6180. CHAIRMAN: If therefore we were to suggest to the House that the new amendment which is being put before us is inserted in the Bill, that could have an effect upon other Petitioners than Canary Wharf Group.

  6181. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, I have two points on that. One is, if it is put in the Bill in the form it is, then it could make it impossible to build the Isle of Dogs station, which does not seem to be a very productive way forward, because if the unforeseen events happen and the notice to treat is not served within five years, then we have a position we cannot build Isle of Dogs.

  6182. CHAIRMAN: Because you have got no worksite.

  6183. MS LIEVEN: Because we have got no worksite. There is also the other point, which is that to insert such a provision in the form that CWG have put it forward would be manifestly unfair on all the other landowners up and down the route who may arguably not have such valuable sites as this. Many large landowners in the West End of London have had sites which have effectively been impossible to develop for between 15 and 20 years because of Crossrail and for them to turn round and find that CWG have been put in an advantageous position would, in my submission, be manifestly unfair. So there are all sorts of problems with this proposed amendment. Then you also have the position, as your Lordship has touched on, of other landowners within the Isle of Dogs who would find themselves not having the benefit of this permission potentially but, without the station at Isle of Dogs, not being able to develop their sites.

  6184. CHAIRMAN: Nevertheless, we are in this dilemma, that we are being asked to recommend the insertion of these new provisions in the Bill but the necessity for doing so would be dependent upon a failure of the negotiations with Canary Wharf for them to build the Isle of Dogs station.

  6185. MS LIEVEN: Yes.

  6186. CHAIRMAN: And we are not allowed to know the situation about that because it is commercially sensitive, as I fully understand.

  6187. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, what I can say about that, and I do not think Mr Anderson would disagree on this, is that those negotiations are going ahead full steam. There have been large numbers of meetings and, so far as I am aware, they are going ahead productively and co-operatively. This is not—and I wait for either Mr Anderson or those behind me to metaphorically tug my gown—as I understand it, a situation where anybody thinks these agreements are going to fail. We are all proceeding happily in the right direction.

  6188. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but by the time we have finished this Select Committee hearing and have to produce a report for the House for re-committal, we will have to decide whether to recommend this amendment. At the present moment there is no way for us to know whether the commercial negotiations will by that time have got far enough for us to be able to judge one way or the other whether it is necessary to have this amendment. Therefore, we are going to be in a complete dilemma.

  6189. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, with great respect, your Lordships and your Ladyship are only in that dilemma if they think there is anything in what Canary Wharf Group are putting forward today. In my submission the situation is clear. To be able to extend the time is sensible contingency planning on a massive project and CWG get full protection through the process of the special parliamentary procedure and their rights to compensation. Parliament would only extend a project such as this for five years if it could see a very clear reason for doing so, and doubtless if CWG, in however many years it is, come forward and object to such an extension, then they will have a full opportunity to put forward all their reasons as to why their site is blighted: the Secretary of State has wasted X number of years, nothing has happened and it does not extend the powers. Your Lordships do not need to know any more about the commercial negotiations because CWG are fully protected in the public interest, and, of course, here you have to balance the public interest of guarding against unforeseen events that mean we need to extend and the private interest of CWG.

  6190. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but we are going to have to come to a conclusion about this in something like six weeks' time.

  6191. MS LIEVEN: Yes.

  6192. BARONESS FOOKES: Ms Lieven, you said a few moments ago that you disagreed with Mr Anderson in some of the points that he made, and you then proceeded, if I paraphrase, "I am not going down that road", so we are left hearing that there are statements with which you do not agree but you are not going to explain why you are not agreeing.

  6193. MS LIEVEN: My Lady, so far as the statements we do not agree with are concerned, there were statements made about the history of the Jubilee Line, the funding and the issues that have arisen, and there were statements about the nature of the agreement between the Government and CWG that may well have given your Lordships the wrong impression about the financial terms. However, my Lords and my Lady, the financial terms are confidential and I am not going to go into them—I think it would be quite inappropriate—but they have nothing to do with what your Lordships and your Ladyship have to deal with today. There is a commercial negotiation, a bit like any commercial negotiation, about who pays how much for what, and that is going on outside this committee room.

  6194. CHAIRMAN: One thing must be sure: whatever may have happened about the Jubilee Line it is not going to lead us to amend this Bill.

  6195. MS LIEVEN: No.

  6196. CHAIRMAN: So that is immaterial.

  6197. MS LIEVEN: So that is immaterial, my Lord, and there is no need to say any more about that. Also, how many millions and who pays what for the Isle of Dogs is immaterial to your Lordships' consideration of the public interest in whether or not the power in the Bill to extend for five years, properly protected, should be retained. That is the issue for your Lordships and your Ladyship, not who pays who what.

  6198. CHAIRMAN: And the amendment that is proposed would continue to be in force if the extension of time for compulsory purchase was granted by the procedure that you have described?

  6199. MS LIEVEN: Yes.