|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 837-xiv HOUSE OF COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE taken before the on the Wednesday 1 March 2006 Before: Mr Alan Meale, in the Chair Mr Brian Binley Mr Philip Hollobone Kelvin Hopkins Sir Peter Soulsby
Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in. 4013. CHAIRMAN: Today the Committee will continue hearing the petition of the Smithfield Market Tenants' Association. Mr Elvin, do you want to make a closing statement? 4014. MR ELVIN: Thank you, good morning. I have a number of documents, all of which I sent to the Committee Clerk overnight. Firstly there are two documents which I promised yesterday. One is a collation of the requests by the Market Tenants' Association for various undertakings and our responses to them, which we have collated and indeed, subject to one amendment I need to make, it represents an agreed position as to where we are. It sets out, therefore, all the assurances and undertakings that have been offered to the Petitioner. It will be P50. 4015. CHAIRMAN: Yes. 4016. MR ELVIN: Can I make one amendment because it has been made clear that the City has not yet had a meeting with our representatives? On the final page, page 11, the very final paragraph, the question about taking account of the impact of the works on the operation of the market, the last sentence, which says, "This assurance is also given", I am told that in fact it is still yet to be agreed with the City. This assurance is proposed to be given to the City but it is subject to detailed drafting. Can I make it clear, so that the market traders are absolutely sure about the position, that it is the intention of the Promoter that the impact of the works on the businesses of the market traders is intended to be taken into account as a consideration when approvals for details are considered by the City? So there may be some tinkering with the wording but let there be no doubt that it is our intention that the impact on the businesses of the market traders should be taken into account. 4017. CHAIRMAN: You will notify us of that agreement? 4018. MR ELVIN: We will notify you of the revised format. So that the Market Tenants' Association are not in any doubt that that is what is intended I have now said it so that they can be sure of that. 4019. The second document, which will be P51, is the request for information yesterday on the quantity of loading bays lost. It has effectively been done by measurement and I hope the note is explanatory; it is based on the average width of the parking bays and the length that would be required, including the area for loading. We have looked at both types of loading bay, the echelons, which are at an angle to the market, and those that are parallel to the pavement and to the road, and you will see that 12.5 per cent of the echelons would be lost during construction if they were all taken out, and 7.5 per cent of the parallel. It is just under ten per cent in total - it is 19 out of 189. But that of course is subject to our undertaking to use reasonable endeavours to keep loading bays there during construction works, which was explained to the Committee by Mr Berryman yesterday. We cannot guarantee, but that is our objective, because there is a degree of uncertainty over the precise nature of what is underneath the pavement and other matters. 4020. MR BINLEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am happy with this. I just wanted to have my own mind set at ease that when you made the initial statement, that you would do everything to take the loss of business into account, that that was in relation to the question I raised about Lindsey Street and parking in that area yesterday. I am grateful. 4021. MR ELVIN: We have put it in wide terms, "impact on their business", that is impact from the works. 4022. MR BINLEY: I am happy with that, thank you. 4023. MR ELVIN: Sir, that concludes those additional documents. Finally, I have some closing submissions which I have put in writing, with the agreement of the Committee yesterday, and I am going to read them out, of course. The most detailed bit I am afraid is the legal bit on compensation issues, which is responding to what Mr Dingesmans said yesterday. I will try and take it as lightly as possible but I thought it would be helpful to the Committee to at least have it in writing because the point may come up again at some later stage. Sir, I imagine that this is P52. 4024. Sir, in the light of the representations and assurances given, summarised in P50, which you have just had, there now is little between the Promoter and the Petitioner on this issue. There are six main headings of areas of difference. Firstly, a request for direct contracts between the nominated undertaker and the market traders. Secondly, trigger levels applicable to dust monitoring; thirdly, the stopping up of Lindsey Street; fourth, the loss of loading bays; fifth, the loss of car parking; and sixth, compensation issues. On direct contracts, which turns on the enforcement of environmental minimum requirements and the like, as Mr Anderson explained the model that we have used here is one which has been used successfully for projects such as CTRL and the Construction Code, for example, that was developed at JLE. Mr Anderson explained in his evidence how controls would work in practice and there is no reason, we say, to assume that they will not also work here to protect the market traders. 