Q101 Mr Khan: The question was: what steps have you taken, if any?
Mr Taylor: I have not personally taken any steps to consider whether disciplinary action ought to be taken against any of the individuals concerned.
Q102 Mr Khan: So far we have almost £15 million of taxpayers' money wasted. Apart from this project director not equipped to do the job, leaving by amicable agreement and I am sure with a hefty settlement, nobody has been disciplined for this waste of taxpayers' money. In 2004, the joint review, alarm bells should have rung even louder then I suppose.
Mr Taylor: Alarm bells were ringing very loud by that stage.
Q103 Mr Khan: Do you accept that there was an even stronger case for the plug to be pulled then?
Mr Taylor: It is right and the Report brings it out that consideration was given to stopping the scheme at that stage.
Q104 Mr Khan: I tell you the problem with the Report bringing this out. A common theme is that two things happen. One is that the Permanent Secretaries say "Lessons have been learned. Had we had this evidence hearing 12 months ago, you would have had a case to argue, but we have learned our lesson and things have improved". That is the first thing we hear. The second thing we hear which is common is that nobody is ever disciplined. Can you see the frustration that some of us have about that?
Mr Taylor: I understand it. It is also important to recognise that these events happen in real time with people under real pressure. In 2004, when the Report was received from the DH and the NAO clearly calling into question the original outline business case, the trusts went to work on a different outline business case, I was not there at the time but my colleagues will recall this, and active consideration was given to stopping the scheme at that stage. At that stage then, proposals came forward which could have turned the scheme around, which could have made it look viable. In retrospect it is easy to say somebody should have pulled the plug then, but frankly people would have felt that they were acting unreasonably if they had not given proper consideration to the proposals put forward by Westminster City Council at that stage.
Q105 Mr Khan: As a matter of interest, a third thing which is often said is "I was not in the job at the time".
Mr Taylor: I do not want to use that excuse because I am accountable now.
Q106 Mr Khan: Mr Pringle, one for you. Should any of the blame be apportioned to Westminster Council vis-á-vis planning issues or withholding consent and/ or negotiations for land?
Mr Pringle: I am not aware of any blame that should be held against Westminster Council but I am not that close to the detail of the project.
Q107 Mr Khan: What you may be able to answer is whether you think the plans were too ambitious for the amount of land? Too greedy?
Mr Pringle: The brief inflated over time and that could well have been one of the root problems in not fitting on the land. From my reading of the documentation, a smaller scheme was initiated in 2000 which grew for a number of reasons and then did not fit on the land.
Q108 Mr Curry: Mr Bell, I should like to turn to you. You are an accountant, I think.
Mr Bell: I am an engineer.
Q109 Mr Curry: You are an engineer but you worked for an accountancy company for a long time.
Mr Bell: I did.
Q110 Mr Curry: And you arrived to take up this job from Canada in March of 2005.
Mr Bell: That is correct.