2340. MS LIEVEN: There is a dispute about fees, my Lord, both levels of fees, I believe, and also whether they should be paid in advance. There is no provision, as I understand it, under the Act that requires us to pay fees in advance and, again, that is a matter for the Lands Tribunal. All those issues as to the amount of compensation are matters for the Lands Tribunal. We have done what we said we would do in the House of Commons and we have done it promptly and, in my submission, that is the end of the matter.

  2341. My Lords, I have given that slightly lengthier background so your Lordships understand something of the history. There is far, far more to the history than I have just gone through and Mr Smith has a very comprehensive chronology if the Committee want it, but I think at this stage probably it is more appropriate to hand over to Mr Saunderson, unless the Committee has any questions for me now.

  2342. CHAIRMAN: That is Smithfield in the background?

  2343. MS LIEVEN: Yes, my Lord and there is quite a wide road there, Lindsey Street. I am trying to think of a point that the Committee might be familiar with but we are probably thinking of it as the back of the market.

  2344. CHAIRMAN: I think that is quite good enough.

  2345. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: In your response of 11 February, Ms Lieven, you referred to some transcripts of exchanges which took place in the Commons and on the face of it there appears to be different interpretations on assurances that were given or not given. Could you elucidate because we have not got those transcripts in front of us and normally you are very good at ensuring that we see all the information.

  2346. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, the position on the transcript is and I think we have to put our hands up at this point, the transcript was plainly not proof read with the acuity it should have been because with respect to myself, what the transcript says comes close to being gobbledegook. There is no doubt at all, and I have a perfectly clear recollection of this, that the point about the six months was that in order to accept the blight notice we had to be satisfied that there was six months' occupation of the property and that is where the six months came in. Mr Saunderson, and I do not know whether he is going to pursue this point, in the Petition suggested that the reference to six months was that we would agree the compensation within six months, but, of course, that is nonsensical because there is no time limit for agreement. The solution, if agreement is not reached expeditiously, is to refer the matter to the Lands Tribunal. We would be perfectly happy to agree it in six months if our offer, a reasonable offer, was accepted by Mr Saunderson, but I certainly never had any intention to put a guillotine on six months and certainly nobody on our side—and we all pore back over the transcript—recollect any such suggestion in the House of Commons. I can put up the relevant paragraph if I could find a reference.

  2347. The paragraph in issue was 17296 and what it says is: "Let me state three things. Firstly, and I repeat what I said this morning, if Mr Saunderson serves a blight notice and meets the criteria and the terms I have described this morning, and I described them very carefully and I do not want to describe them again because they may be slightly different and then there would be confusion, then there would be no ground for us to contest a blight notice and we would not do so. That gave him purchase now or within six months at open market value and I am struggling to see what the problem is".[4] It may be that that was not sufficiently, despite what I said in the first words, clear. The intention was as long as he could show the six months occupation, he could serve a blight notice and then we could get on with agreeing the compensation.

  2348. If I could explain to the Committee, normally the valuation date in compulsory purchase, as Mr Mould explained to you the other day, is the day of entry, the date you take possession, but in a blight notice situation because you may not be taking possession at that stage, it is the earlier of the date that the compensation is agreed or the date that possession is taken. Unless things go very slowly, it is likely in the case of this blight notice that it would be the date that the compensation is agreed, so it is slightly different from your normal compulsory purchase compensation where the date is easy because it is the date that the purchaser entered the land.

  2349. CHAIRMAN: That is a statutory provision, is it not?

  2350. MS LIEVEN: Yes, my Lord.

  2351. CHAIRMAN: Is it in the compulsory purchase legislation or is it in the Bill?

  2352. MS LIEVEN: It is in the national legislation, but where, I will have to get Mr Mould to find it for me.

  2353. CHAIRMAN: That is why I said to you this morning that I thought we might need to have some legislation.

  2354. MS LIEVEN: We will find it, my Lord, and when I come to call Mr Smith, if I can deal with it then. I have got it in front of me but—

  2355. CHAIRMAN: It is not the most straightforward piece of text, is it?

  2356. MS LIEVEN: No, and I am getting slightly different advice from two sides, so rather than telling your Lordships the wrong thing, I will wait for a few moments until we have sorted it out.

  2357. CHAIRMAN: If it, in fact, is set by statute, presumably Crossrail is bound by that, is it not?

  2358. MS LIEVEN: Absolutely, my Lord. There is no doubt it is set by statute, we are just finding which bit of which statute.

  2359. CHAIRMAN: Yes.