4025. The Secretary of State has undertaken to require the nominated undertaker to comply with the environmental minimum requirements and to take such steps as are reasonable to secure compliance. 4026. To offer contracts to 36 market traders - because the Association is an unincorporated association and we cannot contract directly with it, with the possibilities of many differences of view - offers scope for considerable confusion and disagreement. Indeed, the SMTA seeks something which is not available to others and which, if it was available, would offer even greater prospects of bogging down works as the nominated undertaker was faced with differing demands from many contracting parties. You can imagine the sort of chaos that might result. 4027. Whilst the Promoter does not offer a general assurance to keep the market open - and this comes to the point I made earlier in respect of the assurance that is being negotiated with the City of London - the series of assurances and controls are more than sufficient to protect the traders, including the new inclusion of impact on the business of the market as a consideration in giving approvals under the draft Heritage Deed. 4028. While there may be no essential difficulty in restricting working hours to avoid the trading hours of the market, as Mr Berryman explained yesterday this is a matter to be dealt with under the provisions of the Construction Code. 4029. Dealing shortly with dust and trigger levels, Mr Curson for the SMTA accepts in general the appropriateness of what the Promoter has offered, including Tier 3 mitigation, which is the most rigorous form of mitigation available, and consultation regarding a dust management plan. The additional requirement for the City of London's approval (as planning authority) of dust suppression measures in paragraph 7 of Schedule 7 to the Bill provides an independent determination of the issues required to be made, of course, in the public interest. 4030. The only remaining and very narrow concern was the reference to use of background dust levels in the letter of 27 February, which is summarised in P50. 4031. Dr Ireland for the Promoter explained why it was necessary to consider the background monitoring since dust at the relevant levels may be caused for reasons other than the construction works. 4032. Trigger levels ought to be fixed having regard to local circumstances, and it would be unreasonable for a trigger to automatically lead to cessation of work since the trigger might arise from a number of causes, not necessarily the works nor ones which even required cessation. A staged approach, we suggest, is needed and indeed Mr Curson's own evidence in A46 sets out such a staged approach. He suggested a number of possible actions and Dr Ireland thought them appropriate. They did not include automatic cessation of works. 4033. The production of the dust plan and the need to obtain the City's approval for dust suppression measures provides an ample basis for considering local dust conditions, setting levels and designing protocols for the actions which should be taken when those levels are exceeded. Mr Curson appeared to accept that it was sensible to deal with those matters when designing the Tier 3 mitigation, which is specific for this site, specific for the market. 4034. On the stopping up of Lindsey Street Mr Lawrence, one of the market traders, and indeed the Chairman of the Association, explained that the key issue for the traders was to maintain access around the market at all times. This has been made the subject of an assurance, even for the largest 44 tonne trucks. 4035. Stopping up allows the works to be carried out since otherwise the road remains public highway and any obstruction or destruction of it would be an offence. While access can be maintained for the market the precise location of the road will be moved as the works progress. Mr Farthing's diagrams and indeed his computer animations yesterday showed that the road would have to move in the available space depending on the phase of the works. If the road were not stopped up this would simply be unlawful. 4036. So we simply say that the Bill does not need to be amended and the assurance provides what the traders require. 4037. Turning to the loading bay issue, it is common ground that some loading bays in Lindsey Street should be retained if at all possible, and an undertaking to use reasonable endeavours has been given. However, for the reasons which Mr Berryman gave to the Committee yesterday, at this stage there is no certainty in the precise design of the works: for example, Lindsey Street is not a ground level highway but is an artificial structure over 19th century vaults, whose precise structure and condition is not clear at the moment. 