Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 4600 - 4619)

  4600. Chairman: As I say, I will just repeat what I said. I understand your request and bearing in mind that we have requested information from you it may be that the Committee may need to have you back to explain that. If you can get as much of that information to us as possible then we can be the judge of that. As to enabling a slot to be arranged at the present time, I am going to have to talk to the Secretary to see what we can do in respect of that.

  4601. Mr Cameron: Thank you, sir. The only other issue—and this may not find favour so I am not going to push it as hard as I would—is that we do not anticipate problems, but if there were a complete breakdown between the parties we do not expect you to get involved in the negotiations. But if the breakdown went to the question of whether the information that you have requested could actually be provided, we would have to deal with it on an ad hoc basis, and in those circumstances we would wish to have the opportunity to come back to the Committee earlier so that we do not just come back in May and say, "We are terribly sorry, everything broke down and we have not provided the information." That is the only other request that we make.

  4602. Chairman: This is now an open door policy almost. I am afraid I cannot give that. On such a matter of so much importance to the Bill itself I can say that this Committee will always be open, but we cannot have a totally open approach to the diary for the future. If talks do break down and they become almost irrecoverable the Committee will hear the views of both sides and take an opinion on it at that time; that is all I am really able to say.

  4603. Mr Cameron: That is extremely helpful to us, thank you.

  4604. Chairman: Can I just say that we are not expecting you to fail; we are expecting you to try and find a solution and report that information back to the Committee. So we will reserve our position on that request.

  4605. Mr Cameron: Thank you very much, sir.

  4606. Chairman: Ms Lieven.

  4607. Ms Lieven: Sir, very briefly, as far as the note is concerned we are quite content with that—it was drawn up jointly—and we are obviously content to do the work which we understood the Committee wanted us to do. So far as the programme is concerned, we are quite happy with it as an indicative programme; we are perfectly happy with the general headings. We do not feel that it is appropriate, to be frank, for this Committee to get into managing negotiations which is, in truth, what is being asked of you, let alone to oversee a programme like this and effectively acting as a County Court issuing directions and then overseeing them. There are some of the sub-headings here where we are not sure that they are necessary; there are other things that we think might be necessary. As a general indication of the kind of things that we are going to be talking about, we are happy; and we are quite happy with the overall programme by which by early May there is a report drawn up that seeks to answer the issues on which the Committee ask for further discussion to be undertaken.

  4608. Can I make clear that we do not accept at this stage that there would be any need to come back before the Committee with oral evidence? We are concerned about the programme as a whole and we are concerned that if we do get into that situation there is a severe danger of going back over material that the Committee heard in January, at length, if you remember, because it was before we moved to a shorter and more concise approach, and where the Committee may well have already drawn views. It may be necessary to call further evidence but I certainly would not want there to be any acceptance from our side that that will be the case. What there will be is a written report that we are quite happy to present to the Committee and that will hopefully set out those areas that are agreed, and if there are any areas that are not agreed then it will set those out as well. If the Committee then feels that it would help its deliberations to hear further evidence then obviously that will have to be programmed in, but I would not want any acceptance at this stage that there will be a slot in the programme for Liverpool Street to come back, otherwise again one could see that there might be a number of things in parts of the Bill that might want that kind of provision. So, sir, generally we are all in happy agreement, the work is being undertaken and I do not think there are any problems so far with that; but in my submission the Committee should not commit itself at this stage to rehearing the Liverpool Street issues. I hope that makes sense.

  4609. Chairman: I am content with most of what you said there. Can I just say that we will look at all the evidence or views which are prevented before us? We do not want argument, we want solution, and I think from the manner in which you have both talked to the Committee this morning I am sure that you can do that. If there is a failure to agree then we will take the information provided by both sides and view it independently in our deliberations. But I agree with you, let us hope that we do not have to come back. If the Committee then in time feels it is appropriate to recall any Petitioner then we are entitled to do so, but we do not want the Committee to keep revisiting what we have heard before, and we certainly do not want to have any repetition of the matters heard before.

  4610. Ms Lieven: Thank you very much, sir.

  4611. Chairman: That concludes the hearing this morning in respect of that. We will now move on to Salisbury House Offices Limited.


The Petition of Salisbury House Offices Limited

Mr William Hicks QC appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.

Bircham Dyson Bell appeared as Agent.

  4612. Chairman: Ms Lieven.

  4613. Ms Lieven: Sir, we now move on to Salisbury House. Very briefly, my understanding of the position is that there are no points of principle between us and Salisbury House left. There are some what I would describe as only minor issues around the Settlement Deed and the undertaking between us and Salisbury House about pretty small process-type points. In those circumstances we are having discussions with other Petitioners about those kinds of points on the equivalent documents, and in those circumstances we have indicated to Salisbury House that we will not press the Committee to hear Salisbury House's substantive issue today. I am very conscious that if the message that comes out from this Committee is that Petitioners are allowed to defer because they have not reached agreement, then the programme will effectively collapse for the next few weeks. You can see the danger. So there is a fine line to be drawn. But from the Promoter's side we are content that we have got so close with Salisbury House and that the issues are so limited and so narrow that for our part we leave it up to the Committee as to how it wants to handle it—we are not pressing the Committee to hear any matters of substance today. I will leave Mr Hicks to explain the detail of where they are, and to persuade the Committee.

  4614. Chairman: Mr Hicks.

  4615. Mr Hicks: Good morning, sir. I appear on behalf of Salisbury House Offices Limited. I hope I do not need to detain you more than a very few minutes. With your approval, sir, I can explain the position very, very shortly first; I have a longer version if you want it but I suggest that I try with the very short version first. It is not often you get an offer like that from a lawyer!

  4616. Chairman: Yes.

  4617. Mr Hicks: The guts of it is, sir, that we have reached agreement in principle on the substantive issues between us on the basis that an undertaking will be given. That undertaking is in an advanced form and there is an open copy of that undertaking which can be handed in. Sir, there are some very detailed points to be checked; that is one point. The main detailed point is that consideration needs to be given to the best way in which to coordinate arbitration under Schedule 2 of the Bill and adjudication under the Deed relating to the settlement where both relate to the same building.

  4618. Chairman: Just for the record, this will be A55.[3]


  4619. Mr Hicks: I am much obliged, sir. This really leads on from the point that Mr Cameron mentioned. It has been agreed between us that we can enter into the Deed of Settlement without signing up all our 50 or so tenants, which makes obvious sense. But that then leaves this possibility of an arbitration under the Act for the tenants and an adjudication under the Deed for us. We only really got to this position very recently because of the way in which our substantive issues have been settled, and we had this open draft last night. We anticipate that these can be sorted, but sorting out how those two arbitration and adjudication systems should coordinate so as not to waste a lot of time is something that is not easy to do overnight in a hurry. I can explain the position in more detail—it will take a little while—but we believe that in this case the best course, given that the matters of principle are now agreed, is to defer and reserve the right to come back on any issues that arise, but it is unlikely that it will be necessary to come back at all. If I could just add this? You have said that you do not want to get involved in negotiations. We have not got to the point where we know whether there is an issue yet on this and because it must be in general in the interests of both us and the Promoter to avoid duplication and confusion on this we strongly believe that it is likely we will reach agreement on it. That is the short version, sir. I can explain the context but if I go further I have to explain the background to you.


3   Committee Ref: A55, Draft Undertaking for Salisbury House. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007