Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6020
- 6039)
6020. MR MOULD: Yes.
6021. CHAIRMAN: For many, many years
these have been subject to compensation?
6022. MR MOULD: Exactly so. My Lord,
we do not think, as we have explained, that ceiling collapses
are at all likely in the Spitalfields area, we have been over
that last week, but if it did happen, we would have to put it
right. I hope that makes it absolutely clear to the Petitioners,
if it has not been clear already, what is the fundamental answer
to the concerns which Ms Jones herself said in opening her case
this morning continue to cause anxiety to those whom she represents
in Spitalfields. Having said that, as your Lordship suggests we
do, we will provide a written response to her more detailed points
and then matters will take their course as we ventilated during
the course of today's debate.
6023. CHAIRMAN: I think you will have
to do that. You have been on notice since 2006 about some of these
things and really she is due to have a response. We will have
to see after we have looked at the response by reference to points
she has made whether there is something that ought to be done
about it in the Bill, because she has persuaded us there is something
that ought to be done. I do not think we can take this any further
today.
6024. MR MOULD: No, that task remains
for later.
6025. BARONESS FOOKES: Could there be
any dispute arising as to the nature of that cause as to whether
it were Crossrail works or some other cause? Could that in itself
be a matter of dispute?
6026. MR MOULD: It could of course.
6027. BARONESS FOOKES: How likely might
that be?
6028. MR MOULD: I am afraid I really
cannot answer that question. The purpose of the approach we take
to settlement, including this phased assessment approach we have
described to you, the monitoring arrangements, the provision of
schedules of defects before and after the works take place and
the monitoring during and after the scheme has been carried out
are all designed to inform that question of causation. To take
an example, if you look at a property and you identify a number
of existing defects, then plainly—forgive me for making
a trite point—that will then enable you when you come back
and there is a dispute whether some apparent defect has been caused
by the Crossrail scheme, you will have a benchmark against which
to judge that. That is what this process is designed to facilitate
but, ultimately, there may be a case where a judgment has to be
made as to whether damage has been caused. I suspect that generally
the other likely explanation for a manifest crack or some evidence
of minor shifting in a building other than Crossrail works would
be a point Professor Mair made to you last week which is buildings
move seasonally and clearly those who live in old houses know
this for a fact, old buildings develop cracks and things quite
unexpectedly. That is the sort of thing that has to be assessed
ultimately on a case-by-case basis and the settlement policy is
designed to facilitate the process of getting to an agreed position.
What your Ladyship will remember is a point Lord Brooke raised
last week, that the Deed provides a dispute resolution procedure
to enable matters such as this, if parties cannot agree amongst
themselves about it, that is to say the nominated undertaker and
the property owner, for the matter to be referred to an independent
expert who will hear what is said, will be able to go and inspect
the building in question, form his or her own judgment, pronounce
and that will be binding on the parties. There is a way of getting
through disputes of that kind built in, at least that is one of
the beauties of the Deed in my view but that is perhaps for others
to judge.
6029. CHAIRMAN: I do not think we are
going to take this any much further this afternoon. Ms Jones,
you have been given an indication that there may not be much in
the way of the comprehensive indemnity coming your way but, on
the other hand, you are a distinguished negotiator, I suspect,
and you have an opportunity now to put the points in the revisions
to the text of the Settlement Deed that we have now all received
to the Promoters to see whether you can make any progress. Ultimately,
you will have to persuade us there is something wrong with the
Settlement Deed which gives effect to the responsibilities under
the Bill before I think this Committee is going to be prepared
to do anything about it, but I must give you the opportunity to
do some negotiation first.
6030. MS JONES: Thank you, my Lord, and
I appreciate that. I think the principle which Mr Mould set out
that, that if the construction of the tunnels—I think I
have written this down correctly—causes damage the Promoter
will make it good. That is fine. In my opinion, that is not what
the Settlement Deed says and it would be extremely useful if the
Settlement Deed set out all the provisions in one document so
that individual lay people can look at that and think, "Yes,
that is the document that deals with damage". One other thing
I would like to—
6031. CHAIRMAN: By the time the lawyers
have got at it, I think that is very improbable!
6032. MS JONES: Another thing I would
like to say about Mr Mould's statement is that also before when
he said if the construction of the tunnels causes damage, the
Promoter will make it good. Of course, he had already carved out,
I think—correct me if I am wrong—any catastrophic
collapse, but we do have to take that into account. It could happen,
it has happened before. He seemed also to exclude creeping settlement
during the operation of the trains. I think that should be included
because that does arise out of construction of the tunnels and
that should be included. The Promoter can take heart from the
fact it does not think that any of these things will happen and
I am saying to the Promoter, "Please encapsulate that and
take your confidence into the Settlement Deed and tell us whatever
happens with damage, it will be made good".
6033. CHAIRMAN: I think you are back
on your 100 per cent indemnity again, are you not?
6034. MS JONES: I hesitate to use the
word "indemnity". Let us just ask that damage is made
good or if those parties have to pay for it to be done themselves
together with their third party experts, et cetera, that cost
is reimbursed by the Promoter. I would like the Promoter to take
those. What I think would be a complete waste of time is for the
Promoter to simply come back and say, "No, no, no, no",
that really is not an acceptable way to proceed. I would ask that
you ask the Promoter to make a concerted effort to try and negotiate
this with me on those principles which I have just outlined.
6035. CHAIRMAN: I thought I had already
made it perfectly clear that we think that if you put all these
points forward in 2006 and have not had any answer at all, you
are entitled to have an answer.
6036. MS JONES: Thank you.
6037. CHAIRMAN: And, probably, to the
next points that you have put forward today. I hope that will
happen. If it does not, tell us.
6038. MS JONES: Thank you.
6039. CHAIRMAN: If the answer is "No,
no, no, no" there may be good reasons for it but we ought
to know what the outcome is.
|
