Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11720
- 11739)
11720. MS KHELA: I would like some consideration
to the fact of what Alistair Darling said on 19 July 2005. He
said: "Our instruction goes further, in that it suggests
the route. I repeat, however, that if someone came along and said
that the stations or the termini should be different, the Select
Committee may well want to consider that. It would be up to the
Committee."
11721. CHAIRMAN: But that is exactly
what we cannot do.
11722. MS KHELA: But if there has been
an error and information presented to the previous House—
11723. CHAIRMAN: This was the Commons
Committee. The Commons Committee could do it.
11724. MS KHELA: They chose not to on
the basis of the advice from counsel over there. We did suggest
that they sought independent legal advice and they did not.
11725. CHAIRMAN: Who is "they"?
11726. MS KHELA: The Commons Committee.
11727. CHAIRMAN: I do not think the Commons
Select Committee could get independent legal--- Never mind. The
point is that there are different powers for the Commons Select
Committee from those which we possess. The Commons Select Committee
were able, as they did, to introduce additional provisions which
then reopens the petitioning process and they could consider those.
This House, as the second House, cannot do that. That is the end
of it, we cannot do it. So whatever Mr Darling may have said,
or what anybody else may have said, we cannot change the principle
of the Bill.
11728. MS KHELA: An important reason
why Whitechapel Station is located where it is is that the Council's
own property interests in the area include Swanlea School, Whitechapel
Sports Centre, Whitechapel Ideas Store and Vallance Road Gardens.
Significant investment has been made in all of these in recent
years.
11729. CHAIRMAN: Look, it is no use trying
to tell us about some ulterior motive. The Whitechapel Station
is in the Bill and that is it.
11730. MS KHELA: But we are happy for
it to be in the Bill as long as it is not in the position that
it is in at the moment. We believe an amendment on the basis of
incorrect information provided to the previous House is a legitimate
expectation from Petitioners.
11731. CHAIRMAN: It is not going to enable
us to change the Standing Orders of this House.
11732. MS KHELA: Well, in that case that
puts us in a very difficult position because we have done all
in our power. That information was not presented to us and the
maps were not presented to us until 24 January and our hearing
took place on 31 January.
11733. CHAIRMAN: Which year are we in
now?
11734. MS KHELA: That was in 2007. I
would have told you that had I gone through my whole presentation.
We were not given those. That is despite the fact that Bindmans
had put in freedom of information request on 7 June asking for
all information on alternative alignments. That bundle of 15 documents
provided by the Promoter had not included the LUL report that
showed the maps of Options A, B and C. At that time we did not
have time to make up the maps to see where the route was going.
The maps were later transposed by Kay Jordan and we discovered
that it did not affect the Heron Tower. So we presented those
arguments to the Committee in a letter because they had initially
prevented us from presenting our arguments on this basis. As you
know, our hearing was suspended because basically Mr Schabas had
made a statement, but the LUL report that we had subsequently
confirmed Mr Schabas' statement. The brief issued by Keith Berryman
in that report says: "The safeguarded designed alignment
should be utilised as far as and including Liverpool Street Station
but should be optimised further east." At that hearing, where
Michael—
11735. CHAIRMAN: Is this in the House
of Commons?
11736. MS KHELA: Yes, I am afraid in
the House of Commons. Michael Schabas made this statement, which
he had previously made and no-one had objected to it even though
the Promoter, counsel, Keith Berryman had been in the room and
the same Committee had also been present. He said: "In 2001
I met Mr Berryman and said, `You need to look at alternatives'
and he said, `No, we are going to build the safeguarded scheme'."
The hearing was suspended. The Chairman did say: "The accusations
which are levelled are serious, we take them very seriously. We
do not intend to be very long on this issue. If there is proof
of such accusations we expect it to be presented very quickly
to this Committee. Whatever evidence, we expect at least a response
from Mr Carpenter when he goes away in respect of the accusations
being made and the evidence he has. We expect that very, very
quickly. We will then deal with it as a Committee in private and
then we will decide what to do on that. These are most serious
matters and, as I say, we do not expect it to hold up the work
of this Committee at all and we do not expect it to reopen the
whole of this inquiry either. This is a bill which Parliament
wants and we intend to deliver this bill for Parliament, and as
quickly as possible, however we have to be aware that what has
been presented to the Committee is of a serious nature and we
want that dealt with before we proceed with this witness".
11737. We did not want to give evidence in private
but with our main witness who was rightfully advised that there
was no reason to give evidence on a matter of public interest
in private. So lawyers advised Michael Schabas that he had no
need to give evidence in private where decisions would also be
made in private and, therefore, we were not allowed to come back
on this issue. We now do have the evidence on the Heron Tower.
11738. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, we can do
nothing about what you were allowed to do in the House of Commons,
you are now in a different House. You must address yourself to
what we can do in this Select Committee.
11739. MS KHELA: Well, we have been advised
that you could suggest an amendment be made on the basis of our
presentation because it is serious.
| 
