Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence

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

previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008