Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16960
- 16979)
16960. Chairman: Can we list this as
A192.
16961. Mr Saunderson: I believe you have
had the Petition for a year.
16962. Ms Lieven: Yes, we have the Petition,
it is just helpful to do it in the same order.
16963. Mr Saunderson: What I propose
to do is take us through the Petition, then take us through this
bundle of documents and then submit my arguments and submissions
to you. I am grateful for your time for this Petition. You will
see that it is raised in the name of myself, my cousin, who is
sitting behind me and has the same name, and a friend, Mrs Katherine
Baxter. She is no relation, but the wife of a colleague of ours.
I am asking you to prevent the further passage of this Bill in
Parliament which I believe you are entitled to do, so that is
what I am asking you to do this morning.
16964. Chairman: We have been told that
this is a good Bill and we have to present a bill back to Parliament
so that it may consider whether to take it forward or not. As
you say, we have been given a specific task to do that.
16965. Mr Saunderson: I sympathise totally
with you.
16966. Chairman: Thank you very much,
we need as much as we can get!
16967. Mr Saunderson: I understand that
it has been a long haul for you. You have heard many people and
I am sure it is hard going.
16968. Mr Binley: Would you mind, Chairman,
if I read this first? I do feel if I have it in my head it helps
when you allude to it and it will help build a picture.
16969. Mr Saunderson: Pages 49 to 55.
16970. Chairman: Can I reiterate what
I said earlier, we are not able to go back retrospectively to
deal with old matters. We will deal with the one which will be
presented to us. We can deal with the matter of the land and property
you have got now, but we cannot go back to something you had before
where there has been a subsequent court decision. That is a matter
for you and the civil law and is simply not now within our powers
to do so. We are only dealing with what is now. On the matter
of compensation, we will deal with what you have now in relation
to your Petition.
16971. Mr Saunderson: My understanding
is that you can ask the Promoter for certain things, and my case
put that the Department for Transport had nothing to do with what
was going on back in 1990. I think that is slightly disingenuous.
I think everybody here would find that slightly strange to try
and disengage the Department for Transport from London Underground
and Crossrail.
16972. Chairman: I fully understand where
you are coming from with your argument because of your position,
but in truth, it has been described that what occurred at that
time was of a different volition altogether, it came from a different
direction. What has been before is not really for this Committee.
We can only deal with the present. As you know, one of the fundamental
principles of British law is a lack of retrospection in relation
to decisions which are made in this place. We cannot interfere.
We can only deal with your Petition in respect of the situation
now as it stands. If there is an unfairness, however unfair it
might be, we can listen to your arguments, but I am not quite
sure that we can formally insist upon the Promoter to act upon
that.
16973. Mr Saunderson: I think all MPs
would be interested in the way that the government bodies are
conducting their business. If they are conducting that business
which is prejudice to small businesses, I do not think that is
something MPs would want to support. In my case, for 16 years
London Underground, Crossrail, British Rail, however you like
to call it, the Department for Transport, has been dealing unfairly
with me and my company.
16974. Chairman: I understand that your
view is that what has occurred in the past probably has been unfair.
What I am saying is, we are dealing with now and that is all we
can do. We do not have the powers to go back in this regard. I
do not see that there is anything wrong with you putting your
case, but I want to advise you that we are restricted on how far
we can go and what powers we have.
16975. Mr Saunderson: For example, you
made an order in your interim decision that costs should be paid
to certain Petitioners. That is one of the issues I am asking
you to award, the costs .
16976. Chairman: Certainly, and that
is in respect of your holdings now, that is right. We will look
at that, there is no doubt about it. I am saying, what you have
presented in the past as part of your argument is on land and
property which are under a different heading altogether and are
no longer in your ownership, they have been gone for some time
and have been subject to decisions taken before by the receivers
and so on. That is not really a matter, I believe—I will
take advice—where we have the power to effect.
16977. Mr Saunderson: I hear what
you say, and I understand what you are saying. Ten Hayne Street
I do own with my cousin and Mrs Baxter and I bought that in 1982.
16978. Chairman: Can I say, I am in no
way trying to stop you in your presentation of your Petition,
what I am trying to do is to advise you that, yes, you do have
a proper and valid Petition which relates primarily to your ownership
which you have now.
16979. Mr Saunderson: That is fine. My
case includes that because I have owned that since 1982 and the
other land has come and gone, as it were.
| 
