6260. CHAIRMAN: They either have or have not, it is too late now. They would have to put in their plot numbers?

  6261. MR LEWIS: They would have to put in their plot numbers, correct. I suppose I could have cast the amendment to have general effect and, to be perfectly honest, my Lord, if you think that would be a better way of doing it, then I am not stopping you and I do not think that would be an extension of scope either, but the special justification I plead—

  6262. CHAIRMAN: All you would have to do is to ask us to remove subsections (7), (8) and (9) from Clause 6, it is that simple?

  6263. MR LEWIS: Quite, absolutely. That would do the job for us, but I took the view, as I am presenting a case on behalf of one Petitioner, that I did not want to disadvantage the Promoter any more than we would have to. Of course, if I was asking you to make a blanket amendment across the line, then I would be really going outside the remit of my instructions in the sense that I am here to protect Canary Wharf Group, no-one else.

  6264. CHAIRMAN: Of course we understand that.

  6265. MR LEWIS: The special justification you have asked for, Mr Anderson has mentioned the scale of this development, the size of the development and the importance of it to Canary Wharf Group and I will stand by his remarks and that regard made in his evidence.

  6266. CHAIRMAN: I think one of the difficulties is that supposing we were minded to make this amendment, nobody else who has petitioned has any notice of it.

  6267. MR LEWIS: I think that is really in the hands of the Committee because there is nothing to prevent the Committee from, as the Commons Committee did, making interim decisions. I do not think there is anything to prevent the Committee from announcing that it is minded to make an amendment to the Bill. That, of course, is giving publicity and there are procedures under the Private Bill Standing Orders which, I believe, apply to hybrid bills as well which would enable those who thought they were affected by any proposed amendments to deposit what is called "a petition against alterations". It is a very unusual procedure but what it would do would be to entitle other landowners who believe they should have the same protection as Canary Wharf to come to this Committee and ask for it. It may well be the Promoters might challenge their locus standi and say, "Hold on a minute, you are not actually really petitioning against anything the Committee has done to affect adversely your interests", because all the Committee has done is give Canary Wharf Group some additional protection which is, of course, in itself not an unusual thing for a private or hybrid bill committee to do. It is certainly not unusual for a petitioner to come along and ask for special protective provisions in a bill which apply to them only but which could apply to others had the Committee decided that this is such a good idea it should apply to everybody. I think there probably could be, depending on how the Committee itself makes any announcement, if it were minded to do so, to allow other landowners to come on board. It is not something which we necessarily want to encourage, and I am sure it is not something the Promoters would wish to encourage, but I think potentially that procedure is there and it would extend the proceedings probably beyond the summer, I would have thought.

  6268. CHAIRMAN: I should think it would add another year but never mind. The truth of the matter is if we were to make an interim decision that we were minded to do this, that would open the door for petitioners all the way along the route to bring in petitions against alterations in relation to their own plots which may themselves have substantial planning permissions on them.

  6269. MR LEWIS: I think by this discussion having now gone on the record, it may well be those landowners may well be reading and thinking, "Okay, if that is what they do, then we will do it".

  6270. CHAIRMAN: I doubt whether the Promoters would object on locus standi grounds.

  6271. MR LEWIS: That is not for me.

  6272. CHAIRMAN: I doubt it, but that is the implication, is it not?

  6273. MR LEWIS: Potentially, yes.

  6274. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

  6275. MR LEWIS: Thank you.

  6276. CHAIRMAN: Has anybody got any other questions for Mr Lewis? Lord James?

  6277. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: I find this as being in a position of trying to use a sledgehammer to squash a wasp in the sense it is important, but it seems to me to be an extraordinarily convoluted exercise to go through for what is a matter of common sense.

  6278. CHAIRMAN: That may be but this is the process. You want us, Mr Lewis, to recommend that the Bill should be amended in the terms of your clause for Canary Wharf Group only?

  6279. MR LEWIS: That is what we are asking for.