Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11700
- 11719)
11700. There has been an injustice as the people
of Spitalfields have been prejudiced. The people of Spitalfields
have a right to be consulted but have been denied information
and consultation on a viable route alternative as per paragraph
6050. The existence of a viable route option which avoids the
Spitalfields conservation and densely populated area was withheld
from the community during the consultation period. The dismissal
of Options B and C was led by seeking to avoid conflict with potential
development and we can see from the 2002 report, a Council report,
that the main concerns of the Promoter, TfL and the Council are
to maximise the development potential using Crossrail and not
alignment purposes. The existence of Option B was not even made
known to Parliament prior to the Second Reading, so how it was
able to form a decision on the Second Reading I do not know. Evidence
from Arup, a letter from Whitby Bird, said that a viable southern
route option existed and the Committee has heard evidence from
Michael Schabas saying that it would avoid the densely populated
conservation area of Spitalfields and that alignment is feasible,
which is very different from what the Promoter had been saying.
The argument presented by counsel for the Promoter said there
is no duty to consider alternatives. This, Mr Schabas pointed
out to this Committee, is not good practice and was not followed
on the Jubilee Line Extension and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link
to which they compare Crossrail. Indeed, this would have profound
implications for airport expansion. Option B was abandoned when
the Heron Tower did not even have planning permission. This was
granted in 2002 after the event, so to speak. The single reason,
therefore, identified by the Promoter and his counsel can be proven
wholly unreliable, who says in a letter that Mr Berryman confirms
Option B conflicts with the Heron Tower. It does not. The reasons
for dismissing Option B are not valid now and were certainly not
valid in 2001. Information about Option B was not made available.
The DfT and the Promoter have been made aware of this for some
considerable time and have taken no action to remedy this matter.
Option B, we contend, was a main alternative.
11701. CHAIRMAN: Now look, Ms Khela,
we have had a tremendous discussion about Option B. Do you realise
that we have ruled that we cannot recommend anything about an
alignment for Crossrail which does not fall within the limits
of deviation in the Bill. It is Standing Orders. It is not a matter
of consultation and it is not a matter of argument; it is Standing
Orders. We cannot do it. I have already ruled on this. Whether
it goes through this, that or the other does not make any difference.
If it is not on the alignment within the Bill we are not empowered
to make any recommendation about it.
11702. MS KHELA: Well, I have one issue
that may change your mind. A letter dated 7 June 2005 by Bindmans
solicitors—
11703. CHAIRMAN: By who?
11704. MS KHELA: Bindmans solicitors.
11705. CHAIRMAN: I do not think anything
will make us change our mind because it is Standing Orders of
this House.
11706. MS KHELA: The Second Reading summary
produced by the DfT read—
11707. CHAIRMAN: But this is in the House
of Commons.
11708. MS KHELA: This is at the Second
Reading. Prior to the Second Reading a summary was produced which—
11709. CHAIRMAN: In the House of Commons.
11710. MS KHELA: Yes. Which reads as
follows—
11711. CHAIRMAN: The House of Commons
had powers to depart from the line in the Bill and they did to
a certain extent by additional provisions.
11712. MS KHELA: You quite rightly said
that they had erred. The counsel for the Promoter had advised
the Committee to do that and they took that advice and did not
seek any independent advice, which we believe was necessary on
Option B as that option was not presented to Parliament and neither
was it presented to the Spitalfields community who had not been
consulted and informed.
11713. CHAIRMAN: Even if it is presented
to us now, again, at least for the second time, we cannot do anything
about it.
11714. MS KHELA: It can be reported to
the House.
11715. CHAIRMAN: I think it is already
reported to the House in terms of the ruling that we have given.
11716. MS KHELA: I think it is important
to be reported to the House for the fact that it has an error
that we would like to be tested for its veracity. We do not believe
it conflicts with the Heron Tower.
11717. CHAIRMAN: I do not know, but we
cannot do anything about it.
11718. MS KHELA: I think we are in a
position where we are faced with a Bill and a Tower Hamlets Council
report dated 2002 will give us some indication of what led to
the decisions for that route alignment. "The improvement
of transport infrastructure in East London is seen as key to the
delivery of the Mayor's vision for growth as set out in his London
Plan and Tower Hamlets Council has previously echoed this urgent
need in its formal response to the draft London Plan. Canary Wharf
Group have made an important contribution to securing a commitment
to Crossrail stations in Tower Hamlets by researching the engineering
and fundability of route options and vigorously campaigning for
stations in Tower Hamlets. The core route has also earned the
support of Thames Gateway Partnership. The contribution to regeneration
that the scheme now offers contrasts remarkably with the lack
of benefit to this area offered by the original scheme, which
was defeated in 1994. In its response to the draft London Plan,
the Council has stressed the critical importance of Crossrail
to supporting the scale of growth envisaged for East London. The
Council stressed the need for major infrastructure projects to
be brought forward urgently in order that public transport networks
can provide effective access to core development areas. In order
to deliver this vision, a joint venture company, Cross London
Rail Links, has been established by the SRA to the Mayor's executive
arm, Transport for London, to take forward Crossrail Lines 1 and
2. The use of subways is not encouraged due to personal safety
issues ... The Council will need to consider the provision of
resources for the development of a master plan for the Whitechapel
area ... this suggestion has received a positive response from
Crossrail who would need to provide detailed input to the master
planning process. The station development itself could offer new
direct access to areas north of Whitechapel Road, a new bus interchange
... ."
11719. CHAIRMAN: Ms Khela, I am going
to stop you. Will you please tell us what you want us to do at
this stage? We have now got to the end of the hearing of the Select
Committee petitions, or at least we will have by the end of this
week. We will then produce a report which goes back to the House.
There are going to be some amendments, but not anything that will
be of any interest to you, and it will then go back to the Public
Bill proceedings and there will be some amendments by the Department
for Transport in relation to railway clauses. It will then have
a Third Reading and will go back to the Commons for the amendments
to be considered. At this stage the only thing that we can do
is to make a recommendation about something which is within the
powers of the Select Committee. The things that you have been
talking about so far are not within the powers of the Select Committee.
So I ask you again, what is it you want us to do?
| 