4038. Bays would only be lost in Lindsey Street and only for a period of time, not permanently as in West Poultry Avenue, which you will recall was a problem which arose as a result of new EC loading regulations. If there were none provided for a time in Lindsey Street there would be a reduction of about 12.5 per cent of the echelon bays and 7.5 per cent of the parallel bays - as I said earlier, 19 in total out of 189. However, I would just draw the Committee's attention to these factors. None of the six hermetically sealed unloading docks on the north and south sides of the market would be affected. Mr Farthing considered there was scope to provide between five and ten additional bays elsewhere within the market area. Mr Farthing also agreed that the use of management of the spaces could increase practical capacity. And the Promoter in any event proposes to use reasonable endeavours to keep six bays on Lindsey Street during construction. So if one takes account of those various factors the notional loss of 19 bays during construction, we say, should not be a significant problem. 4039. Car parking spaces. The Promoter will not affect the use of the Western car park and will still permit use of the ramp. As Mr Farthing's evidence showed, the car park as surveyed at most reached 48 per cent capacity. 4040. The loss of spaces, we say, is not of concern since on our revised figure of 290 remaining there is sufficient capacity. But even on Mr Farthing's figures at most 29 cars would be displaced. Twelve per cent of those using the car park are not associated with the market and management of the car park could ensure that priority was given to those requiring access to the market. And since 12 per cent comes to 33 cars out of that maximum surveyed in the car park it is quite clear that there is more than ample capacity for those people using the car park who need to use the car park for direct access to the market. In any event, point four: ample spaces exist in nearby car parks, and the Committee has seen the plans of where they are. 4041. That is the meat of the practical issues. There is then the question of compensation, which the trade has raised. The National Compensation Code applies generally throughout England and Wales, and a similar Code applies in Scotland. The phrase is simply a useful shorthand for the body of legislation and legal authority which applies to compensation when land is compulsorily purchased, and it is explained at greater length in IP C2. 4042. The Secretary of State's policy on compensation is simply that as a matter of fairness the National Code should apply equally to the Crossrail project as it does to infrastructure and other schemes throughout the country. As C2 explains in paragraphs 1.4 to 1.5 - I am not going to read it all out but just to draw your attention to the fact - what the Bill does is to apply the mechanics of the Compensation Code to this scheme. The government is satisfied that in general the Compensation Code is appropriate for application. The purpose is to provide a uniform code and it is not considered appropriate to depart from what is a fair and uniform code throughout the country and for this specific project. 4043. Here the SMTA claims special treatment over and above all others subject to public work schemes, namely that they should be able to make compensation claims where no one else can; where, in other words, business losses occur where their land is not taken and where there is no lack of care taken in carrying out the project. 4044. The Promoter submits that the proper approach to dealing with the issues at Smithfield is on the basis adopted, in other words to provide proper protections against harm via, for example, the Construction Code, the Tier 3 mitigation measures and the many assurances and undertakings which have been offered and which, to a considerable extent, have met SMTA's concerns. 4045. In any event, compensation exists for SMTA as it does for everybody else, either under the Compulsory Purchase Act or at common law. I make the following brief points. The Code and the common law both require undertakers to take reasonable care in carrying out works, whether it is under the Act or the common law duty not to cause a nuisance. And although claims under Section 10 are for loss in the value of the land, as Mr Dingemans pointed out yesterday, this does not mean that there is no compensation which reflects business difficulties as the result of temporary works. He drew your attention to Lord Hoffman in Wildtree Hotels. That was precisely the issue in Wildtree Hotels: can temporary works causing harm - to a hotel in that case - be compensated for? Answer, yes. In that case I think it was obstruction of their access. Compensation for temporary works, such as construction works, is included since they may affect rental value: for example, if the premises are rendered partly or indeed wholly unusable during the period of works. Although a direct claim for loss of profits cannot be made in the sense that you cannot simply put in an application for loss of profits, loss in value of the premises can take into account the fact that they are less suitable or convenient for the business which would otherwise be carried out there. Again, that was specifically an issue which Lord Hoffman addressed in Wildtree. Loss of profitability, therefore, may affect value, and not simply capital value, and this can be the subject of compensation. So I depart from what Mr Dingemans told you yesterday and say that in fact the Compensation Code is more generous than he has assumed is the case. 4046. When considering the claims for special treatment by the market traders it is important to recognise that neither the Code nor the law provide an indemnity for all losses suffered as a result of works. The law simply does not require a private or public contractor carrying out works with all reasonable care to underwrite losses suffered by neighbouring owners or occupiers - there must be a degree of "give and take" in modern society. It is the policy of the law to draw a balance between the legitimate interests of those affected by works and in not placing an unreasonable burden on the development of the land and on the national economy. 