6120. CHAIRMAN: What is that date?

   (Mr Anderson) I do not know that date.

  6121. MR LEWIS: I have instructions on that date, if it will assist. It is ten years.

  6122. CHAIRMAN: Ten years.

  6123. MR LEWIS: Mr Anderson, could you describe now to the Committee your concerns over sterilisation of this site?

   (Mr Anderson) This is because the North Quay site is needed by Crossrail as a construction site in connection with the construction of the station. We have no argument with that and if, as we all hope, we end up building the station, then we will use it too. What we cannot accept, however, is the site being sterilised if, for some reason, the Promoter decides not to implement Crossrail or delays it, whether or not the station is to be built by us. If all went according to plan, the Bill received Royal Assent in the summer, we sign an agreement to build the station and we were given the go-ahead to start working, then the only thing that would hold us up would be waiting for the DLR to vacate the site. We would get on site as quickly as possible, build the station, and get off it again so we could implement our planning permission and develop North Quay. What we are concerned about is if, for some reason, we do not sign the station development agreement or we do but the go-ahead for the commencement of the work is delayed by the Secretary of State and we revert to the position that we were contemplating at this time last year, namely a prospect with no acceptable time limits or at least no time limits over which we have control would be in place for the start date and the duration of the works and a return for the North Quay site. Under those circumstances my understanding of the Bill is that the Secretary of State has until five years after Royal Assent in which to exercise her rights of compulsory acquisition. If those compulsory purchase powers were exercised, then the nominated undertaker need do nothing in terms of implementing the development of the station for another five years after that. There would then follow the completion of the development of the station which could, according to the Secretary of State's programme, take another eight years. That takes us to 2026 and that is not the worst of it under the Bill. The Secretary of State can make an order to extend the time limits for compulsory acquisition and planning.

  6124. Could you just, as Ms Lieven did, remind the Committee of the House of Commons Select Committee decision?

   (Mr Anderson) The power to extend the compulsory powers can now only be exercised once for a period of five years. The Select Committee in the Commons placed that restriction on the powers of the Secretary of State by amending the Bill in response to our case. We were very grateful to the Committee for recognising our concerns, but the amendment that was made did not alleviate all of our concerns. Because of the value of the site, I would say that the Secretary of State would not wish to acquire it compulsorily if there was any doubt about the works going ahead. If there was no power for the period to be extended and by year five she had not exercised her powers, then she may find herself having to do so. Of course, that is not something we would wish to happen as we do not want to lose the site. The Secretary of State presumably would not want to do this and it would not be a good use of taxpayers' money. It is that situation we object to.

  6125. MR LEWIS: Could you add a little more detail to—

  6126. CHAIRMAN: Mr Lewis, you are very difficult to hear.

  6127. MR LEWIS: I beg your pardon, I will make myself clearer. I am not sure it is because my microphone is not on.

  6128. CHAIRMAN: It may be because of your position in relation to the microphone.

  6129. MR LEWIS: Sorry, Mr Anderson—

  6130. CHAIRMAN: That is much better.

  6131. MR LEWIS: Could you, please, just tell the Committee about what it is that Canary Wharf has to offer Crossrail?

   (Mr Anderson) We have made a proposal to Crossrail which avoids Crossrail having to use CPO powers at all. We would be prepared to let Crossrail have the North Quay site for free, as we have for the DLR, for the duration of the station box works in return for Crossrail meeting certain timescales that we consider to be reasonable. Our suggestions have not been accepted. We think that our offer is fair and reasonable. We would be agreeing to the sterilisation of this major development for a sufficient period for the station to be built in a reasonably expeditious manner. The North Quay site is liable to permanent compulsory acquisition under the Bill. In our view, the compensation that would be payable to us on compulsory acquisition or in these payments would be in the region of £300 million. Our offer of free occupation, therefore, has the potential to save an enormous amount of capital expenditure by the Secretary of State that would otherwise fall mainly on the taxpayer and we do not think we are asking for much in return.

  6132. Going back to what Ms Lieven said in opening, she mentioned the funding situation in the announcements that have been made. Could you tell the Committee what your view is of the certainty of the funding?

   (Mr Anderson) When we appeared before the Commons the funding situation for Crossrail was a lot less clear than it is now. I referred to the bulletin that Crossrail released last October and, my Lord Chairman, you have referred in these proceedings to the statement that the Chancellor made in the Budget last week. Yes, if all goes according to plan, we make the contribution that has been mentioned and all the other pieces of the pie are put in place and I have no reason to doubt that Crossrail will go ahead. But, as property developers, we also have to look at the position that we might find ourselves in if, for some reason, the station development agreement is not signed and there is serious delay to the implementation of Crossrail. I have to say, quite frankly, if that happened, then there is no guarantee that we would make our contribution towards the cost of the station and there is every possibility the Secretary of State would be left with no option but to acquire North Quay compulsorily for the sort of amount I have just mentioned. Were the Secretary of State to be placed in that position, then I have real doubts over whether the Crossrail south-eastern branch through Canary Wharf to Abbey Wood would ever be built. I attended a meeting last year with the Secretary of State at which she said as much. Let me make it quite plain again, if I have to, that this is not a scenario that Canary Wharf Group would want to happen and if the station development agreement is signed, it most probably will not, but we cannot be sure of that until it is signed, the Bill has Royal Assent and the Secretary of State has given the go-ahead for the works to start. If I am right in thinking that the south-east branch could not be built without our financial support, and I think I am, I have to ask this question: why should our site be sterilised for a period of up to ten years or perhaps longer for the sake of a project that may not be implemented? That certainly cannot be right.

  6133. Finally, the solution, please.

   (Mr Anderson) In the absence of agreement to our proposal for free occupation with time limits, we come to you to ask for assistance. The amendments that our lawyers have drafted would in relation to the North Quay site have the effect of removing the Secretary of State's power to extend the compulsory purchase period altogether. It would still allow a good amount of time for compulsory acquisition to take place in my view. I would ask that the amendments be made. If they were, then I can confirm that Canary Wharf Group would stick to our side of the bargain and offer up the site for free.

  6134. CHAIRMAN: Mr Lewis, have we got the proposed amendments?

  6135. MR LEWIS: Yes, my Lord, I beg your pardon. They are one of the slides. They are in then bundle that you should have had circulated to you and they are now being put on the screen.[5] Accompanying them, my Lord, is an extract from the deposited plans which accompany the Bill which should follow on from the amendment of the last page of the exhibits. What we have done there is to highlight in yellow those plots of land that are referred to in the proposed subsection 9a of the amendment and then in blue, for illustrative purposes only, really we have shown a ten-metre strip of the plotted land that constitutes the watery bit of West India Dock North. That strip of land is in our ownership and forms of part of the development which is authorised by the planning permission. The rest of West India Dock North is owned by British Waterways.

  6136. CHAIRMAN: This amendment, I imagine, would not require additional provisions, because it is a subtraction from the Bill?

  6137. MR LEWIS: Quite correct, my Lord, in the same way the House of Commons' original amendment was to restrict the powers to the position we are at.

  6138. CHAIRMAN: That may be so. The House of Commons has powers to deal with additional provisions; this House does not.

  6139. MR LEWIS: My Lord, I know of cases where a Bill has been amended, I think, to extend powers of a hybrid bill, but I really do not want to go into that because we are not asking you to do that.