Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11740
- 11759)
11740. CHAIRMAN: What sort of amendment?
11741. MS KHELA: Well, it could be a
Transport and Works Act changing the alignment. After all, it
was permitted for the Woolwich Station.
11742. CHAIRMAN: It is a change of the
alignment, is it?
11743. MS KHELA: It will be a minor change
to the alignment so that—
11744. CHAIRMAN: Is it a change of the
alignment?
11745. MS KHELA: Yes, a modification.
11746. CHAIRMAN: Is it within the limits
of deviation in the Bill?
11747. MS KHELA: No.
11748. CHAIRMAN: In that case we have
no powers to make any such recommendation.
11749. MS KHELA: Even though the consultation
on the present route alignment can be shown to be flawed?
11750. CHAIRMAN: It does not make any
difference whether there is or is not consultation, it is the
powers of this House under the Standing Orders of Parliament.
11751. MS KHELA: We believe that the
democratic process should allow us to present our evidence and
have some form of remedy, which we have been denied because the
Department for Transport, which is responsible for promoting this
Bill, asked us to wait to receive this information until we appeared
before both Select Committees. We have done that and we are now
being told that is wrong, we cannot make any changes. We are not
responsible for the provision of late information, the Promoter
is. We need a remedy. The Spitalfieds area is a sensitive area
as admitted in the Promoter's own documents.
11752. CHAIRMAN: There are very strict
constraints within which this Select Committee can work and they
are laid down by Standing Orders of the House. We did not invent
them, they are there in the Standing Orders. I have been telling
you what they are and we have to stick to them.
11753. MS KHELA: On the basis that you
did hear representations from Matthew Horton on a point that I
am not raising, I am saying Option B is a main alternative. That
is what I am saying. I am not asking for an objective test. I
was told by Sarah Price that your ruling was on Matthew Horton's
rather obscure point. My point is not obscure at all. I am very
clear on the fact that Option B was studied, albeit briefly, and
the information that was supplied about it cannot be relied upon,
but it was studied.
11754. CHAIRMAN: It may or may not have
been studied, but it is an EIA point and we have already ruled
on—
11755. MS KHELA: But it is not in the
Environmental Statement.
11756. CHAIRMAN: We have already ruled
on compliance with the statutory instrument which transposes into
English law the requirements of the EIA Directives. We have ruled
on it.
11757. MS KHELA: I recall your ruling
where you referred to the fact that the option had been presented.
The option that had been presented, and you were correct an option
had been presented, was Option D, that was not Option B. So could
we have a ruling on Option B?
11758. CHAIRMAN: No, I corrected the
ruling so as to remove any doubt about that.
11759. MS KHELA: Yes, but the point I
am trying to make is that Option B was a main alternative.
| 
