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
| 
