Examination of Witnesses (Questions 7940
- 7959)
7940. CHAIRMAN: That is not in here?
7941. MR MOULD: That is not in here,
no. There is no provision in relation to specific Petitioners
or beneficiaries, proprietors along the route who benefit from
agreements of this kind; there is no provision in their agreements
which deal with that eventuality. What the Secretary of State
and the other sponsor of the scheme, that is to say Transport
for London, have agreed—and this is set out in the Heads
of Terms, which, as you will recall, have been in place since
last November—and I think I mentioned this in my section
of the opening statement before your Lordships, back on day one—is
that there is a publicly available Heads of Terms document, which,
amongst other things, provides the Department for Transport step-in
rights, which, amongst other things, will become operative in
the event of the nominated undertaker being subject to a winding-up
petition. What that is designed to do is to ensure that the Secretary
of State is able to take appropriate steps in the event of such
an event occurring or being in prospect, to manage the ongoing
rolling out and operation of the project.
7942. BARONESS FOOKES: Like Northern
Rock, do you mean?
7943. MR MOULD: I was hesitating to say
yes although the whisper came behind me, "Yes"! Although
I read my newspapers quite assiduously I am not sure that I am
privy to all the complexities of Northern Rock.
7944. Let us step back a bit. The government
does not want to see Crossrail in 2015 being half built or Crossrail
in 2023 suddenly grinding to a halt because the then nominated
undertaker gets into difficulties financially. I hope that this
Committee may take some comfort from the thought that the government
of the day can be expected to take appropriate steps to maintain
the huge investment that is going to be put into this project.
I think we gave you a figure of £16 billion for construction
in costs of the day when we opened this case. It is, frankly,
inconceivable that the government of the day will allow that investment
to be wasted in the very unlikely event, I hasten to say, one
may feel, of the person who has actually been nominated to undertake
the construction or to operate it gets into financial difficulties.
7945. CHAIRMAN: Mr Mould, what these
Petitioners want to know is, supposing the whole thing grinds
to a halt, having reached 1 Greek Street, without works having
been done, what happens?
7946. MR MOULD: In that very, very, very
unlikely event—
7947. CHAIRMAN: Quite, but what happens?
7948. MR MOULD: Then the provision I
point to is the Heads of Terms that I have mentioned, and the
Secretary of State, I think one may assume, would step in and
take appropriate steps to ensure that the project continued to
be rolled out towards completion.
7949. CHAIRMAN: I would think politically
that would be essential but is there any piece of paper that sets
this out?
7950. MR MOULD: There is no piece of
paper which sets it out in those particular terms but I have mentioned
the Heads of Terms document, which provides for step-in rights
in the event of that happening.
7951. CHAIRMAN: Is that available to
them?
7952. MR MOULD: It is publicly available,
yes.
7953. CHAIRMAN: It may be but is it available
to them now?
7954. MR MOULD: I can provide them with
a copy of it.
7955. CHAIRMAN: Because I think they
might like to look at it.
7956. MR MOULD: I have shown the Reverend
Scott the relevant clause.
7957. CHAIRMAN: You have seen it, Mr
Scott?
7958. MR SCOTT: My Lord, I have seen
it but it does not unfortunately answer the point. What it does
is it provides for the government to be able to step in but it
does not provide for the reversion of the liability to the Promoter.
In considering an approach to this that might be practical, it
seems to us that to add to this assignment a provision that in
the event of the insolvency of a transferee the obligation made
by the Promoter in the first instance reverts to the Promoter
would be a practical solution. I do appreciate from Mr Mould's
point of view that that is not in accordance with the instructions
that he has received, which is why we have not been able to agree
this. But it is why we thought it appropriate to draw this matter
to your Lordships' attention because at present we, the holding
trustees, are unable to give to the other trustees of the charity
a suitable comfort that the interests of the charity and the future
of the house are properly safeguarded by the Promoter.
7959. CHAIRMAN: We understand that. Mr
Monro has stepped off the Eurostar train to come here today; has
he had a look at these papers?
| 
