Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11080 - 11099)

  11080. MR DINGEMANS: My Lord, yes.

  11081. CHAIRMAN: Clause 7 seems to me to be a fairly thorough exploration of the problems about dust, and this has all come from the Promoters so presumably it is not something from which they now wish to resile. They are not going to do concrete batching; we have not been arguing about noise and vibration; vermin control—yes, I appreciate that has been touched upon but it is not the centre of your issue, and we then get to 13.

  11082. MR DINGEMANS: My Lord, yes.

  11083. CHAIRMAN: I see no reference to statutory anythings.

  11084. MR DINGEMANS: Can you look at clause 13.1?[32] It says: "In the assessment of compensation payable to the Trader as a result of injurious affection", bear in mind those words, and then go to clause 1.1 —[33]

  11085. CHAIRMAN: But it does not say that.

  11086. MR DINGEMANS: It says "`injurious affection claim' means a claim made under section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act ... ".

  11087. CHAIRMAN: Because it is defined in 1.1?

  11088. MR DINGEMANS: Yes. Otherwise I would be with your Lordship, but that is why clause 13 is specifically dealing with the statutory plus the undertaking 234.

  11089. BARONESS FOOKES: So what about a redefinition of "injurious affection"?

  11090. MR DINGEMANS: Well, there are a number of different ways —

  11091. CHAIRMAN: Then we get back into the indemnity case.

  11092. MR DINGEMANS: Yes, effectively. At the moment we have a claim for breach of contract—that causes no problems. The real issue between us concerns the limitations of the 1965 Act, and all we are really asking for is a situation where we are not restricted to proving a common law nuisance because a common law nuisance will not extend principally to dust and losses caused by taking over parking bays on limited periods.

  11093. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: Mr Dingemans, when the undertaking is unqualified you are happy, because you referred us to 4.1?

  11094. MR DINGEMANS: Yes.

  11095. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: The Lord Chairman referred you to the section on dust and said that if that was strengthened that could be a route forward, bearing in mind it is one of the key areas of your concern?

  11096. MR DINGEMANS: Your Lordship is absolutely right, the other way of resolving the concerns we have is to take clause 13 out and leave it with the undertakings because it has nothing here nor there, and then —

  11097. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: Well, let me finish, because I do not know whether what I am saying will be achievable and I am not sure of the Promoter's attitude. So strengthening 7.1 would help, and I also looked at 5.1—if I may, Lord Chairman?

  11098. CHAIRMAN: Yes, go ahead.

  11099. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: — because that seemed to me to keep coming up again and again, and in the light of the Promoters telling us that, short of being struck by lightening twice, they see it as highly unlikely they are not going to achieve the new proposals for the escalator, et cetera, why could that not be strengthened for an undertaking that they will maintain six loading bays?



32   Committee Ref: P73, Draft Deed between the Nominated Undertaker and individual Smithfield Market Traders-Compensation 042) Back

33   Committee Ref: P73, Draft Deed between the Nominated Undertaker and individual Smithfield Market Traders-Definitions (LONDLB-23-04-037) 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