Examination of Witnesses (Questions 12820
- 12839)
12820. MR GOODMAN: Yes, I am aware that
that has been done under the EMRs, as I think they are called,
that have been agreed between the local authorities.
12821. CHAIRMAN: We have never seen the
terms of this but it has been done.
12822. MR GOODMAN: I have not seen them but
I did read in one of the transcripts that Mr Straker appeared
before you and confirmed that those had been agreed.
12823. CHAIRMAN: They have been agreed
but we have not seen the terms of them.
12824. MR GOODMAN: No, and neither have I but
my point goes to the public participation point, that whatever
the terms, however stringent they may be, there are local authorities
who simply will not efficiently enforce those terms and that the
people on the ground are then left powerless to do anything about
the disruption to their lives. That is one example only, because
the whole structure of this Bill is created to take away the possibility
of public participation.
12825. CHAIRMAN: From your point of view,
you are referring to Westminster City Council, City of London
and Tower Hamlets.
12826. MR GOODMAN: Indeed, and without wanting
to pick out culprits, there are better and worse councils amongst
those three, ones that can be relied on and ones that are simply
not trusted by my clients. That is the real fear they have. In
any ordinary situation they would have the fallback that they
would not need to rely on the local authority, but in this situation
they are being placed at their mercy.
12827. That brings me to my second constructive
suggestion about how these fears in that context, that feeling
of powerlessness and, indeed, the reality of powerlessness, can
be addressed. What I propose is that an undertaking be recommended—I
cannot obviously require one from the developer, in a similar
way to a planning application where one would expect an undertaking
of a sum of money towards various facilities or as it may be—that
somehow, and I am not sure exactly how the mechanism would work,
provision be made for an agency which can give advice to people
who are put in difficult positions. So when cracks start to form
in their house or something goes wrong, in the event that it does,
that noise becomes unbearable, living conditions become unbearable—dust,
lorries and so on—in the event that those unfortunate by-products
of the construction process occur, there is someone they can turn
to, who is both independent and is seen as independent of either
the Promoter, the undertaker or the local authority. What I am
suggesting is something like, for example, one might think of
as a Citizens' Advice Bureau that is specifically related to Crossrail
and has the ability and the resources to find and to instruct
technical and legal experts who can actually investigate the issue.
12828. This is where I come to the difficulties
that my clients have had, that they do not have the resources
to meet the Promoter's case in terms of expert evidence and legal
assistance. They have received assistance from me because it is
an honour for me to have this opportunity to appear before this
Committee, but they cannot rely upon generous offers from noise
consultants and lawyers for the next five years in the hope that
their interests can be fairly and properly represented. Many of
these people—this may not immediately strike you when thinking
of Mayfair—are living in social housing; they are people
who do not have finances or resources to instruct experts who
could pursue their claims and their interests on their behalf.
If a wealthy person's life were disrupted by noise and so on,
that person, even if they did not have the powers to go to court,
would be able to make a fuss sufficiently with the local authority,
could get their own noise expert, could really engage the local
authority articulately and sufficiently that something would be
done about it.
12829. However, there are people who do not
have the skills, the money or the resources to take that on, so
my proposal is that some provision be made to ensure that independent
advice is on offer for those people and that they can be represented
in that way, whether it is a matter of chivvying the local authority
or bringing some legal action or undertaking technical reports,
surveys, as it may be, whatever is required in the circumstances.
That, in my submission, would be consistent with the emphasis
that is being placed at national and international level on the
need for some public participation and the need for some sort
of equality of arms—that is a phrase that is often used
in law. Clearly, there is no equality of arms between my clients
and the vast resources available to the Promoters. My clients
are unable to even instruct one expert. That kind of resource
would enable them to challenge the construction plans that may
be implemented if they fall short of the kind of standards they
would be entitled to expect. It would put them in a position to
have the expertise at hand.
12830. From a personal point of view, the difficulty
I have had is that they have wanted me to present a case on a
range of highly technical issues, on noise and dust and so on,
but I do not have the expertise behind me by which I can say anything
that backs this up. It is out of that difficulty that I found
myself in that this suggestion was made to them, so the difficulties
they have had thus far in this Bill thus far are at least ameliorated
through the process of construction of the Crossrail project over
the next five or six years.
12831. I have not formulated how this agency
would look. I do not think that is probably for me to do. What
the recommendation needs to say is that some form of funding be
made and that some organisation be appointed to help set up such
assistance. It is important that it is independent of anything
that local authorities or the Secretary of State may already provide.
12832. When these issues have been raised in
different forms, there is frequent reference in the Petition to
a need for independent monitoring. The response that has come
back from Crossrail has been that there are two liaison committees,
one in Paddington and Spitalfields, I believe, and there is to
be a helpline that can be phoned, but that is a very different
kind of service from the one that I am suggesting. It is not about
providing information or being able to phone a helpline; it is
about having someone who actually advocates on your behalf. What
I am suggesting is over and above anything that has been put forward
thus far.
12833. CHAIRMAN: I am only thinking aloud,
Mr Goodman, but this Bill has, of course, been through the House
of Commons and they had the necessary finances arranged. There
was a resolution on the basis of which it went forward. Surely,
this would be a completely new element in the Bill which would
have to be funded from the public purse? I am just wondering whether
this House can try to get something of that sort inserted into
the Bill.
12834. MR GOODMAN: My Lord, procedurally,
that would be one way to go forward. The other, of course, is
to recommend that an undertaking be given. If the legal force
to make such a recommendation were needed, these directives that
I am alerting your Lordships to, stipulating the need for public
participation, provide, in my submission, the legal back-up for
this Bill to proceed consistent with those international and national
obligations; some sort of provision along this line needs to be
made in the form of an undertaking.
12835. CHAIRMAN: I understand that, but
it still has to be financed.
12836. MR GOODMAN: Yes, and I see no
reason why it cannot be financed by the Promoter in the same way
as a developer—
12837. CHAIRMAN: I can, because there
is a Bill which has been through the House of Commons and has
had the necessary monetary resolution approved, and no such thing
as you are now suggesting is in it.
12838. MR GOODMAN: Yes.
12839. CHAIRMAN: I am not therefore certain—I
have never been in the House of Commons, as a number of my colleagues
have—that this House can suggest the inclusion in the proceedings
which accompany this Bill of an indeterminate financial imposition
which would have to be paid for out of public funds. I seriously
doubt whether we could do it, but I will consult my colleagues
about it in due course.
| 
