Examination of Witnesses (Questions 12660
- 12679)
12660. On the floating track issue, I would
like to remind this Committee of a question asked of Crossrail
by Kelvin Hopkins, MP, who was on the Select Committee in the
Commons. On my hearing on Day 57 of the House of Commons Select
Committee, reference 16669 he said: "Would it not be reasonable
to err on the side of generosity to residents by putting in a
floating slab track whenever it goes clearly close to where people
are living rather than trying to trim ---"
12661. CHAIRMAN: Who is this speaking?
12662. MR PAYNE: This was Kelvin Hopkins,
MP.
12663. CHAIRMAN: A Member of the Committee.
12664. MR PAYNE: Correct.
12665. CHAIRMAN: We know what their conclusion
was.
12666. MR PAYNE: "because I know
that there is a cost to incur", he went on, "but to
trim the cost which, compared with the overall cost of the project,
is fairly small, but putting in floating slab track erring, as
I say, on the generous side to residents in this particular case
rather than having to fit retrospectively following complaints
or whatever, which might be more difficult?"
12667. With regard to the way—and this
is in the evidence, basically, that Mr Winbourne was going to
produce (and I do hope that everybody will take an opportunity
to read through that because it is very interesting material)—of
joining up the stations as it stands now, Mr Winbourne was going
to substantiate the very high cost savings that will be made.
Following the failure of this Crossrail Private Member's Bill
in 1994, there have been 14 years to revisit the way of joining
up the stations in a better way, giving an improved cost-benefit.
In that time, I have never been consulted. I have lived in that
area for 14 years; nobody has ever consulted me, or heard of a
transparent debate on the matter. I now contemplate for Crossrail,
like Ken Livingstone's recent quote on the Olympic Games budget,
he had conned the Government. Then I finish.
12668. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
12669. MS LIEVEN: My Lords, do you want
an update on where we are tomorrow?
12670. CHAIRMAN: Yes. At the moment,
I am looking to see what the House of Commons did about this Petition,
which is on page 53. Tomorrow.
12671. MS LIEVEN: We are in deep negotiation
with Three Valleys. We are optimistic that we may reach agreement,
but it is still outstanding at the moment. My clear instructions
and understanding of the position is that there is no need to
worry about having in-camera sessions; it is all about which plot
to take, it is not about the security issues any longer. They
may attend and if they attend it might take an hour to an hour-and-a-half,
but I am optimistic that, in practice, we will settle with them.
12672. I have just spoken to counsel for the
Coalition, who is representing both the Coalition --
12673. CHAIRMAN: He is representing both
of them?
12674. MS LIEVEN: He is representing
both of them. He is seeking instructions. It seems likely that
the two Petitions will be presented together.
12675. CHAIRMAN: Good.
12676. MS LIEVEN: At the present time,
what he has said to me is he thought we could deal with it in
one session—i.e. a morning session or an afternoon session.
He has only confirmed one witness and that is Mr Michael Schabas.
I am not sure whether the Committee has already heard from Mr
Schabas.
12677. CHAIRMAN: We have had him, yes.
12678. MS LIEVEN: However, he is not
yet sure whether it will only be the one witness. We have not
received any evidence from them, from either the Residents Association
of Mayfair or from the Coalition, but I think it would be fair
to say that if it is Mr Schabas who gives evidence then he gave
evidence on the Residents Association of Mayfair Petition last
time.
12679. CHAIRMAN: If one looks at the
Petition it appears they are talking about alternative routes.
| 
