Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6640
- 6659)
6640. MR HICKS: We do, my Lord, but we
want it stronger. We want it with teeth which this document does
not have.
6641. BARONESS FOOKES: Does that mean
you are rejecting the offer of an undertaking on this document
which is imperfect so far as you are concerned? May we be clear
on that?
6642. MR HICKS: No, my Lady, because
it has other things in it, but it does not go far enough to deal
with the point that we are appearing on. That is the point.
6643. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: What
I am struggling to come to terms with is that you are saying there
is a residual risk that they might not require the property.
6644. MR HICKS: The scheme might not
go ahead, my Lord.
6645. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: That
I am struggling with. We will have had Royal Assent.
6646. MR HICKS: Yes.
6647. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: You
did not query that side of it, and indeed EMI did not say that.
6648. MR HICKS: No.
6649. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: So
we will have to make some presumption that the sky will not fall
in tomorrow and that we will proceed to Royal Assent. What you
seem then to be concerned with is that even after Royal Assent
somehow Crossrail will not have a need to acquire the property
unless, if we return to the diagram, Crossrail can come up with
some stunning new solution whereby they do not require that nib
of land, in which case why have they bothered to this extent?
I just find it hard to understand. You accept that we are going
to make the assumption that we will proceed to Royal Assent—
6650. MR HICKS: Yes, my Lord.
6651. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN:—
because that is the same assumption that EMI made; that is assumption
number one. The second assumption that I am making is that I cannot
see a way that they can proceed to build that new ticket office
without acquiring that nib of land.
6652. MR HICKS: I will accept that, my
Lord.
6653. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: What
is the risk then?
6654. MR HICKS: The risk is that the
scheme does not go ahead. That is precisely the point. Because
this is a Hybrid Bill you are not allowed to argue that, but in
the real world that is something that is a possibility and that
is the residual risk that is not covered.
6655. CHAIRMAN: But we cannot deal with
that either, can we? We cannot assume that the Bill will not go
ahead.
6656. MR HICKS: If the Bill is going
ahead and they are going to take it therefore in 2009 there is
absolutely no reason why they cannot give an undertaking to take
it in 2009. That is the difference. It comes back to this difference
between an ordinary CPO and a Bill such as this.
6657. CHAIRMAN: So you are quarrelling
with paragraph 4, are you?
6658. MR HICKS: Yes. If there was an
undertaking which said that they would in any event take it in
June 2009 or say, "We are not going to take it", then
we would be happy.
6659. CHAIRMAN: But I think for the same
reason that you have said I do not think they can make an undertaking
of that sort because they have not got any powers.
| 
