2440. MS LIEVEN: I am sure we can get round that. We will put up the page of the transcript but we have not got the same page numbers.

  2441. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: 40 is something different in my pack.

  2442. CHAIRMAN: 40 is the transcript in my one.

  2443. MR SAUNDERSON: It is paragraph 17315.

  2444. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: There are two page 40s, that is what threw me. My apologies.

  2445. MR SAUNDERSON: Mr Binley says: "I just wanted to leave an aide-memoire on the record for my own use and hopefully for consideration by the Committee when they come to consider this more fully. I would like to make the point that this is at this stage without any prejudice whatsoever because it is my initial feelings, but I have no doubt that property prices fell and that is part of a business risk that anybody would take in these circumstances, but I have equally no doubt that it is almost impossible to consider as a proper financial risk the sort of hurdles, the sort of difficulties, that had to be faced in this matter. I understand that the machinery of State is heavy, often impersonal and seeming uncaring, but that is the nature of the machinery of State. That does not, however, mean that our job is not to improve that and to change it so that this unacceptable risk be removed because I do believe your final words, that the impact upon the business and commercial community is an important one. Often I think government, in its unthinking way, not because it means to be malicious, but in its unthinking way, often creates situations that, if it had a chance to think about in their entirety, it would not do, so I think we need to take that into account and that is why I think those remarks were important." He referred to my comments a couple of paragraphs previously that there were lessons to be learned and the land should have been bought, the project should have gone ahead when it was safeguarded or it should have been unfrozen, but it should not have been left frozen for 16 years in my submission.

  2446. You have obviously heard briefly what took a fair amount of time in the Commons. I have lived with this for a lot of time so am very familiar with it but I appreciate you are coming to this very, very cold. The overall position is that I have had an asset frozen since 5 November 1990 which I have been unable to do anything with. It is unable to provide any income. The State which froze the asset has not provided a way out, it has just continued to obfuscate, if you like. It has taken me up various times in discussions and it has dropped me down again; it has taken me up again and dropped me down. It has really been an unacceptable way, in my humble opinion, for the State to operate and, therefore, in my submission the Bill ought to provide for advance purchase of land at a satisfactory valuation ahead of construction. That is my prayer. When I come to summing up I have a summary of my arguments.

  2447. CHAIRMAN: Has 10 Hayne Street been in the same ownership ever since 1990?

  2448. MR SAUNDERSON: Yes, since 1982.

  2449. CHAIRMAN: I see. It is your own personal ownership, is it?

  2450. MR SAUNDERSON: Yes, correct, and my cousin as I mentioned earlier.

  2451. CHAIRMAN: Not a company?

  2452. MR SAUNDERSON: Not a company, no. Thank you for listening to me.

  2453. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to call any evidence?

  2454. MR SAUNDERSON: No, I have no further evidence.

  2455. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Ms Lieven, what have you got to say about this? May I just say I am concerned that the Select Committee is being invited to replace its own procedures instead with those of the Lands Tribunals in many respects in terms of valuation, in terms of timing of the date of payment and in terms of fees. I wonder if there is any precedent for this?

  2456. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, certainly not so far as I am aware, no. If I try and answer the import of your Lordship's comment, in my submission it would be wholly unjustified to do so here. What we have here is a classic valuation dispute. My understanding on instructions is that Mr Saunderson's original claim for 10 Hayne Street was for £3 million and it has come down now. The disputes, so far as I understand them, between Jones Lang Lasalle and Mr Eden, and I should say that Mr Eden is an extremely experienced city valuer and the implication, "Well, it's only a little firm", he is extremely experienced in this field, there are two strands to the valuation dispute. One is about the rental value to be applied to the commercial floor space at 10 Hayne Street, and that is an absolutely classic valuation issue where one would to look at comparables to try to work out what the rental value of commercial floor space in this kind of location would be. That is the point my Lord, Lord Young, touched upon. Mr Eden has emailed back to Jones Lang saying, "Please set out your reasons behind the 1.2 million claim". It is the kind of issue where there will be to-ing and fro-ing over comparables, if Jones Lang ever give us any, and then ultimately some figure will be reached.

  2457. The other area of dispute—

  2458. CHAIRMAN: Just one moment. If we are supposed to reach a decision on a figure we would have to hear substantial professional evidence from both parties, would we not?

  2459. MS LIEVEN: Absolutely, my Lord.