Examination of Witnesses (Questions 5880
- 5899)
5880. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Thank
you.
5881. CHAIRMAN: If you have more to say,
please say it.
5882. MR MOULD: Not at this stage.
5883. CHAIRMAN: The difficulty that I
think we are in is that we now have major changes, and they are
major changes, in the text of the Deed of Settlement. To some
extent, the reason why we are stuck at the moment is because you
did not answer Ms Jones. That was in the House of Commons. On
the other hand, in this House, the burden is on Petitioners to
prove their case or to establish and satisfy us that something
ought to be done. I think Ms Jones accepts that.
5884. Therefore, we are in a complete logjam,
because this is an important element of the Promoters' case. It
is an important palliative to various possible troubles that might
occur to people who own buildings of some substance. We do not
know what the text is going to be. Therefore, Parliament is not
going to be able to say whether it is satisfied with the situation
as it has been adduced by the Promoters or whether Ms Jones has
persuaded us that changes should be made.
5885. MR MOULD: Might I just take a point
in relation to that? I think there is a distinction to be drawn
between, if you will, the principles upon which the Deed should
rest (and I am perfectly willing and able to debate those this
afternoon) and the detailed textual changes that Ms Jones has
put forward. What you have in her narrative text that I think
was provided—
5886. CHAIRMAN: We have it.
5887. MR MOULD: Pages 4 to 5 of that
take a series of discrete points of principle as to what the substantive
content of the Deed ought to be. I think there are 11 of them,
which are set out in sequence there. Those are not points about
detailed drafting, those are points about whether the Deed is
substantially inadequate in the degree to which it protects property
owners and so forth. We can debate those matters this afternoon
and we can express our views on those points and, no doubt, Ms
Jones can tell you why she takes the view that she does.
5888. What I would suggest is that we might
do that, and that then in the meantime we can have a look outside
of this room at the detailed drafting points that she has put
forward in the changes she has proposed to the text of the Deed
itself, and we can provide a written response to that as soon
as possible. I would propose we try and do it by close of play
of Thursday of this week.
5889. CHAIRMAN: You will have to take
legal advice and consider this matter, will you not?
5890. MR MOULD: Yes.
5891. CHAIRMAN: What you are suggesting
is a very practicable point. Let us get as far as we can with
this. However, ultimately, there is going to be a draft of the
Deed of Settlement which the Promoters are putting forward, and
to the extent any Petitioner is unhappy with it then they will
have to persuade us that there ought to be a change made. That
is the way I see it, anyway.
5892. MR MOULD: I think it is fair to
say that there is a particular point in relation to Ms Jones in
that, as we have acknowledged, she made some points to us in 2006
on which we have not reverted to her. More generally, the text
of the Settlement Deed, in the form that you have in front of
you, has been in the public domain, certainly since the petitioning
period was current in this House.
5893. CHAIRMAN: The fact that it was
in the public domain does not mean to say that it cannot be changed.
5894. MR MOULD: No, but it does mean
that it provided other Petitioners with the opportunity to take
points in relation to the text of the Deed. I am not familiar
with every line of every Petition, but my recollection is that
there is not a significant degree of concern expressed in Petitions
about the text of the Deed other than—
5895. CHAIRMAN: All the Spitalfields
groups have asked for indemnities in comprehensive and 100 per
cent terms.
5896. MR MOULD: I was going to say "other
than from the Spitalfields Petitioners". Ms Jones appears,
as she told us earlier, on behalf of all the Spitalfields Petitioners
in relation to this aspect of their case. So this Committee can,
I would have thought, be reasonably confident that having heard
Ms Jones on these matters it will have heard, in substance, the
main body of complaint that there is across Petitioners in this
case in relation to the terms of the Settlement Deed. Your Lordship,
if I may say so, has pinpointed what lies at the heart of the
Spitalfields Petitioners' concerns: they want a comprehensive
indemnity. That is a point of principle, if ever there was one,
and the answer is: "I am sorry, we are not prepared, unless
this Committee tells us to, to give them a comprehensive indemnity".
So we can debate that point this afternoon.
5897. CHAIRMAN: I am not entirely surprised
to hear you say that.
5898. MR MOULD: We can debate that now;
that is not something which depends on detailed wording, that
is a question of principle.
5899. CHAIRMAN: There are two things
about this, Mr Mould. This Committee is not going to engage in
a drafting session about the Deed of Settlement—100 per
cent not.
| 
