Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6871
Ordered that Counsel and Parties be called in.
6871. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, I gather you
wanted to say a word.
6872. MS LIEVEN: Yes, my Lord. Before
I turn to the Petitions to be dealt with today, I have been asked
to make a brief statement. The Promoters have been asked by the
Canary Wharf Group, CWG, to clarify some of the remarks that I
made in committee during the hearing of their Petition on 19 March.
6873. Specifically, they are very concerned
that my remarks, recorded in paragraphs 6177 and 6193 of the transcript,
that we did not accept the accuracy of some of the statements
made by Mr Anderson, who was the witness on behalf of CWG, the
Committee will remember, may have led the Committee to doubt the
veracity of his evidence. On review of the full transcript of
Mr Anderson's evidence, we accept that those remarks were not
justified and withdraw them unconditionally. The Promoters apologise
to the Committee and to CWG for any concern that those remarks
may have caused.
6874. CHAIRMAN: That is a factual correction?
6875. MS LIEVEN: That is a factual correction,
my Lord, but it is not a correction to typographical errors, so
it needed to be read out in that way.
6876. CHAIRMAN: Well, I am so glad to
have some company!
6877. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Can we
just have a quick look and see what it is that is being corrected?
Is that possible?
6878. MS LIEVEN: It is at 6177 and 6193
of the transcript of 19 March. We have put on the screen 6177.1
6879. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Really
I think it is the 6193 one which has the weight in it, the difference
between the two paragraphs being that in the first one you say
there are things that you do not agree with which do not matter
and in the second one you are saying that there are things you
do not agree with which do matter.