4047. That principle of give and take in fact was encapsulated in a relatively old case, Andreae v. Selfridge - it is old to those of us who have to spend time reading these dusty volumes - in 1938, but the important point is that it was applied by Lord Hoffman in Wildtree Hotels only a few years ago, so it is an up to date principle. You will see there that what the Master of the Rolls said: "When one is dealing with temporary operations, such as demolition and re-building, everyone has to put up with a certain amount of discomfort, because operations of that kind cannot be carried on at all without a certain amount of noise and a certain amount of dust. Therefore, the rule with regard to interference must be read subject to this qualification," and he goes on to say, "In respect of operations of this character, such as demolition and building, if they are reasonably carried on and all proper and reasonable steps are taken to ensure that no undue inconvenience is caused to the neighbours, whether from noise, dust or other reasons, the neighbours must put up with it." 4048. I turn briefly to the Human Rights dimension. It adds little, if anything. I may say that I cursed Mr Dingemans last night because the recent case he referred to is only reported in French, so I had a pleasant evening! However, I did manage with the aid of an Internet translator to get to the bottom of it. I will come to that last. Firstly, Strasbourg requires that there is a "fair balance" to be struck between the public interest and private individuals, giving a wide discretion to public authorities in striking that balance. This is exactly what the give and take principle does in the common law, as I have already explained. The present case involves no compulsory purchase or expropriation of land owned by the market or traders. The Court of Appeal recently examined the Strasbourg cases in a case called Trailer & Marina v Secretary of State for the Environment last year and, having considered whether compensation is required, Lord Justice Neuberger concluded that compensation was not required except where land was taken. I have set out the passage in the judgment at paragraphs 57 to 58. Cases such as Dennis v. Ministry of Defence do not assist you since they involve extreme facts - and I use the word "extreme" taken from the judgment - very different from the circumstances of Crossrail. The Dennis case involved the considerable noise from Harrier jets from RAF Wittering, which impacted on a nearby country house in circumstances which Mr Justice Buckley described as "extreme noise". You will see the sort of facts he was dealing with - and I have cited from paragraph 40 of his judgment where he said: "To fly the Harriers in such places or in such a manner that they exhibit their maximum and 'fearsome' noise very close to or even over a neighbour's house and when that may occur many times throughout a flying day and into the evening, in my view manifestly amounts to a nuisance unless otherwise justified." An extreme set of facts. There is no comparison with Crossrail where works are being proposed within many controls via the Bill provisions, the EMRs, undertakings and assurances. 4049. Finally, my favourite judgment from last night! The recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Athanasiou, decided only on 9 February, is currently only reported in French. So far as can be ascertained at short notice - and I thought about providing it to the Committee, but I thought probably you had better things to do! - and as far as I could tell with an evening's perusal, it is also very different from the circumstances here. It was the case of permanent blight caused to a number of properties situated very close to a new railway. Some of them were less than five metres away from it, some of them were under the bridge and some of them had the railway line passing above the ground level of the buildings that had been created, and they were trains which were intended to pass at high speed with a degree of regularity, which the court repeated. Circumstances there of that sort of blighting from the operation of public works would be covered here in any event by the Land Compensation Act 1973, and the details of those compensation provisions are provided in footnote 5 and are set out in paragraph 3.3 of IP C2. So it is a set of facts which we compensate for in any event in this country. So, again, it is a set of facts which do not help the Committee, in my submission. 