Examination of Witnesses (Questions 13260
- 13279)
13260. CHAIRMAN: Yes, so you are representing
them.
13261. MR GOODMAN: Well, it is a separate organisation.
The Coalition is an umbrella organisation which works to co-ordinate
the efforts of the different residents' groups. I think they tend
to divide up the issues by having that co-ordinated approach.
13262. CHAIRMAN: All right.
13263. MR GOODMAN: Very briefly to recap, the
points raised are set out in my written submissions this morning.
The response given by the Promoter is that the local authority
will look after the interests of local residents and there is
no need to worry, but that falls into the very trap, or the very
approach, which, in my submissions this morning I was seeking
to urge upon your Lordships was an outdated way of seeing things,
that there are independent interests of those persons affected
and that modern environmental legislation points towards the need
for those persons to be represented not only by paternalistic
authorities but in their own right, and not only does this Bill
make no provision for that, nor is there any undertaking provided
for that, but, in fact, the constitutional safeguards we have
by way of actions through the courts are removed by this Bill,
by clause 21, and so private actions for nuisance are actually
taken away, so the local residents are in fact put in a worse
position than they would be in respect of construction projects
other than those under this Bill.
13264. CHAIRMAN: If you had your parallel
organisation with experts and all the rest of it which enabled
representations to be made, to whom would the representations
actually be made?
13265. MR GOODMAN: The proposal I was making
was a very simple one, along the lines of a citizens' advice bureau
with people who have expertise and that then enables people to
put their case effectively.
13266. CHAIRMAN: But to whom?
13267. MR GOODMAN: The mechanisms would have
to remain the same. I am not proposing, save in respect of section
20 where I am proposing it, that actions through the courts be
legitimised, but all the mechanisms described by the Promoter,
first of all, you have to go through the helpline, you have to
chase your MP, you have to chase your local authority, that whole
process is one that is very difficult for many people, and it
is one that there is no reason to doubt that assistance from professionals
would not be welcome. That is a modest proposal, one that does
not go against the principle of this Bill or endanger it in any
way. There is no prospect of it being held up. It is simply to
provide that reassurance to people that if they are finding difficulty
getting any response to problems that may arise from this, that
they have somewhere to turn to and someone with expertise who
can stand up for them. That was the extent of the suggestion.
13268. My Lords, the suggestion was made that
perhaps the helpline could be expanded as a service. That as a
compromise is certainly something that I would welcome if it does
result in the giving of expert advocacy or assistance to those
who need it beyond simply offering a point of contact with the
Promoter when drilling things outside someone's house in the middle
of the night.
The Petition of Mr Leo Walters
13269. As to the Supplementary Environmental
Statement, I have set out, and the opinion I have submitted to
you has set out quite clearly our views on the law on that matter.
As to whether this is a main alternative, the evidence given essentially
was that the Wigmore Street option was studied by the developer,
it was an alternative considered but, in their view, it did not
constitute a main alternative, so essentially the point comes
down to a difference of view as to how one interprets that term,
whether it is subjectively interpreted by a developer or is capable
of an objective interpretation. In my submission, it is not one
to be determined wholly by the views of the developer.
13270. I have made clear my clients' intentions
at the foot of my submissions that they do consider that there
are points of considerable importance in environmental law, both
under the EIA directive and under the strategic environmental
assessment directive, and I do not go further than that, simply
to make clear that that is something they may wish to pursue.
13271. My Lords, in that context, and in that
strength of feeling, the modest proposals I have put forward to
provide some way by which the fears and apprehensions of the people
that live in these areas can be met and moderated is, in my submission,
something that will be sensible and appropriate for the future
smooth running of this project, not something that is there to
disrupt it, but something that is there to alleviate the concerns
and offset the possibility that people feel they have no alternative
but to pursue this further through the courts. It is something
which will provide a sense of empowerment and, in my submission,
is something to be welcomed for the benefit both of the residents
and of the Crossrail project as a whole. I am very grateful for
your patience today in hearing me. Those are my submissions.
13272. CHAIRMAN: We are very grateful
to you, Mr Goodman, because you have crystallised a lot of things
that have been causing major problems and you have put it all
very clearly and very succinctly, and we are much indebted to
you in fact.
13273. MR GOODMAN: I am grateful.
13274. CHAIRMAN: I think the arrangement
is that Mr Walters is going to go next and after that I believe
that Ms Khela wants to put a few questions to Mr Berryman; is
that right? Has she gone away again?
13275. MR MOULD: My Lord, if she wishes
to do so, we are content that Mr Berryman will seek to assist
her in relation to a very few questions that we expect she may
want to raise.
13276. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: An
encore.
13277. CHAIRMAN: A brief encore I hope.
13278. MR MOULD: Then no doubt the "fat
lady" will have her chance.
13279. LORD SNAPE: You are on dangerous
ground now!
| 
