
10426. The reason we put the third one is I
still have uncertainty, in spite of what some of our witnesses
said, as to whether Gospel Oak-Barking is, in fact, fully funded.
Probably that is not down to the Committee but down to our industry
to sort out and, if necessary, inform me later, but I think that
is it.
10427. I quite understand the amendment to the
Bill and we have discussed that at length, and the last one, 40-42,
we have discussed.
10428. On the final one, my Lords, we did not
ever suggest that the Committee should require the Promoters to
fund or build Peterborough-Nuneaton. All we were asking for was
maybe a paragraph in the report that said it would be very helpful
to the project if the Department were able to fund this at a time
so it could be completed to take, in addition to the growth beyond
the opening of Crossrail, some of the traffic that could be diverted
from the Great Eastern during the construction phase to reduce
the pressure on that particular line.
10429. CHAIRMAN: Surely both Gospel Oak
to Barking and Ipswich and Nuneaton are going to be needed anyway?
10430. LORD BERKELEY: They are, my Lord
Chairman. All I am asking for is a little bit of encouragement
from your Committee to the Department to get on with it, that
is all. I am not looking for an assurance or anything from the
Promoters on that, and they understand that too.
10431. May I conclude by paying tribute to the
Crossrail team? I have had two good days with my witnesses; it
has come a long way in three and a half years, and I certainly
wish them well in raising the finance. I know we did not bring
any evidence on this but I really do wish them well in reaching
agreement with Network Rail and TfL because, without it, all we
have been talking about will have to start again from scratch.
It is really serious, and I am sure everybody understands that
and will do their best to reach agreement.
10432. Thank you very much, my lord Chairman.
10433. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Lord Berkeley.
Mr George?
10434. MR GEORGE: My Lords, yesterday
afternoon I undertook not to trouble your Lordships for very long
with my closing and I do not propose to do so. I refer your Lordships
back to my opening yesterday afternoon and I do not propose to
repeat what I said in that.
10435. The first point we raised was the one
in connection with clause 41(3), and I appreciate your Lordships
have taken the preliminary view that this is a matter for the
Public Bill Committee, but can I urge your Lordships to make specific
reference to clause 41(3)?
10436. Your Lordships will have noted this afternoon
that there was precisely no treatment given by Mr Elvin in his
closing of the justification for clause 41(3) and why it was not
needed in the CTRL Act but is needed here.
10437. I would invite your Lordships to include
reference in your report to the fact you have received no justification
whatsoever for that particular provision. We are told what it
is not going to be used for, but there is no explanation as to
why it is needed at all; why a simple arbitration provision as
in the CTRL Act would not be sufficient. We are not told. He is
entirely silent on the key matter.
10438. The only criticism we are raising is
on clause 41(3): we have no explanation as to why 41(3) itself
is needed rather than a simple arbitration clause. I leave it
there.
10439. My Lord, so far as the second issue with
which we are concerned is concerned, which is the question of
compensation for loss during the works, on the first matter, which
is G9, we are content with the undertaking which was given. It
is a pity that we previously had what we thought was a rather
confusing letter, but now we have very clear words and we welcome
that undertaking.
33 Committee Ref: A52, Conclusion 2 (SCN-20080501-024) Back
| 