4050. So, pulling the matters together, the Promoter suggests, therefore, that there is no good basis for the market traders claiming that they should be treated as a special case, that they should be treated differently, indeed far more favourably than the vast majority of homes, businesses, schools, hospitals and the like which have to accept the give and take principle both in the Code provided by parliament and in the common law. 4051. SMTA can have no legitimate basis for complaining since they are being treated equally under the law, especially when the sensitivity of their position is dealt with by a significant body of controls through the Bill, the EMRs and by many specific assurances and undertakings. Thank you, sir. 4052. CHAIRMAN: Mr Dingesmans. 4053. MR DINGEMANS: Can I deal first of all with the outstanding technical issues, if I can call them that, by reference to the outstanding undertakings from the Promoter's document, which I handed up this morning? It is a two-page document that will help focus submissions in that respect, and it is now on the screen. May I set on record that we are very grateful to the Promoter for all the undertakings that have been provided, and these now, as it were, are some issues that remain dividing us? As you know from the submissions yesterday, we are critically concerned to ensure that these undertakings are effective, in circumstances where building works will go wrong, to ensure that are not just left with words that were well meant at the moment that they were given, promises that were intended to be kept, but circumstances have led to them being breached. 4054. Can I first of all go through the small parts? One: the agreement to remove the power to stop up Lindsey Street in its entirety. My learned friend has offered the undertaking to keep Lindsey Street open, and with 44 tonne lorries. The only question now is whether or not the power should be amended to keep within relevant limits, which will shift of course the power to stop up Lindsey Street. We do respectfully submit that it is fairer for all concerned to know exactly what is being stopped, how and when. Secondly, the undertaking on working hours. What my learned friend says is that you can rely on the Control of Pollution Act and there will be consultation. We respectfully submit that the evidence proves to the Committee that you simply cannot have construction works going on at the same time as the market - no one has sensibly argued against the proposition. If that is right what is wrong with Parliament, which is the body to decide these matters, imposing that solution on the local authorities, rather than leaving the possibilities of other individuals influencing a decision which will simply lead to chaos on the ground? If Smithfield is to remain open and these works are to take place they cannot be carried out at the same time; that was the effect of all the un-contradicted evidence that you heard. So we do respectfully press for undertaking 2. 4055. Undertaking 3 is the minimum of seven loading bays. We demonstrated by expert evidence how this can be done. Mr Berryman said, "There may be difficulties." We do respectfully submit that if the Committee requires this as an undertaking then the net effect of it is this: it becomes a construction parameter, a bit like having the hoarding closer into the building site, and that ensures that rather than just reasonable endeavours the seven loading bays are met. My learned friend has shown you in P51 this morning the overall effect of percentages but, as was demonstrated I think yesterday by reference to the map when dealing with the points made by Mr Hopkins and Mr Binley, the eastern end of the market is where some of the traders are. I am representing all the traders at the market, if I were only representing a person at the eastern end it would really be of no interest that there were other spaces around. That is really the critical point that we do respectfully press on the Committee today. 4056. Finally, undertaking 4 we have now modified, and I hope to reflect the points that my learned friend was making, which is that they use reasonable endeavours to provide substitute loading bays and consultation with the Corporation and Smithfield, and we respectfully submit that there can be no sensible objection to that, that that is effectively what they are trying to do; but it gives a proper structure for it. 4057. Market operation, the parking. If you have reference to the document that my learned friend has already handed up it is at number 11, the undertaking that he has offered, and the only difference between us is effectively 50 per cent of the 580 spaces, and that is a short point which I leave without further submissions. 4058. Air quality and environmental measures, we have removed the provision to stop works in the event of excess and we simply continue to ask that which was pressed by Mr Curson, namely that he be involved in the agreement of trigger levels, and if there is any unreasonable behaviour on his part then of course it can be determined by independent arbitration. As you know, dust is inconsistent with the continued safe operation of the market, not only for the market traders but also for those consuming the market produce. 