Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11780
- 11799)
11780. MS KHELA: Public Interest Lawyers.
11781. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but I do not know
who they are.
11782. MS KHELA: A firm of lawyers. Unfortunately,
I am not able to—
11783. MR ELVIN: My Lord, I am familiar
with them. They are a firm of solicitors who deal with a lot of
environmental, judicial review and similar challenges. They are
quite well-known.
11784. CHAIRMAN: They are a firm of solicitors?
11785. MR ELVIN: They are a firm of solicitors,
yes.
11786. BARONESS FOOKES: Name?
11787. MR ELVIN: Public Interest Lawyers,
that is their name.
11788. BARONESS FOOKES: That is what
they are called.
11789. MR ELVIN: That is what they are
called, yes.
11790. MS KHELA: They wrote to the Secretary
of State to ask why Crossrail was not being implemented according
to the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment.
A letter dated 17 November from DfT says: "The Strategic
Environmental Assessment does not apply because Crossrail is a
project, not a plan or programme". Reference to the policy
aspect of it is omitted. On 1 December 2004, Public Interest Lawyers
asked for a full assessment of alternative routes between Liverpool
Street and Whitechapel." In the letter of 7 January the DfT
fails to deal with the full assessment of alternative routes.
On 29 February 2008 the DfT, as you know, refused to supply information
to the WHRA under the Freedom of Information Act on the basis
that the tunnel route alignment is Government policy as the Bill
gives consent.
11791. CHAIRMAN: Are you referring to
the correspondence that appears in Command Paper 7250?
11792. MS KHELA: I have no idea what
that is, I am afraid.
11793. CHAIRMAN: It is a long series
of correspondence between the Association which you represent,
through Mr Carpenter, and the Department for Transport. It also
lists all the documents that you have been given.
11794. MS KHELA: Yes.
11795. CHAIRMAN: You are not aware of
this?
11796. MS KHELA: I am not, I am afraid,
no. I would just like to point out one letter was omitted from
the Second Reading and that letter was the letter sent from Bindmans
solicitors on 7 June. In response to that letter the Department
for Transport wrote, and in paragraph three they say: "The
Department has collated responses to the Environmental Statement
in a report, which has been published as a command paper and presented
to the House of Commons so as to be available to Members in time
for them to consider it in advance of the Second Reading of the
Bill. You are correct that Third Reading is an additional opportunity
to revisit the principle of the Bill and the Department will seek
to facilitate debate at the time ... The Secretary of State has
tabled a motion to report to the House for its consideration any
issue relating to the environmental impact of the railway transport
system for which this Bill provides that is raised in a petition
against the Bill, but which the Select Committee is prevented
from considering by the practice of the House."
11797. CHAIRMAN: By what?
11798. MS KHELA: "... by the practice
of the House." Point eight notes: "The objectives of
the Directive, including that of supplying information, must be
achieved through the legislative process." As we are going
through the Houses and as the public, and we believe this is part
of our consultation process, as in a previous letter that we have
outlined we were informed that round one and round two were not
formal consultation. This is quite serious because George Galloway
on the Second Reading says: "We have noted a serious omission
... At 12 o'clock today, there was still not tabled in the papers
for these proceedings the very serious matter ... "
11799. CHAIRMAN: Is this in the House
of Commons?
| 
