Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11060
- 11079)
11060. MR DINGEMANS: My Lord, yes.
11061. CHAIRMAN: The situation, as it
seems to me, is this. You do not like undertaking 234, for reasons
you have given.
11062. MR DINGEMANS: No.
11063. CHAIRMAN: We do not like a suggestion
that the Bill should be amended by the introduction of a new clause,
and I am afraid I do not think we very much like the suggestion
of a limitless indemnity.
11064. MR DINGEMANS: My Lord, yes.
11065. CHAIRMAN: Therefore I think we
are going to have to find something else because, if we are going
to recommend anything at this stage of the proceedings, it had
better be fairly specific. Whose deed was this that we have?
11066. MR DINGEMANS: It effectively came
from those instructing my learned friend because, as my learned
friend identified in his response to my note, we had made specific
complaints about the absence of contractual provisions and they
decided at least to go that far.
11067. CHAIRMAN: Have you got it?
11068. MR DINGEMANS: It depends. I have
it with 13 clauses, but I think your Lordship has it with 14.
I have a clause 14 as well.
11069. CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that
one might be able to work on the basis, with all the beginning
bits, of clause 7, which is dust and, with monitoring and dust
management plan, the whole—probably—of clause 11,
and that may deal with your parking —
11070. MR DINGEMANS: Yes.
11071. CHAIRMAN: And 13. Now, is there
anything wrong with 13?
11072. MR DINGEMANS: This, my Lord. If
your Lordships are to restrict me to 13 we would rather that was
left as an undertaking because it is referring to a statutory
scheme. For example, if your Lordship looks at an absolute promise
that they have made —
11073. CHAIRMAN: It is my 13, Compensation.
11074. MR DINGEMANS: Yes, I have it.
For example, if you look at clause 4.1 —
11075. CHAIRMAN: I have not mentioned
4.1.
11076. MR DINGEMANS: No, but your Lordship
was asking me why I was concerned about clause 13, and if one
looks at 4.1, which is an uncontroversial clause to maintain a
safe access for vehicles and pedestrians throughout the construction
of the authorised works, suppose they do not do that and a specific
market trader can show that that caused him loss, whether he could
or not, then he can sue for breach of contract —
11077. CHAIRMAN: Mr Dingemans, I am trying
to cut this down to some fairly small area —
11078. MR DINGEMANS: Sorry, my Lord.
11079. CHAIRMAN: — and the main
point you have been talking about all day is dust. Let's start
with clause 7.[31]
31 Committee Ref: P73, Draft Deed between the Nominated
Undertaker and individual Smithfield Market Traders-Farringdon
Station Eastern Ticket Hall-Dust (LONDLB-23-04-039 and-040) Back
| 