4059. Can I then go to number 7 and ask you to take up my learned friend's document, which I think is number P50? Number 7 is an undertaking that the market can be safely occupied and operated during the course of the construction works. That appears to be everyone's intention and indeed what all these undertakings give. If you look at P50 at page 11, the bit that my learned friend clarified this morning, what my learned friend says is that there will be a Heritage Deed, and that the Corporation of London, who as you know support the Smithfield position in this respect, will be able to take into account the impact of the works on the operation of the market, or the businesses of the traders. We respectfully submit that that is not enough because taking into account the impact of the works on the business of the traders does not mean that if you cannot safely occupy the building you will have to redesign a different way of doing it. What we respectfully request the Committee to do is to ensure that which the Promoters have said is their intention throughout, namely to ensure the continued existence of Smithfield. Without that unequivocal undertaking that in fact, as you know from the evidence yesterday, it was thought on behalf of the Promoter had been given - in fact that is simply not right, it was an innocent error by the witness - it is always going to be open to the nominated undertaker to say, "I am sorry, it is too expensive to keep the market going, et cetera, and although the City can take that into account we simply cannot safely guarantee you the continued safe operation of that." With this undertaking the continued existence of Smithfield is assured, and we respectfully submit that that is what the Committee should be guaranteeing for the market traders. That is really, together with Lindsey Street, one of the principle reasons for our appearance before the Committee, and that is an undertaking from the Promoter that the market can be safely occupied and operated during the course of the construction works. If that is really what they are intending to achieve why can they not promise that to us? 4060. That brings me back to the discussions of law - and I know that although lawyers get very interested by these things sensible people do not. Can I deal, I hope fairly and accurately, with the points that my learned friend has made? My learned friend says that we are in Section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 - that is common ground. He says we can get compensation for loss of profits by reference to the loss of value of land. As we demonstrated in the evidence, the leases held by the market traders are effectively very small value leases. You have seen their ten-year leases, you have seen the values - that is all in the evidence - and the scheduled works 2008 starting in the Smithfield area is about two years before the expiry of the lease. What that means is that we do not even come within the qualifying schedule for entering into a settlement deed. Our property interests are so limited, albeit protected by the 1954 Act, that the value of the land we hold is almost worthless. Of course, what my learned friend cannot deal with was the example I gave you yesterday: the dust suppression measures do not work, dust gets into the market, the meat is contaminated and condemned, who is going to pay for that? Answer: not the nominated undertaker under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1956 because that does not relate to the value of land. What does that mean? Off to the common law action in nuisance. What does that mean? What I submitted yesterday and what in my submission is plainly the case, that the only people who will benefit from that are lawyers, and in my submission it is not the function of Parliament to enrich lawyers any more than they are already. 4061. That brings me to the Human Rights Act point. All I cited yesterday was S v. France and Dennis for the proposition that a fair balance needs to be struck between the interests of the Promoter and the public protected by them, and the interests of the market traders. But the striking of the fair balance is not something that is for the courts to do; the courts do it by default. But this is what was said in Trailer and a paragraph cited with approval by the Court of Appeal: "Courts should have in mind that theirs is a reviewing role. Parliament is charged with the primary responsibility for deciding whether the means chosen to deal with a social problem are both necessary and appropriate. Assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of the various legislative alternatives is primarily a matter for Parliament," which is why we are here asking you to take into account. We respectfully say that we have identified all the problems the market traders have under the Acts which generally will work well. We have very minimal land rights; we are not in a position where any of our land is being taken, so we are not protected in that situation. We have works going on below us and we have works going on beside us. We have a whole series of undertakings that have been offered for our specific protection which, when they do not work, will be worthless in the sense that we will not be able to get money for any breach of them. We might have uncertain remedies of approaching the Secretary of State for enforcement, Judicial Reviews, claims for damages in nuisance to try and show the breach of the common law duties. We do respectfully ask the Committee to bear all that in mind and to consider seriously the three proposals we have made. The first is, as you know, that these undertakings are offered and exchanged with the market traders and, as you know, there are 36 of them. The alternative is to ensure that the