Examination of Witnesses (Questions 13500
- 13519)
13500. CHAIRMAN: Are we really going
to have two infrastructure managers?
13501. MR ELVIN: My Lord, as I explained
to you before, the Secretary of State is in a rather difficult
position, having to take part in the negotiations and make a decision
in due course. As I said when Network Rail presented its position,
I can see the force in Network Rail's submission but that has
to be resolved through the negotiation under existing legislation.
Your Lordships may wish to express views as to the sense or otherwise
of the position and no doubt we would welcome whatever views the
Committee had as to the correct way forward.
13502. CHAIRMAN: Under both sets of regulations.
13503. MR ELVIN: My Lord, we are content
for whatever advice the Committee is willing to tender in respect
of either set of regulations, the only point being that under
the ROGs, there does not appear to be any dispute as to who should
be the infrastructure manager other than that Network Rail is,
perhaps understandably, reluctant to take on that role if they
do not have the control of being infrastructure manager under
the Access Regulations. That was the thrust of their case and
if your Lordships consider that an appropriate matter for recommendation,
as I say, we would welcome whatever advice the Committee has.
I emphasize again—and my Lord, the Lord Chairman, did tease
me on this—it was not my role to present TfL's case but
simply to explain to you what the arguments that were being run
on the other side of Network Rail were. We have yet to make a
decision.
13504. CHAIRMAN: But you might be helped
if we made a suggestion.
13505. MR ELVIN: Your Lordships approaching
the matter objectively from the point of view of a Select Committee
of Parliament, your views would be most welcome, yes.
13506. CHAIRMAN: I think we can probably
do that.
13507. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: The
only thing I would say, Lord Chairman, is that we did at that
point make a comment upon the application of the Corporate Manslaughter
Act, and I have never heard a resolution as to who is going to
go to jail if the necessity arises.
13508. MR ELVIN: As long as it is not
me, my Lord. I am not in a position to answer the question; simply
put it to Network Rail. I would hesitate to give any view at all.
13509. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Surely
the question is a reasonable one in terms of how you organise
the structure and the responsibilities appointed.
13510. MR ELVIN: My Lords, I did put
in some of the legislative duties in the risk assessment note.
Of course, the health and safety legal duties are imposed on railways,
as your Lordship will know, under the 1993 Act, section 117 and
thereafter. That may well influence the application of the corporate
manslaughter provisions. I really would be straying well outside
my area of expertise if I ventured a view.
13511. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: I think
what we are actually looking at is a situation where the whole
of the industry has not yet resolved where responsibility is going
to lie post the Act. This is likely to be one of the first and
biggest issues in Crossrail and any other rail affair which has
to resolve that question.
13512. MR ELVIN: I sincerely hope the
question does not arise in a practical context in the context
of Crossrail.
13513. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: You
and I both know that it will.
13514. MR ELVIN: I am afraid, my Lord,
I must differ from your Lordship, with the greatest of respect
on that.
13515. CHAIRMAN: Any more questions?
13516. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: This
is truly a concluding one. It goes back to the conclusion reached
by the House of Commons Select Committee, page 56 in the special
report, particularly paragraph 244. Similarly, during the course
of the ten weeks we have been hearing Petitions, I think the issues
of communications and consultation again have emerged as some
of the major topics which continue to create possible hazards
for the development of the scheme. In part, in producing information,
as you have done today, for Spitalfields, with the opportunity
there for people from Mayfair too, you have identified an area
in which maybe you can try a little harder in the future to endeavour
to focus information. Information which you are producing in generic
terms maybe might be better focused for particular residents or
businesses where they see they have a special problem arising
that could conceivably continue to cause difficulties. I would
hope that you might draw some lessons from the ten weeks you have
spent on this and in the light of the experience you have had
with the Commons.
13517. MR ELVIN: My Lord, the need to
communicate effectively is not lost on those responsibility for
the project, and your Lordship's words will no doubt be taken
very seriously, and, no doubt, any recommendations which this
Committee makes.
13518. Can I just say though, in defence of
those who have worked assiduously behind the scenes for Crossrail,
for your Lordship has seen a number of complaints, a relatively
small number of complaints, if I may say so, the work involved
in communicating the vast amount of information on this massive
complex has been truly enormous. This is the first Hybrid Bill
which has gone through the House in many years. It is probably
the biggest rail project in over a century.
13519. Your Lordship can imagine the difficulties
which exist in making sure that not only do we have the information
set out as we have on websites, in paper format, information rounds,
consultation rounds and the like, all of which is set out in the
information papers, but actually, the difficulty is not so much
always in setting out the information, but in engaging the community
in understanding that, and in many respects we are dependent upon
engagement from the community. You have heard, for example, of
particular problems with Spitalfields, and we have been over that
many times. You can see, on the other hand, for example, with
PRACT in the Paddington area how such a process can be that much
more effective.
| 
