Examination of Witnesses (Questions 10640
- 10659)
10640. MR MOULD: My Lord, if I may say
so and forgive me for interrupting you, it was because we completely
share that objective. The whole thrust of our approach to the
works at Smithfield, just as it is to all the other worksites
in Central London, is that we are looking to prevent as far as
we reasonably can rather than having to cure. That is why in relation
to these Petitioners, just as in relation to many, many others
who are affected by work sites and construction works for Crossrail
throughout Central London, we have established a detailed series
of arrangements to control and manage the inevitable impacts that
may otherwise arise from the construction of this major scheme.
That is why it is really quite wrong for my learned friend to
suggest that this series of undertakings, that are now to be reduced
to contractual form in relation to these traders, is somehow exceptional.
This is a typical example of the range of protective measures
that we are offering to property owners and occupiers who are
within the vicinity of the Crossrail works throughout the scheme.
It is founded on the very detailed construction code arrangements
that you have been told about which we are committed to. We have
used the phrase "best practice" and that means what
it says, we are committed to delivering best practice in the construction
of this railway. That is as high as I am able to put it, very
high indeed in relation to the prevention as opposed to the cure
side of the equation.
10641. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: I
welcome that point. Could you address the other point that Mr
Abrahams made, the narrowing point?
10642. MR MOULD: There will be no narrowing
of Lindsey Street under the revised scheme.
10643. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Mr
Abrahams, I do not want to delay you in getting to your bed!
(Mr Abrahams) In actual fact, my Lord, I am going back to
work.
10644. I live in Battersea and I was drawing
on my New Covent Garden experience. There the wagons arrive late
at night. When I have gone into Covent Garden at six in the morning
it has been pretty quiet and most of them have departed. Is it
not a similar operation that you run, that much of it takes place
during the night or is it quite different? The second question
to Mr Mould afterwards is, are you going to work through the night?
(Mr Abrahams) My Lord, it is very much the same. We do get
traffic arriving late afternoon so that they can be unloaded.
They like to get in the queue and get unloaded and away. One of
our businesses starts taking product at 11 pm the following night.
You are absolutely right in your perception that it is not quite
but almost a 24-hour operation.
10645. But most of it comes during the night?
(Mr Abrahams) Deliveries come in, so the deliveries come
in, they are moved around the premises, orders are collated together
and they go out during the early morning.
10646. MR MOULD: I am very bad at retaining
these numbers, but the position broadly—I can be precise
about this later in the morning if necessary—is there is
no overlap at all between the main working hours of the market
and us starting our operations. I think we start setting up in
the morning at 7 am and the main works will start on a daily basis
at 8 am. I believe I am right, Mr Abraham will tell me if I have
got it wrong, the main working hours at Smithfield, certainly
in terms of delivery, have finished by 7 am.
(Mr Abrahams) Yes, that would be so, not an exact science
but near that.
10647. Thank you very much indeed.
10648. LORD JONES OF CHELTENHAM: Lord
Chairman, I just wanted to speak to Mr Mould. Is it not within
the Promoter's interest to cause any disruption to these loading
bays, because the last thing you want to do is to have to put
your hand in your pocket and produce some compensation. The only
thing that might interfere is if one of your delivery vehicles
accidentally breaks down in Lindsey Street. From what you have
said, I gather that deliveries will not be made from Lindsey Street
to your site?
10649. MR MOULD: There will be deliveries
made to Lindsey Street, but obviously given the working hours
arrangements that I have just identified, those deliveries will
be taking place outside of the hours when deliveries are being
made to the market. The two will not, on the basis of what we
expect, coincide. As I said, there will be no narrowing of Lindsey
Street. On the face of it, the risk of the concern that Mr Abrahams
has put forward to you actually being realised on the face of
what we know is very small. That is to say that he will actually
in practice find himself unable to gain access to a loading bay
in Lindsey Street during the early hours of the morning when his
meat is being delivered.
(Mr Abrahams) My Lord, if I can make a comment. I am sure
that when Terminal 5 opened all the travellers who had their luggage
lost had the same assurance and I would imagine if you spoke to
them now they would probably not go to travel through Terminal
5 again.
10650. It is because one is talking about risk
and there is always a chance that something unforeseen may happen
that one has the fallback, undesirable and tedious as it may be,
of being able to make a claim for compensation.
10651. LORD SNAPE: My colleague has just
remarked, Lord Chairman, that it is a bit ominous that that is
the first time this project has been compared with Terminal 5!
10652. MR MOULD: Not by us, I should
say.
10653. LORD SNAPE: If I may, Mr Mould,
I would like to return to Baroness Fookes' point earlier and quote
your own words. You said, "Well, if we had the case of Mr
Abrahams being affected over a period of six months and let's
say during that time, three days a week loading bays were blocked,
he would have recourse ... " as you outlined it " ...
to submit evidence of that kind. I do not know how many staff
Mr Abrahams employs, but presumably one of them would then be
detached from their normal duties to put together this evidence
instead of the matter being decided in the comparative tranquillity
of this Committee room, it will be for someone else to decide
whether or not Mr Abrahams has a case. I would guess that procedure
would not be completed in let us say another three months. In
nine months' time that business of Mr Abrahams could suffer considerable
losses whether or not he is eventually compensated. I realise
you made the point that under the proposals put forward by these
Petitioners it would be necessary to accumulate evidence to support
any claim, but there is a degree of certainty about the proposal
in the market traders Petition which does not exist under the
proposals that have been put to them so far.
10654. MR MOULD: My Lord, with respect,
that is not right: there is no greater degree of certainty. Insofar
as this particular point is concerned, that is to say loss of
trade through being unable to use loading bays, there is no difference
at all between our position as regards the extent and nature of
the compensation right and position of Mr Dingemans because in
relation to the loss of the loading bay, as I have stated, compensation
would be recoverable and that compensation would embrace not only
proprietary loss but also consequential loss of trade, loss of
business. There is no difference whatsoever in terms of compensation
right between our proposals and my learned friend's proposals
insofar as loss of loading bays are concerned. Moreover, it must
follow that there is no difference between us as regards the practical
challenge of making good a claim of that kind as and when it arose.
My Lord, I would respectfully reject the suggestion that on that
point there is any question for your Lordships to resolve in relation
to this Petition. The challenge of making a claim is one that
will apply whether or not, taken more broadly and in the round,
one has our approach to compensation or the Petitioner's approach
to compensation. I should say, my answer to my Lady was of course
to take an extreme example and say, "This is how that might
work". I wish to reiterate, if I may, we simply do not expect
that anything like that level of disruption has any prospect of
occurring in relation to the loading bays in Lindsey Street for
reasons that I have expressed and which hopefully your Lordships
have exposed through the questions that my Lord and others have
put to me.
10655. BARONESS FOOKES: That means, Mr
Mould, that the undertakings on loading bays in five can be strengthened
owing to the change in the plans because you said "reasonable
endeavours".
10656. MR MOULD: They can be strengthened
under the revised scheme because we could say the undertaker will
maintain loading bays on the market side of Lindsey Street throughout
the scheme of works.
10657. BARONESS FOOKES: That will go
in, will it?
10658. MR MOULD: I see no reason why
it should not.
10659. BARONESS FOOKES: Good.
| 
