6340. CHAIRMAN: It does say so in the text.

  6341. MS LIEVEN: It does, my Lord, but, as I have just pointed out to your Lordships, if the undertaking were accepted—which it will not be by us—there would be no justification for the amendment because it goes further than the amendment and it would render the amendment—

  6342. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I understand that. Nevertheless, we are still being invited to make the amendment.

  6343. MS LIEVEN: You appear to be, my Lord.

  6344. CHAIRMAN: If we are, then we are in for repercussions from a lot of other Petitioners on other parts of the route who would like something similar, or might do.

  6345. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, I think there are two potential repercussions: if your Lordships were to make the amendment in the form sought by CWG—i.e. just about the Isle of Dogs and about CWG-owned land at the Isle of Dogs—then there is a significant prospect that other landowners at the Isle of Dogs, who would find themselves in the position with potentially blighted land for ten years but with the very strong likelihood that there could be no station at the Isle of Dogs after five years, might well want to petition this House. So that is one scenario.

  6346. If your Lordships were to extend the proposed amendment to the entirety of the Bill—so go beyond what Mr Lewis is suggesting—then that would change the position of a large number of landowners, but whether they would wish to petition is, I think, more doubtful.

  6347. CHAIRMAN: Suppose that we were to recommend the amendment to clause 6 in the form it has now been put forward. This would discriminate, would it not, not only against other people on the Isle of Dogs but all along the route who are also tied into the timetable in clause 6?

  6348. MS LIEVEN: It would, my Lord.

  6349. CHAIRMAN: That might occur in the City, it might occur in Mayfair, it might occur anywhere along the route. They might also wish to have a similar protection.

  6350. MS LIEVEN: They might well, my Lord. Whether they would be entitled to petition is less clear.

  6351. CHAIRMAN: No, but if we were to go down this route they would be entitled to say "Me too".

  6352. MS LIEVEN: Yes, absolutely, my Lord. To take one example that springs to mind, there is a Petitioner, British Land, who own a site at Liverpool Street where they have very significant development aspirations. I do not know whether it is worth quite as many millions or billions as Mr Anderson suggests North Quay is, but it is certainly an exceedingly valuable site. So it would be a mistake to think that CWG were in some sense special. You also have the position of people like Grosvenor Estate, who have a number of sites affected by the Bill.

  6353. CHAIRMAN: I thought so. Mr Lewis, from the Promoters the answer is "Thank you, no". I think it is now a matter for the Committee to decide what to do about it, and we are not going to tell you today.

  6354. MR LEWIS: I was not expecting that, my Lord, and we were, of course, expecting the answer "No" as well.

  6355. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. It has been most helpful to get that matter cleared. We will consider the matter in due time.

  6356. MR LEWIS: Before I sit down, could I just mention another Petitioner? On your list you will have seen Wood Wharf (General Partner) for whom I also act, and I am pleased to say that we have an agreement, so you will not need to hear from me on that one this afternoon.

  6357. CHAIRMAN: No Wood Wharf?

  6358. MR LEWIS: No Wood Wharf. Their concerns were mainly technical in nature, and they have all been addressed.

  6359. CHAIRMAN: I thought that was why we came back at half-past two. Very well. Thank you very much.

The following Petition against the Bill was read:

The Petition of the Trustees of the SS Robin Trust.

MR ROBIN KNOWLES QC appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.