2360. MS LIEVEN: It is nothing to do with the Crossrail Bill, this is part of the National Compensation Code, which is what we are following here.

  2361. CHAIRMAN: You will find it in due time.

  2362. MS LIEVEN: I do not know whether my Lord, Lord Brooke has another question.

  2363. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: It is just to summarise then, you are saying that 17296 is not what you said and is not a correct record of what you said?

  2364. MS LIEVEN: The honest truth is I could not swear it is not what I said, but as it does not make any sense, I hope it is not what I said.

  2365. LORD SNAPE: It would not be in character, Ms Lieven!

  2366. MS LIEVEN: Thank you very much, my Lord, I am very grateful for that. The point to emphasise is that the six-month period reflects the legal requirement for six months' owner occupation and I certainly have no recollection of saying anything that would suggest six months was relevant to any other time and I am absolutely certain that I never suggested that there would be a guillotine on agreeing compensation because the consistent theme in front of the Committee in the other place was to say compensation, if there was a dispute, can be referred to the Lands Tribunal, so there was no guillotine set and there would have been no guillotine set and it would make no sense to have one because how would you determine within the guillotine

  2367. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Very well, Mr Saunderson.

  2368. MR SAUNDERSON: Good afternoon. I am grateful to your Lordships and Lady for hearing my Petition this afternoon. May I take you through the Petition? I think you have been given the bound copies which I have prepared with this black spiral binder. If it was possible for you to have that in front of you, I can take you through that.

  2369. On page four, it is a double-sided copy to reduce the environmental cost of the copying, you will find my handwritten number four at the top of page four, which is the start of the Petition and about two-thirds of the way down that, item four, "Your Petitioner is the owner of a property, together with his cousin as to one-third share and another individual as to one-sixth share". My cousin is actually here.

  2370. CHAIRMAN: There is no dispute about that, is there?

  2371. MR SAUNDERSON: No, there is not, I am just reading the Petition.

  2372. CHAIRMAN: Do not read things that there is no dispute about.

  2373. MR SAUNDERSON: Thank you. My concerns are then set out in paragraph 5. Ms Lieven mentioned that I had acquired a number of properties in the 1980s. In fact, they were bought in 1981, 1982, 1985, which is the early 1980s in my reading, and there were two bought in 1988 and 1989 so I dispute Ms Lieven's record of the transactions that were purchased. Indeed, I purchased 10 Hayne Street in 1982 which I think is about 25 years ago. I would like to draw your attention to a letter that I wrote to the Chairman of the parliamentary committee with whom I appeared on 12 October 2006, just to clarify comments that were made then by Ms Lieven. I would like to read that out, which is at the back of your spiral bound folder, a letter to Mr A Meale MP, Chairman of the Crossrail Committee.[5] Ms Lieven in her opening remarks stated that we were in a similar position to other landowners such as Grosvenor Estates. I beg to differ. Grosvenor Estates has a vast portfolio of properties with billions of pounds of value; we have only one site, as you saw the picture of it. The Grosvenor Estate property which is safeguarded at Bond Street is, I believe, generating income as offices and shops; our site is not generating any income because we have been prevented from building the offices by the Department for Transport who ordered the City Corporation to refuse permission. Ms Lieven failed to answer your question, "Did the site have permission still?" The site was going to have its permission renewed but the City Corporation received an order from Crossrail or the Department for Transport, should I say, ordering them to refuse me permission for the office block planning permission renewal, so that is why it does not have an extant permission today.

  2374. The Department for Transport/Crossrail has been in active negotiations with "the large landowners" throughout this year. They only rang me on 3 October in the week before the hearing to talk about "serving a blight notice", so I was keen that Mr Meale realised that there had been inaccuracies in the representations given by Ms Lieven. I will confirm that the paragraph we looked at earlier was exactly what Ms Lieven said and I was there listening to it and I will confirm that Gurneys took down what she said correctly.

  2375. Point 2, I am not aware that there are any sites safeguarded by Crossrail that have suffered in the way and over the time that we have suffered and, therefore, the Select Committee is able to deal with our unique situation in a unique manner. I submit that Ms Lieven is incorrect in asserting that to grant my request would lead to substantial extra costs being incurred in public infrastructure projects. To purchase our site at open market value today is only what would be required by law as it stands at present, so zero extra cost is incurred. To pay my costs for working at the overstation development and ticket hall is only what is done by Crossrail in the ordinary course of business as it pays out professional fees for these services on a daily basis and, as mentioned, £300 million has already been spent on professional fees by Crossrail according to press reports.

  2376. To make whole in the two instances requested is only requesting that which would have been paid if Crossrail had purchased the properties when the Safeguarding Order was imposed on 5 November 1990. Clearly, the interest thereon from that 1990 date is applicable but the Department has had this money in the interim or not incurred the funding costs of borrowing the same. In any event, it is only right that this is passed on to the Petitioners.

  2377. Item 3 is an administrative matter which need not concern you.

  2378. Item 4 is significant.[6] I am grateful that the Committee accepted that the Department for Transport, whom earlier indicated are the Promoters of the Bill currently before the House, has been the body involved at all stages from the Safeguarding Order date of 5 November 1990. The slight confusion over the various government-owned entities was cleared up by you and your colleagues in their appreciation of the Department for Transport involvement and the ultimate responsible body throughout the last 16 years. There was some confusion over different entities being involved in Crossrail which there have been, but ultimately the Department for Transport has been the responsible body over this whole 16 year period since they themselves introduced the Safeguarding Order in 1990. I felt that was helpful for you to hear.

  2379. Just reverting back then to my Petition, I requested compensation at the hearing in 2006 and the Committee were sympathetic to the issues and really through their moving the blight notice issue was resolved and the blight notice was accepted, as Ms Lieven has mentioned to you. However, two undertakings that were given to the House of Commons Select Committee, namely the paragraph which we have just been referred to, paragraph 17296, there had been extensive discussions, I have to say, about this blight notice and the acceptance and the purchase date. Ms Lieven, after consultation with her colleagues, clearly stated that there would be purchase now or within six months and the Committee heard that and took that as an undertaking. I heard it and took it as an undertaking and I have to say my understanding of Parliament is that undertakings given to Parliament are of a serious nature and the implications of not fulfilling undertakings must be serious.

6   Committee Ref: A17, Correspondence from Mr David Saunderson to the Chairman of the House of Commons Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill, 13 October 2006 (LONLB-38_05-023) Back