Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence

Examination of Witnesses (Questions 11100 - 11119)

  11100. BARONESS FOOKES: But I thought Mr Mould had said that this morning in response to my line of questioning.

  11101. MR MOULD: I did.

  11102. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: I am sorry. Well, if that is the case then that one has been removed, then. What I am saying to you is, if they did not meet that undertaking, which would be a revised wording now, then you would have a right to sue?

  11103. MR MOULD: Yes.

  11104. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: I am trying to eliminate. So we are really down to the Chairman's point of whether or not we could strengthen 7.1 to the point where you would have confidence in the ability to use that.

  11105. MR DINGEMANS: Effectively, yes. 7.1 is introducing it but it is the qualification—7.2 I think I showed you —

  11106. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: I should have said 7.

  11107. MR DINGEMANS: Indeed, my Lord, because what then happens is, if they have not mitigated those problems and there is an escape of dust, the risk is there and we can sue them for it if we have suffered loss, and that is really what we are principally after.

  11108. CHAIRMAN: Mr Dingemans, I do not think we are going to get to a conclusion on this this afternoon. If this is going to be either an undertaking or perhaps preferably a deed it has to be one that is agreed between you and the Promoters, and at the present moment there is not the smallest sign of agreement between you and the Promoters on a lot of these points, and it also has to be something that the Committee is prepared to put forward as a recommendation.

  11109. MR DINGEMANS: Indeed, yes.

  11110. CHAIRMAN: The Committee is not there to put forward a recommendation of an unlimited indemnity—at least I do not think so.

  11111. BARONESS FOOKES: Something less than, might be appropriate.

  11112. CHAIRMAN: And certainly we are not trying to remove compensation altogether, and it may be that we do not need a reference to any of the statutory provisions like section 10 at all, or the concept of injurious affection. We may need to provide for something which allows for compensation for dust infiltrated into one of the meat stores and, for all I know, a provision about parking in Lindsey Street, but we cannot invent this ourselves because it will have to be a provision which is agreed between you and the Promoters, and we must have made some progress today but we have not got there yet.

  11113. MR DINGEMANS: No. My Lord, it may well be that, in the light of your Lordship's indications to me and to my learned friend, in terms of the deed we are not that far apart —

  11114. CHAIRMAN: Except for section 10.

  11115. MR DINGEMANS: Yes, it is that point, but, in the light of what your Lordship has suggested to both of us, it may well be that a practical way forward—and I have in mind the fact that your Lordships have already granted us the indulgence of sitting until 3.30 on a Friday afternoon—is to adjourn this Petition with the parties directed to discuss the matters and, if there is anything further, then time limited submissions of 15 minutes each.

  11116. CHAIRMAN: Well, I have no objection to that!

  11117. Mr Mould, I do not think we are going to get there today.

  11118. MR MOULD: My Lord, I do not think we are. I am a bit nervous about the last suggestion because where we are expecting to be this time next week is not in this room —

  11119. CHAIRMAN: We will find time for it.

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