6160. MS LIEVEN: Yes.

  6161. CHAIRMAN: It has been added to this Bill specifically for this case, has it? Specifically for any compulsory purchase powers under the Bill?

  6162. MS LIEVEN: Any compulsory purchase, yes, my Lord. There is nothing specific here about CWG and this site. These provisions apply to every site where there is compulsory purchase, but it has been applied here on the precedent of previous hybrid bills, in particular CTRL and the Channel Tunnel Act.

  6163. CHAIRMAN: Other that it, it would be ordinary special parliamentary procedure?

  6164. MS LIEVEN: You mean the procedure is the ordinary procedure, yes, absolutely, my Lord. As your Lordship said, it is very well known in other aspects of compulsory purchase.

  6165. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

  6166. LORD JONES OF CHELTENHAM: Two questions. One, the extension period, you said, is five years. Is that up to five years or would it be for five years if you sought an extension?

  6167. MS LIEVEN: I think, my Lord, I will look to Mr Irving to nod if I have got it right, it is up to five years so we could nominate a shorter period, yes.

  6168. CHAIRMAN: I wonder whether we can finish with the evidence of Mr Anderson before we go on to more general questions about the overall situation. Has anybody got any questions of Mr Anderson?

  6169. BARONESS FOOKES: Ms Lieven has just made a statement saying she feels that the Petitioners are fully protected. I gather, Mr Anderson, you would not agree with that?

   (Mr Anderson) Not at all.

  6170. BARONESS FOOKES: Then could I say, why do you think that?

   (Mr Anderson) I think there are two reasons. The first is, I think, everybody has to appreciate the scale of value that we are talking about. This development is four million square feet gross and about two and a half million square feet net, that is more than two Canary Wharf Towers. The HSBC building, which is only a million square feet, was recently sold for over £1 billion. The value of this development to us, once it is completed, would be in excess of £2.5 billion. A delay of ten years in our ability to develop and build this site is very significant financially to Canary Wharf Group. The profit potential for this site is very large, so, while you make reference to CPO powers for smaller sites, our concern and our problem is that the outturn value is in excess of £2.5 billion. You are holding up that development, that profit potential, our ability to deal with our development, for a decade, and during that decade there are many cycles. Our second concern is that it is clear that the funding of Crossrail is dependent on the south-east branch on our contribution, on our private contributions. The cost, including compulsory purchase under the Crossrail project, of the Isle of Dogs station would be in excess of a billion pounds. To the extent that that contribution from Canary Wharf is not there, then the Secretary of State would have to go and find that amount of money out of their budget as opposed to the transaction that we are trying to do with them. We have very real concerns that that funding would not be found and that the south-east branch would not be developed and, in fact, that was indicated to us, so we would find ourselves in the position of an extensive sterilisation because the money would not be there to build the south-east branch without our deal and the size and scale of this development is one that dwarfs anything else that is happening within this Bill, and that is why we are so concerned.

  6171. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Is there not another side to it, though, Mr Anderson, that the further development and extension of Canary Wharf is now contingent on improved infrastructure and access?

   (Mr Anderson) This particular site is capable of being supported by the additional developments on the Jubilee Line. The Jubilee Line is currently going through a substantial upgrade and there is going to be a step-change increase in capacity in 2009. Canary Wharf Group, as you may know, made a very significant contribution to the Jubilee Line. We then had penalties that were due us because the capacity of the Jubilee Line was not up to the contracted amounts. We deferred those penalties and reinvested them into the Jubilee Line to enable this upgrade to happen in 2009 and we fully expect that that will occur, and that will provide enough capacity for the North Quay development to proceed, and that was part of the planning exercise. Crossrail will support additional development in and around Canary Wharf, it will support additional development on Wood Wharf, it will support additional development on the Billingsgate Fish Market site if that ever gets redeveloped, and it will certainly create opportunities to the south of Canary Wharf, but the North Quay site itself is more than sufficiently served by the Jubilee Line upgrade.

  6172. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: How much is the station going to cost you?

   (Mr Anderson) I cannot say that; that is a commercial matter, but I can tell you that, certainly within the context of this discussion, the cost is very substantial and we are prepared to make that contribution.

  6173. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions for Mr Anderson? (No response) Thank you very much.

  6174. CHAIRMAN: Now, Ms Lieven, I think we find ourselves in a difficulty. We are asked to put in a clause restricting CPO powers on the North Wharf. That would only be justifiable if there were no Isle of Dogs Crossrail station, as I understand it. Is that right?

  6175. MS LIEVEN: Does your Lordship mean that the development on North Quay would only be justifiable?

  6176. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

  6177. MS LIEVEN: As Mr Anderson has just told your Lordships, it is a long and complicated story. Can I put down a marker that some of the things that Mr Anderson just said we do not accept, but I do not intend to go there. I have said this is not the place for negotiation and I am not going to go there, but I do not want it to go on the record that we accept the accuracy of what we have just heard. So far as your Lordship's question is concerned, my understanding is that the planning permission for North Quay is not itself conditional on the delivery of the Crossrail scheme, but there are very substantial other developments in the vicinity of Canary Wharf in which CWG, either through itself or one of its many subsidiaries, hold the development value which are contingent on the Crossrail scheme, but specifically on North Quay I do not understand there to be a condition in the planning permission which means the site cannot be developed until Crossrail is built at the Isle of Dogs.

  6178. CHAIRMAN: Nevertheless, in view of the totality of the petitions in this area, there could be other sites which may not be able to be developed if there is no Isle of Dogs station.

  6179. MS LIEVEN: There are other sites which cannot be developed; there is no doubt about that, other major sites.