Promoter offers an undertaking that these undertakings can be enforced by those market traders under the Contracts (Third Party Rights) Act. That was the whole point of the Law Commission Bill; it was very unfair to have contractual provisions for the benefit of one party who is not the party who can enforce it. All we are trying to do is meet an anomaly which has already been recognised publicly by the Law Commission and by Parliament in 1999 in the Contracts Act. The third possibility, which we press for independently, is the limited compensation provision. My learned friend says the Railway Clauses Act is applied by the National Compensation Code. Of course that is right, but the effect of the clause, we have suggested, is to give us a right to claim under it. Under the existing law, under those provisions we do not have that right because there is no taking. 4062. So those are the respectful points we continue to urge on behalf of the Association. That said may I, as I think I have already indicated, thank the Promoter for all the undertakings which have been offered and which are recorded in P50. 4063. That leaves me with one final point, which I have discussed very briefly with your clerk. I am afraid it is another nightmare area, which is the question in relation to costs. There are at the moment real issues and interesting comments about whether or not a Committee such as this even has power to order costs, and just for your learned clerk's note Erskine May deals with it at paragraph 533, page 1061, and I know that those provisions have been drawn to your attention. The matter is also helpfully summarised in the explanatory notes to the Parliamentary Costs Bill. If you do have the power then we do ask that you do take into account and consider whether it would be appropriate to order any sum, or even a proportion of the sum to take into account the fact that we have come here and we have obtained undertakings. Although, as was made plain in the evidence, financial resources amongst market traders vary and the turnover can be significant, not all of them are in the situation that they are able to afford that easily. Those are our submissions. 4064. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Can I just say that we do not know whether or not under the Hybrid Bill terms that it actually applies? We will check on this and we will get back to you, either in our response on the report - indeed, as well as that we will write to you to let our judgment on that. But we have to check. 4065. MR DINGEMANS: I certainly understand that, sir. May I say that while my learned friend was reading French last night we were trying to find out what powers you do have, and I am afraid none of us were much better informed. 4066. CHAIRMAN: As I understand it in the Act it is only where the Committee may decide that you had been unnecessarily called in defending your Market Tenants' Association. 4067. MR DINGEMANS: If, which is uncertain, the Parliamentary Costs Act 1865 applies to the Hybrid Bills then what I need to do is show two things. First of all, that there has been an alteration for the protection of the Petitioner, and we would submit we have shown that because of the undertakings. The other thing is that the Petitioners have been unreasonably or vexatiously subjected to expense. We do not promote the suggestion that there is any vexation here, but we do respectfully submit, taking into account all the matters, that we have had to engage our experts to review what has happened, and other ways to suggest Lindsey Street. Before we had even started there was not even an undertaking to keep anything at Lindsey Street open. Of course that is not vexatious and of course it just reflects the very hard work that has been done by the Promoter, but we would respectfully submit that that is an unreasonable expense that the Petitioners had to bear. Those are our short submissions as to if there is power, on which, as I say, better minds will be working. 4068. CHAIRMAN: Mr Dingemans, without prejudice in any way I do not think any Member here is unsympathetic, but we do not know whether it applies or whether we have the powers. But we will get back to you. 4069. MR DINGEMANS: Thank you very much. 4070. MR ELVIN: Sir, might I just say something about that? I think this is probably one of those issues that we will address you on comprehensively at the end of the Committee hearings in our final closing, but we have our doubts that this applies to the Hybrid Bill procedures. In any event, alteration in the Parliamentary Costs Act, our view, for what it is worth at this stage - and I am doing it on the hoof - is that that means an alteration in the Bill, not simply the giving of an undertaking. So if the Committee were satisfied that no amendments needed to be made to the Bill then of course the jurisdiction would not be invoked in any event. Sir, I think the best thing to do, rather than my address it on the hoof, is to deal with it, if that is convenient to the Committee, when we finally close at the end of the hearings. If you would like me to deal with it earlier of course I will do so. 4071. CHAIRMAN: I think that is very helpful. Thank you very much. That concludes today's hearing and we will next come together on 8 March at 10 a.m.
Adjourned until Wednesday 8 March at 10.00 am
|